Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • 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 the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archivessearch)

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329
330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339
Incidents (archives, search)
1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076
1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434
435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297
Other links


Open tasks[edit]

XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 0 37 136 0 173
TfD 0 0 2 0 2
MfD 0 0 16 0 16
FfD 0 0 1 0 1
AfD 0 0 18 0 18

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (24 out of 3513 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Template:DatBot filters 2021-12-08 20:36 indefinite edit match the current protection level of User:DatBot/filters ToBeFree
Travancore 2021-12-08 19:40 2022-06-08 19:40 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
Sanaag 2021-12-08 00:07 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: Perennial problem Yamaguchi先生
Draft:Kamal Acharya 2021-12-07 20:39 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers
Draft:Brown River Teeth Harvester 2021-12-07 19:26 indefinite create Persistent vandalism Liz
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/WikiProject templates.json 2021-12-07 00:10 indefinite edit,move back to WP:ECP, I guess (I have no idea what's happening, WP:BOTN folks!) El C
Kenneth O'Keefe 2021-12-06 23:02 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD
Bigfood 2021-12-06 22:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Amortias
I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (British series 21) 2021-12-06 22:16 2022-03-02 21:18 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ponyo
Muna El Kurd 2021-12-06 20:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD
Module:Political party/E 2021-12-06 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2528 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Module:Political party/J 2021-12-06 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2542 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Party color 2021-12-06 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3997 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Highlight round 2021-12-06 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Draft:Muhammad Jahidul Islam 2021-12-06 17:23 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Mohammed El-Kurd 2021-12-06 16:10 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page HJ Mitchell
Draft:Merajul Islam 2021-12-06 13:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Tayyab Mahmood Sheikh 2021-12-06 10:09 2022-06-06 10:09 create Repeatedly recreated Geschichte
Anti-Palestinian sentiment 2021-12-06 02:51 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page Daniel
Hurricane Sam 2021-12-06 01:53 2022-03-06 01:53 edit,move Fix duration of ECP; was intended to be three months EdJohnston
User:Rgalo10 2021-12-05 20:33 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry, vandalism by autoconfirmed accounts Clpo13
Template:RJL 2021-12-05 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2513 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Impetum Group 2021-12-05 12:04 2022-12-05 12:04 create Repeatedly recreated Anarchyte
Popular Front of India 2021-12-05 08:33 indefinite edit,move screwed up Ymblanter

Mass killings under communist regimes content resolution[edit]

CLOSING

(non-admin closure) Per GoodDay. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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


At the beginning of November, a Dispute Resolution Noticeboard mediation began. (I mentioned this here at WP:AN at the time.) The editors, and I acting as moderator, understood that this DRN could take a few months, rather than the usual two to three weeks. The discussion has been extensive. I do not want to comment on whether it has made progress, except that we understand somewhat better (somewhat) what the different viewpoints are. Another editor, not a participant in the DRN, has now nominated the article for deletion. One of the participants in the DRN has asked that the AFD be suspended to see if the DRN improves the article. My understanding is that an AFD takes precedence over other forms of content resolution, so that I have instead suspended the DRN. I don't think that the nominator should have to wait for three months, and so I think that the DRN participants can wait one to three weeks to see if the article continues to exist, and can take into account any conclusions from the AFD if the article is kept. Given the complexity of the issues being discussed, I don't think that a Heymann close will happen. Either the article should be kept, more or less as is, and then improved at DRN, or the article should be deleted. If it is deleted, there may be other ideas as to articles to take its place.

I don't think that any new administrative action is needed. I don't think that any of the editors are being disruptive. In seven days, the needed administrative action will be a close or a relist. I would like to know whether my understanding is correct that the AFD takes precedence over other content resolution mechanisms. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I see no reason why the two processes cannot continue concurrently. If the article is deleted, then other discussions might be moot, but I think this is the fourth bite at the apple. That in itself is a bit unusual. What I truly do not understand is why this matter needs to be discussed at WP:AN. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Cullen, I think RMC was very clear why he brought it here: he is seeking the input of administrators or other experienced editors on the topic I would like to know whether my understanding is correct that the AFD takes precedence over other content resolution mechanisms. --JBL (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes. What I thought was unusual was that one editor asked that the AFD be suspended to allow the DRN to be completed (but the DRN may spawn one or more RFCs, and the DRN may take a few months). I am also asking for an administrator to take a quick look at the AFD to see whether, in their opinion, anyone needs to be warned. The back-and-forth exchanges are becoming too long, difficult to read. I wasn't asking for discussion so much as for some admin attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • As the AfD is proceeding and seems likely to run to its conclusion at this point, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination), and could probably benefit from more admin attention; IPs appear to be going ham on the AfD talk page. Depending on how the discussion proceeds, a panel close might be in order due to the volume of responses and the extent that they are largely talking past each other. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Do we know who organized the external canvassing?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    I mean if Joel Abbott has a known Wikipedia account it probably needs to be blocked.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Not the Bee (the "news" arm of The Babylon Bee) posted an article about it, which could easily be interpreted as a call-to-arms. clpo13(talk) 18:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    There was also apparently a thread on 4chan, though I cannot find a link atm. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    Noting that this has now drawn Reddit's attention, I'd like to reiterate my call for a panel close, because now not only is the discussion a sprawling mess, it will be subject to significant scrutiny from readers not familiar with Wikipedia P&G. signed, Rosguill talk 19:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    Larry Sanger has also weighed in on twitter. Schazjmd (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • After an IP suggested that the opponent thinks their opponents like genocides, I semiprotected the page and hatted the personal attack. It is midnight in my time zone, and I will not be able to read anything for the next 8 hours. If any administrator thinks I have overreacted please just remove the protection. I need to disengage from that page anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Any attempt to bring civility to proceedings would be welcome. ~ cygnis insignis 15:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The RFC-in-question is heading towards a keep verdict. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the massive offsite canvassing generated by among others, Fox News, Larry Sanger and Reddit, who, by and large, are voting for keep, I support Rosguill's call for a panel close to properly assess the consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this is going to require a panel verdict it's far too contentious for a single person close and I'd be super wary of a WP:SNOW close of a discussion that has attracted what seems like pro-keep canvassing. Although I note that it only opened 2 days ago so we can probably wait. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What is the likelihood that a closer (single person or panel) will go through the entire discussion on that page? Will it be helpful to let that AfD grow longer? I think we might need a different sort of mechanism to deal with this beast. Consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. Before the RfC happened, there was a long and moderated discussion (Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion) that broke down a big issue into smaller, more easily understandable, chunks. Something similar might be needed here.VR talk 23:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I think it's highly likely. Levivich 01:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I've been following this discussion since it started at DRN. At this point I'm not sure that makes me more qualified or less qualified to be on the panel. signed, Rosguill talk 01:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have been a part of a panel close for an AfD before so I don't think it's inappropriate in all situations. But I do want to note that on its own a sprawling discussion can just mean that a panel of admins spend time a lot of time reading it and writing a closing statment, rather than one. From my quick read of the situation it's sprawling but not requiring such nuance that it needs a panel to close for legitimacy. Could a single admin close get appealed to DRV? Sure. Would a panel close make an appeal less likely? Maybe. But maybe not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    I spent a slug of time reading through the AfD yesterday, and I tend to agree. Now, it's true that I'm a fairly inexperienced editor, and your world frightens and confuses me. Ladies and gentleman, I'm just a simple caveman, but it's pretty clear that, even after ignoring obvious canvassing and cutting keeps in half on top of that, it's still either keep or no consensus. I get that it's probably going to end up going to DRV to reach the same result with even more time wasted if three admins with half a million combined edits and 25 years of experience don't do a panel close. At least at DRV it'll be the same six people that went back and forth at the AfD wasting their time before the inevitable endorse, rather than wasting the time of a team of admins. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    Given the coverage off-wiki, I'd think it'd be better to have a panel in this instance as a single closer may become a focus of attention. Although I do agree that a single closer could competently do it, and that a single closer would save a lot of time, I wouldn't ask any one volunteer to put themselves on the spot like this. (A panel can mean one person writes it and others endorse it, in my opinion.) Levivich 02:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    My impression is than, in part due to off-wiki canvassing, we have a situation when a simple counting of votes gives an overwhelming keep, whereas once one starts looking at the arguments, the keep is not so overwhelming (it might be still keep, but definitely not snow keep). In this situation, a single administrator who would come up with any close but keep (even conditional keep or whatever) would be with a certainty accused in a supervote, the article would go to DRV, and, depending on some circumstances, the admin can be taken to ArbCom (unlikely to be desysopped just for this close, but still not an extremely pleasant situation). The panel is unlikely to be accused in a supervote, and thus has a bit more freedom to close the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • If not necessary, I can't see how a panel would hurt. Either way, the close is going to be endlessly re-litigated at DRV etc., no doubt about it.
Another question is when to close it. The discussion started on the 22nd and, although it wasn't logged until the 25th, with more than 100 !votes so far and the off-wiki canvassing only getting worse, I can't see how letting it run another three days is going to help anyone. I think we should put {{Closing}} on it tomorrow and assemble a panel. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, there is no need to wait for eight extra days.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    A panel hurts because it sucks of volunteer time. A panel hurts because it starts to create an expectation that certain kinds of discussions need panel closes and then the perceived need for that expands. In general I pushback against the idea that we need panels, except in extraordinary circumstances, and despite the volume of participation I don't think this is it. In fact if we think it's inevitably headed towards DRV I would suggest that means a panel is worse because we will have used up multiple admins time (even if 1 writes the close, all need to completely read that massive discussion to make sure they endorse it) with no actual increase in legitimacy. We spend more time now and we don't save any down the road. As for how long to let it run, in most circumstances I would suggest doing 7 days from logging but the volume of participation means that if consensus can be found 168 hours after nomination there's not a lot of process benefit to extending it a few more days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh wow, yikes, that's an AfD alright. My two cents, it's not possible to tell who was canvassed there and who wasn't so rather than wasting time on it, just close it as no consensus and be done with it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 19:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe create an entirely new type of closure outcome: FUBAR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I was mistaken when I said that I did not think any further administrative action would be necessary. And User:Cullen328 wondered why I posted here at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, my comment was six days ago, this AfD has been lighting up my watchlist ever since, and The Signpost is now reporting that it is the most wordy AfD in the history of our project. Things have changed, so if you interpreted my comment as a criticism, I apologize. You were correct to bring the issue here, and in retrospect, I was wrong for questioning you for doing so. Cullen328 (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Cullen328 - I did not take it as a criticism. In my comment above, I was teasing both you and me because we both underestimated the magnitude of the AFD. I thought that no further admin action beyond my mention of it was in order. Anyway, it is a train wreck that continues to build up because the track is still blocked and more trains keep plowing into the wreckage. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, you are so level-headed and objective that I grant you permission to tease me whenever you want. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I wasn't canvassed. I found out about the AfD-in-question, via this very ANI report. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

BTW: The RFC has made it onto the Signpost. GoodDay (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Another suggestion, I close it. ~ cygnis insignis 08:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
What, you want to close a deletion discussion you started? Uhm, no thanks. --TheImaCow (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • One side note regarding canvassing and majority votes as whole. One of important sources cited in the article which we discuss is Michael Mann, who coined the term "classicide". Ironically, his book is not about Communism. Its title is "Dark side of democracy", and his conclusion is that many genocides, such as Rwandian genocide, were a result of democratic transformations in those countries. And that is an additional reminder that democracy is not a holy cow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

So, panel close or no?[edit]

Given that it's been seven days, I've put the {{closing}} template on the page. I favour a panel close but not everybody above and elsewhere was in favour. Are there any volunteers/objections to a panel/objections to me as a closer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm more convinced of the need for a panel after the Signpost article and growing off-wiki coverage, if only so the one person isn't stuck with all the heat afterwards. So I'll volunteer to join you... @Rosguill and Ymblanter: maybe you want to make it three? – Joe (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry about the heat. Let'em throw any aspersions, personal attacks & so on, at me. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus sounds ok to me. signed, Rosguill talk 14:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus I do have a few notes on the AfD I could share, so I could maybe contribute something to the panel. Though, I'm a bit worried about the fact that OpIndia would likely be watching the close, since they've doxxed editors before. I'm also not an admin, so I might not be a great fit. InvalidOStalk 15:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Alright, on second thought, I'm not doing this. It'd probably cause me too much anxiety. InvalidOStalk 15:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Whereas I did not !vote and did not offer my opinion at the AfD, I edited it, and I guess this would make me involved at least for some people. I think I would better miss this one, will be happy to help next time.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, if you'd like another set of eyeballs with it, I'd be happy to help, though it would probably be a good idea to have an odd number just in case of impasse. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
So it seems like the candidates are me, Joe Roe, Rosguill and Seraphimblade. Emailing the users involved so that we can begin a conversation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:@Joe Roe:@Rosguill:@Seraphimblade: When do the admins expect to come to a decision? X-Editor (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

X-Editor, the Europeans among us are turning in for the night now; my sense is that after a few back and forth emails we're pretty close to coming to a consensus as to what the close bold text and framing should be, but may take some time to draft a full statement that is accessible and informative to a non-editor audience. signed, Rosguill talk 21:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. X-Editor (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Some editors would also appreciate a statement that is accessible and informative with any takeaways or conclusions for editors who are trying to improve the article. Thank you in advance for closing. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that [making it clear for people not versed in Wikipedia jargon, custom and practice] been a key point in drafting the close and part of the reason why it's not up yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, the editors in the DRN do know the Wikipedia jargon, so I may provide my own summary of the close for them in restarting the DRN. I think that the DRN will run for less than a week before I submit an RFC, and may put it back on hold while the RFC runs. At the end of that time, I may be back to ask for another closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have you and the other admins at least reached a general conclusion on the fate of the article? X-Editor (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I have been in multiple closing panels in my life, and I do not think any of those panels was able to come to a conclusion sooner than several days, one week is pretty typical.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Thanks! X-Editor (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Close has now been implemented. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Now this AN report can be closed. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User safeguarding controversial web page?[edit]

NOTHING TO DO HERE

(non-admin closure)This is a content dispute, use the mentioned venues. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 23:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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


Hello, I have no specific issue to report at this time.

I am currently involved in a Talk page where a user has continuously misinterpreted the things I've said and then put words in my mouth and accused me of bias. There is also a mild condescension to their tone. In our conversation thus far, they have also espoused some rather... challenging logic... alongside suggestions to paint the topic of the page in a more positive light; currently the topic of the page covers a group that has a somewhat negative public reputation. I am still assuming they are broadly acting in good faith, and their misinterpretation of my words is caused by a genuine confusion over the point I am making, and not them "sealioning" me. But there has already been an extensive back and forth and any attempt I make to clarify my position seems to be misconstrued, and then my words are twisted (or they simply put words in my mouth I did not say). After, they have used those straw man insinuations to both avoid my editorial position on the matter of the content, and ignore the clarification I've tried to raise.

I am a bit exasperated and also do not wish to waste much more of my time on this. Looking at the Talk page, I can also see this user is the first to jump on users proposing a particular article be added to the page's "Controversies" section. Should they override my position, it will make it the third time they have shot down the same suggested addition to the page. I am just looking to confirm what my options are should the situation need resolution, and how to handle not only the content issue (which I believe would use the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard), but also how to judge if an editor is acting outside the expected code of conduct to the point that I should bother to raise it as an issue?

Thank you for any clarifications. Crawdaunt (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

You are requited to notify the editor about whom you're complaining, and it would help if you identified them and the talkpage in question - vague allusions are not useful. I've done that for you - it's Banedon (talk · contribs), and the talkpage is Talk:MDPI. I've notified Banedon. Since there is no specific issue to report, this isn't a useful place to complain. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as your apparent question - you can solicit another opinion at WP:3O, or if you have an intractable dispute (which does not seem to be the case here, at least not right now), then WP:DR. Simply disagreeing with you or citing policy does not make someone disruptive, which is what you're hinting at with the sealioning accusation. I note that sections on controversies and criticism are generally deprecated as coatracks for everything bad that someone wants to hang on a subject Acroterion (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Acroterion Thanks for the response. I will confirm the issue refers to Banedon, and the article Talk:MDPI. I did not wish to begin an official complaint, as I am still assuming they are acting in good faith, and I did not assume I was 100% in the right. I was hoping for advice on what constitutes appropriate or inappropriate editorial behaviour requiring an external mediator for resolution. It has been frustrating to attempt to answer their questions only to be peppered with accusations while only getting further away from the issue at hand. I agree that controversy sections can become a host for content that paints the topic of the page in a negative light. I actually agree with Banedon that the structure of the page could use a re-write to better organize the topics discussed and make the controversy aspect less of an overloaded coatrack.
I have specifically been arguing in favour of adding reference to a controversy ongoing since August 2021, which is not necessarily one where the publisher is in the wrong (for a given position). It is the third time a user has visited the page believing it to be worth mention. My position is that it is a controversy that got a fair amount of attention and even a public rebuttal from the publisher MDPI, and thus important enough to merit inclusion. My edit mentions the one thing that the controversial article seems indisputably correct on (very high self-citation rate within MDPI journals), as the publisher MDPI's rebuttal also provides data that supports this claim. Crawdaunt (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Content disputes are not dealt with at AN or ANI. Please seek resolution at the venues I've mentioned, or simply discuss with Banedon. Acroterion (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:B. M. L. Peters[edit]

content dispute. This discussion should be had at Talk:Liberal Party (UK). Nothing for admins to do here yet. Let's keep it that way. --Jayron32 16:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

  • The user ignored Talk, adding a political position to the Liberal Party (UK) article at will #, and also describing the political position of the Liberal Party as "Centre," not "Centre to centre-left." # Of course, the Liberal Party was pushed to "Centre" after the Labour Party emerged, BUT until the 19th century, it was clearly in a "Left" political position against the "Right" Tory Party (even if LP was a classical liberal party).
  • In addition, this user deleted "economic liberalism" among the ideologies written in the infobox in the article "British Conservative Party." He doesn't even go through Talk.
  • B. M. L. Peters tried to add "national conservatism" to the infobox in an Indian National Congress article. "National conservatism" and "centre-left" contradict each other. # (WP:V)
    • In particular, the fact that the user changed the political position that had long been written "Centre to Centre-left" to "Centre-left" just because the source of "Centre" was not cited in the book shows a serious ignorance of Indian politics.
    • I changed the political position of "Centre to Centre-left" to "Centre-left" in an article related to the Democratic Party of American politics by region also affected me to suffer a topical ban on American politics. But why is no one willing to discipline this user for changing his "political position" and making vandalism in Asian political articles? India is NOT a two-party system like the United States, and the INC is much very very more socially conservative than the Democratic Party of the United States. INC is a clear "Centre" party located between the Communist Party, a major "left-wing" party, and the BJP, a major "right-wing" party.
    • B. M. L. Peters has been similarly edited in other articles. # Naturally, "liberal conservaism" is an ideology that can never be classified as "centre-left". The term "liberal" in "liberal conservatism" is not "liberal" in the context of American politics, but refers to right-liberalism such as classical liberalism or conservative liberalism.
  • In a Communist Party of Soviet Union article, B. M. L. Peters tried to write it individually on the infobox even though Stalinism was Marxism-Leninism. # #
  • B. M. L. Peters deleted "conservatism" from the infobox of the People Power Party (South Korea) article without reading the article properly. PPP belongs to the traditional "conservative camp" in South Korea. # In addition, the user edited seriously ignorant of South Korean politics.
  • The user arbitrarily removed the phrase "Secularism" in the infobox, which has long been written without problems, just because there is no source in the Fatah article. He also made strange edits to Fatah's political position. #
  • In addition, B. M. L. Peters has made several strange edits in numerous Asian political articles.

I think this user should at least get a topic ban on Asian politics.--Storm598 (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I admit that I lack knowledge of American politics-related topics than "B.M.L.Peters." I don't have much knowledge there. However, I have been reading related materials and books for nearly a decade regarding Northeast Asian politics, India, Palestine, Pakistan, and British and German politics. That's why I can clearly say that "B.M.L. Peters" has a very poor knowledge, distorted, and POV perspective in some national political editing.--Storm598 (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

In particular, to restore the strangely edited articles by B. M. L. Peters to their original state, I even quoted the book. #, # --Storm598 (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

B. M. L. Peters/ my response: Now let's set the record straight, and find the actual truth here. (responses in order of claim)
  • The Liberal Party being a party of two factions, both social liberal and classical liberal would make the party centrist naturally, or at least centre-left to centre-right because social liberalism is considere centre-left and classical liberalism is considered centre-right, the reason for adding a position when it was empty was because of the historical significance of the party in British politics, it was worthy of a political position or else would seem incomplete. However I did not read talk and that is my fault, and have no problem with it being reverted.
  • The reason for deleting economic liberalism from the infobox in the British Conservative Party was clearly written in the description, which was to bring attention to an issue on the talk page that is getting overlooked. Directly related to the respective edit.
  • INC, the Indian National Congress edit he is referring and linking to in his claim, was actually me removing an invalid source, used for the parties membership figures, which did not support what the article was claiming. By the way Centre-left and National Conservatism were both sourced within the article. Also It is under my impression that published books, journals, and written textbooks are better sources than websites. NOTE: the link the user uses for this specific claim against me is actually another editor. But the jist of his claim is correct.
    • The user is clearly stating his personal opinion here.
    • The user removed sourced material, yes centre-leftism and national conservatism are contradictory, but were both sourced properly.
    • The user once again has linked an edit by a completely different use than me.
  • Yes, the CPSU was governed under democratic centralism during Lenin and after Stalin, Stalinism was added to let readers know the system of government Stalin ruled by, which was neither Leninism or Marxism-Leninism, which both operated based on democratic centralism. Stalinism is a system of government, not a political ideology like the other two.
  • Yes I deleted Conservatism from the People's Power Party in South Korea because it it was unsourced.
  • Ideologies were unsourced within the article, wanted to give the political positions a chance to get sourced so added citations needed for both positions.
Summary: In the end, this user has, multiple times, stated I have no knowledge of Asian or European politics (you can see my talk page for one example) based on a majority of the edits which are me removing unsourced material or adding citation needed claims on others. While this user has also tagged me to edits I have never made and are completely different users, and threatened me with retaliation for editing pages and topics he deems exclusively his. This user has also reverted my edits claiming POV in some cases. I am not doing harm to any article on Wikipedia. I am here to help! But maybe we can figure this issue out! To be fair this editor has quite a few times before placed back what was unsourced claims I removed in some articles, with the claims, sourced. (Sorry for not formatting my responses the best way, I am not the most experienced editor or coder, just amatuer, but the responses are in order of the claims). B. M. L. Peters (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Please read WP:V and WP:INFOBOX. All sources should not be described in infobox. Especially if it's a contradictory ideology or political position. For example, India's INC since the 1990s is much more often referred to as "bigtent" or "social liberalism" than is referred to as "socialism" or (national-)"conservatism," so only the former should be described. And even if there is no source in the infobox, you must check whether the source is revealed in the article. In the case of South Korea's PPP, it is said that there was no source of "conservatism" in Infobox at the time, but there was definitely a source in the article.--Storm598 (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
And when it comes to articles about the Liberal Party (UK), it's the 21st century that "classical liberalism" is the "centre-right". But in the 19th century, "(classical-)liberalism" is not necessarily a "centre-right". The Liberal Party currently does NOT exist, and in 19th century British politics, it was not located in the "Centre" and since the rise of the Labour Party, social liberals have been more mainstream than classical liberals. Therefore, simply describing the Liberal Party as "Centre" is a left-biased technique. (I don't think the Liberal Party's political position should be described, but if the Liberal Party's political position should be described, I think it should be described as "Centre to centre-left".) --Storm598 (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
And dividing "liberalism" into "classical liberalism" and "social liberalism" is also an English-American perspective. In Europe and South Korea, "liberalism" is divided into "conservative liberalism" (centre-right) and "social liberalism" (centre-left). (See. Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe group and Renew Europe) "Classical liberalism" has a very wide spectrum of left-libertarian like Noam Chomsky (left-wing), including the People's Party of Canada, some Alt-right (far-right).--Storm598 (talk) 04:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, if the article reveals a "source" for a particular ideology, you don't have to put a "source" when describing a particular ideology in the infobox. PPP is South Korea's leading "conservative" party, and in fact, there is no need for a source. Your removal of "conservatism" from infobox is proof that you know nothing about South Korean politics. Am I wrong? --Storm598 (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay I will give you some credit, perhaps I am viewing historical scenarios from a 21st century perspective, however, to continuously claim I have no knowledge of different topics is counterproductive. Just because I do not study certain topics does not mean I can't provide quality of life upgrades to articles. I understand the South Korean PPP article now so thank you for telling me about it. Also American and European politics are different yes, but I have studied each a long time, and classical liberalism is considered centre-right in the US as well, and social liberalism (termed new liberalism) is considered centre-left, not so different. You would be right in assuming I do not understand fully Asian politics yet, it is a recent interests, specifically East Asian politics for me, but to claim I know nothing of it, to discredit me, and try to get me to stop editing certain pages is helping no one. Right now on this thread on the Wiki admins notice board is the first time you have actually linked me to pages that can help explain to me how to use Wikipedia, before it was only personal attacks, towards my "knowledge" and "education".

Also final point, some of the claims you have made against me are actually other editors edits, I do not know if you realize that, or are adding them there to build a case against me, hoping no one will notice, either way a handful of the edits you have pinpointed to me are not, and are completely different editors. B. M. L. Peters (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to be calling people "ignorant". Online, we have no basis to make that judgment, and anyway, it doesn't matter, since editors are not required to have any specialized knowledge in order to edit (and such knowledge, while helpful, is certainly not necessary). Believe me when I say: nobody cares how many books you've read or not read on a particular subject. There is a very simple way this works: everything in the body needs to be sourced, per WP:V. Everything in the infobox needs to be in the body. So if the body says "center", the infobox says "center", and if the body doesn't, then the infobox doesn't. As to whether XYZ party is "center-left" or "far-right" or "upside-down-middle" or whatever, that's a content dispute that should be resolved on the relevant article's talk page (and if that doesn't work, follow WP:DR procedures). If there's edit warring, take it to WP:ANEW. I'm not seeing anything that requires admin intervention here. Levivich 15:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Please protect Omicron[edit]

Page protected by Johnuniq. Amortias (T)(C) 19:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Temporary semi-protection: persistent IP and new users vandalism due to emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and after expiry of protection vandalism has resumed. Already asked at WP:RfPP yesterday but no response and disruption is still going. Thank you 2402:3A80:6C1:96A:9464:D5D3:4371:B576 (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article for two weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Account recovery[edit]

Referred to WMF - good luck! — xaosflux Talk 19:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi there!

I've lost my password and do not have access any more to the associated mailbox. So, as stated here : Help:Logging_in#What_if_I_forget_my_password?, I have a secret key that you can find here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Utilisateur:Heddryin/Stats&action=edit at the bottom of the page. I of course still have the original text to get the SHA-512 key. French admins can't help, but it seems you could.

How shall I send you the text to prove I'm the account owner?

Best regards,
Heddryin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.164.143.51 (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Please contact ca@wikimedia.org via e-mail. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I have now fixed the instructions at the linked help page to include this advice, as administrators of the English Wikipedia can also only redirect you to this address. There is no way for an administrator to restore access to your account; the Trust and Safety team is needed for such cases. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your answer! I just sent the mail. Best regards,
Heddryin 2A01:E0A:95B:7790:5C5B:FC1C:57D3:B678 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
No worries and all the best. 😊 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Massive CfD backlog[edit]

WP:CfD now has 164 old discussions: 114 from November, 49 from October, and this months-stale CfD originally filed in July that received minimal participation despite two relists, and which I'd recommend a close as no consensus. Evidently, we need a longer-term solution for this recurring problem. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 17:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

A long-term solution would be removing categories in favor of structured data, but I am afraid this community is not even prepared to allow for possibility of this ever happening.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm against anything on Wikipedia that is structured. What is "structured data"?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
It's a mystery. I'm only familiar with the term from c:Commons:Structured data. clpo13(talk) 19:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Commons:Structured data is not the best implementation of the idea, and has a number of serious drawbacks, but it gives at least some impression. (Note that the situation with categories on Commons is much worse than here: They are supposed to be useful for finding images, and most of them are completely useless for this purpose).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I completely agree with such a move, and indeed would love to spend all my time crusading in support of it were it not for all the other stuff I'm doing. Categories, from a holistic point of view, were perhaps originally fine; but they've since been used sometimes for purposes better suited to structured data. Spitballing: there are "categories better off as structured data" and "categories better off as lists/outlines" (probably some more kinds of categories that I'm missing, please tell me). The former (e.g. Category:21st-century American male opera singers – why?) should be structured data, and for the latter, we should devise something so that articles appearing in lists/outlines may have a link to those lists/outlines at the bottom, where the categories used to be. Enterprisey (talk!) 20:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Moving to structured data likely wouldn't help, as Wikidata is even more unkempt than English Wikipedia categories. For example, they have an 11-month backlog at Wikidata:Requests for deletions, and a 3 year backlog at d:Wikidata:Properties for deletion. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
It does not even necessarily have to be on Wikidata.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Can non-admins do anything useful in closing CFDs (other than the non-controversial no-action-required closes)? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally, CfD accepts non-admin "delete" and "merge" closes as long as the non-admin empties the deleted/merged category and tags it with {{db-xfd}} themselves. Only non-admins with the page mover bit can do "rename" closures, since that right is required to move a category page in the first place. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

removed A TrainBerean HunterEpbr123GermanJoeSanchomMysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SecretName101[edit]

AE procedures make clear a successful appeal must show a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" in favour of lifting the sanction. In this case there's a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators in favour of keeping it in place.

On that basis, thanks to the OP for bringing this here but consensus is that the appeal is declined. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Minor correction: appeals at AN require a clear consensus of uninvolved editors, not admins (the last section in this thread is misnamed). The consensus outcome remains the same. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
SecretName101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)SecretName101 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed

an indefinite topic ban from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Threats being made to me

Administrator imposing the sanction
El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
[1]

Statement by SecretName101[edit]

I have, over the course of my topic ban, made thousands of edits focusing on dead-subjects and other non-BLP articles, creating several of rather high-quality (such as Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson). I have greatly enhanced a number of articles on deceased subjects. I believe that my edits should demonstrate that I am an editor who continues to make edits of value, and that I am not a threat to the project. I will practice better judgement, and will be cautious about any new articles that lean negative, and will first submit any such articles for review as drafts before publication.

I had no intent of malfeasance in the article that triggered this ban. If anyone had asked me if I regretted it or was sorry, I would have immediately apologized. But instead of asking me to apologize, others jumped to put me on the defense by wrongly accusing me of having had a malicious intent behind my creation of that article, and being politically motivated.

I had believed, in creating the article, that the subject was a notable-enough figure for an article. When I see an individual who has notability, but no article, I often have the impulse to remedy this. This same impulse has resulted in some of my best articles.

I wrote the (stub/start-type) article on what information was readily available on the subject. Much of that happened to skew negative, which is why the article ended up skewing negative. However, I made a poor decision in publishing the article directly, rather than submitting it for review. I should have recognized that a negative-skewing article on a marginally notable individual at least needed a second set of eyes before publication.

I see errant choices in writing the article (such as attempting to emulate the lead style that I had seen often used for politicians with criminal records), that led to an overemphasis of the negative.

I apologize for any face that I may have cost the project. SecretName101 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El C[edit]

SecretName101, I'm sorry, though it ticks some of the boxes, I find your appeal too vague, with a WP:NOTTHEM sandwiched in the middle. To recap: Bill Stevenson, Jill Biden's former husband, experienced legal troubles of a criminal nature between the years of 1982-1986, resulting in a couple of convictions and suspended sentences. Four years, then, yet ~70 percent of SecretName101's article (AfD) was dedicated to these events, and whose lead sentence read: William W. Stevenson III is an American businessman and convicted fraudster (admins-only).

It just feels like this appeal sidetracks/avoids this obvious crux — not merely "negative" but overwhelmingly so. Also, SecretName101, you mention politicians with criminal records as having served as a sort of template for you, but the article didn't mention that Bill Stevenson was at any point a politician — politician as in having been entrusted with the authority of government at some point, holding office, etc. Vocally supporting Trump and opposing Biden obviously wouldn't make him one.

Personally, I think a better template would be Martha Stewart whose lead sentence descriptor doesn't call her a 'convicted felon,' nor is her conviction and incarceration mentioned in the rest of the first paragraph. The second paragraph is, however, devoted to it and its subsequent impact. Which makes sense to me. Finally, the problem for me is also that SecretName101, at times, responded to the dispute in a troubling and disconcerting way, like, reading discrimination against neurodivergent persons where there was none (diff). So, for me, this appeal ultimately falls short. El_C 01:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Just noting the new section that SecretName101 just added to my talk page: User_talk:El_C#Disappointing_of_you. It came across as confusing and a bit hostile to me (towards me), but whatever, I don't see a need to press the matter further beyond noting it here. That said, I'm not sure why SecretName101 still keeps splitting discussions rather than stick to a venue. Oh well. El_C 03:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
GoodDay, a user subject to WP:ACDS may appeal their sanction either here at WP:AN or WP:AE or WP:ARCA (or should I say ARCA with love). El_C 03:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Yngvadottir, paragraph breaks = 🐈 El_C 04:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor Yngvadottir[edit]

I consider myself involved here since I entered the AN/I discussion to suggest the Stevenson article should be deleted. I did not see the AfD in time to participate, but would have argued for deletion there; I had hoped it could be deleted under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and therefore found the speedy deletion appropriate, although the paper was not 100% an attack. If the AfD had continued to run, I planned to research the college bar and draft a rewrite as an article on that topic, to be considered as an alternative, but I am relieved I did not have to attempt to meet WP:N on what appears to have been an only locally notable joint with overtones of WP:NOTINHERITED as a rock venue.

I'm posting here because SecretName101's appeal is supported by a claim of excellent editing focused on dead people, and I haven't been impressed with the quality of their work that I've run into recently. In late November, they made a string of edits expanding Richard H. Austin. This work shows the heavy reliance on newspapers.com that I recall from the sourcing of the Stevenson article. Unlike SecretName101, I don't have a subscription, so I can't check the accuracy of their use of these sources, but although in that edit they did add Austin's run for mayor of Detroit, they failed to give any sense of the man's achievements, partly because they used only spot news and missed several sources reviewing his life and career (including an AP obituary), and the entirety of his legacy including a Lansing government building renamed for him that dominates a simple search; the "Death and legacy" section contained nothing but his death, with an unreferenced cause of death—I would have thought both citing the cause of death and finding something about the legacy would have been obvious steps in search after deciding to expand the article. As an illustration of the result of a search beyond spot news, and full use of available sources, here's my edit (I apologize for the fact it's all one edit; and for full disclosure I'll also note that I researched his loss in 1994, and it was too sad and I couldn't find a sufficiently dispassionate source, like a reliable report of the actual percentage, so I didn't add anything on that.) One thing SecretName101 did do is add a link to 1969 Detroit mayoral election, but they did not think to look for and link 1976 United States Senate election in Michigan and 1994 Michigan Secretary of State election. It's probably the 1969 Detroit mayoral election article that brought them to the Richard H. Austin article; they created it a day or two earlier. This is their final version of that article. Again, it's heavily reliant on newspapers.com (with the odd effect that whereas most of the refs have newspapers.com as the source website and the newspaper in question unitalicized, as publisher, the reference to the New York Times, since it's from the NYT's own website, has the newspaper italicized, but I may be being over-sensitive there, I work hard to suborn the citation templates to give full credit to reporters and newspapers as well as wire services where applicable, note original dates as well as revised dates, and so on). I think this is the reason for the article being a bit unintegrated, with short, choppy paragraphs and elements such as the race question not put together in a coherent narrative. I tried to make it better in my edit. I think SecretName101 makes diligent use of their newspapers.com subscription, but myopically, not thinking enough about making a coherent article that covers the topic, and as a result they didn't much improve our article on Richard H. Austin, which was pretty shabby when they started working on it, so I appreciate their effort ... but they need to look at the big picture and not just put in whatever their search on newspapers.com turns up as top results, and that appears to have been a significant part of the problem in the Stevenson article.

Their recent editing shows diligence, but I don't think it shows the awareness of context or the depth and breadth of research to indicate they won't go down a news bulletin rabbit hole on another BLP if the restriction is lifted. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SecretName101[edit]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Comment by GoodDay[edit]

Shouldn't this be held at WP:ARCA? -- GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I see, cool. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by User:力[edit]

I'm not convinced BLP issues will not reoccur, particularly on article creations. Also, SecretName101 complaining You also have reignited a micro aggression towards me on El C's talk page in response to the comments here speaks for itself. However, perhaps a partial measure is appropriate - changing the sanction to merely preventing the creation of BLP articles. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]

Result of the appeal by SecretName101[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • As I said at the original ANI, I don't think someone who puts together an article which is an obvious coatrack for an attack on the US President, and who sources said BLP violation using this website (sample quote "the man with dementia in the White House") should be anywhere near BLPs. Black Kite (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree with Black Kite and Yngvadottir above; there are just too many red flags to lift the TBAN at this time. Miniapolis 00:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above and see nothing in the appeal to believe that removing the topic ban would have a good outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, this appeal comes much too soon, and so I must oppose. This editor seems to think that a BLP of a person who was married half a century ago to someone who later married a famous politician is somehow comparable to a BLP of a politician. That, in itself, is deeply troubling, and the appeal does not address that issue. The early versions of the article are an obvious coatrack to publicize a minor figure at the outermost periphery of the Biden orbit, complete with salacious and unverified gossip. I want to see a much longer history of uncontentious edits. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uploads by sockpuppet of WMF-banner user[edit]

Uploads by Meganesia, a sockpuppet of WMF-banner user King kong92, still remain, including potential non-free ones whose information may be inadequate. I asked one admin what to do with them (diff). She suggested that I tag them with "db-g5", which I did on other uploads, but I figured that's a lot of work. Here I am posting this here. If AN isn't suitable, then either simply tag with "db-g5" or FFD then. --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, all deleted under G5 -FASTILY 02:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Fastily. Found out there may be others more, telling from upload logs. George Ho (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I left a few where the sock was not the only substantial contributor; concerns regarding these should be raised at FfD. The remaining blue links represent files transferred to Commons, and any concerns regarding these may be raised via DR -FASTILY 03:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Conduct of David Eppstein[edit]

David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A Wikipedia administrstor has been uncivil to other editors saying Are you totally illiterate or just willfully obtuse here. Later he added unveriafable content first saying I can't find that claim in the source he added here and then saying that another source: strongly implied exactly what I said here. And now he edit wars the result of the AFD here. Infinity Knight (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 4 December 2021‎ (UTC)

Please notify them about this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Infinity Knight failed to nofify me before someone else got there. The issue centers around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Si.427, which had a very dubious close by User:Randykitty saying to redirect to Plimpton 322 despite the redirect target not containing any content about Si.427, clear consensus against merging any of the deleted content there, and only one comment suggesting a non-merge redirect. Subsequent discussion on Talk:Si.427 identified better redirect targets where Si.427 was already mentioned, including both Istanbul Archaeology Museums (my suggestion) and the eventual redirect target from that discussion, Sippar. Infinity Knight and another fringe-pusher from the same discussion, SelfStudier, have pointedly refused to go along with the delete close and the later retarget of the redirect, and continue to try to push fringe content about Si.427 into Plimpton 322 and to try to justify that content by redirecting Si.427 there (where it is still not mentioned). I reverted one such attempt by SelfStudier some three weeks ago and another one today, and somehow these three-weeks-apart edits are called edit-warring and brought here with much older diffs brought in as one-sided evidence that the debate was at times heated. I think the history, the AfD discussion, and the Si.427 talk page discussion speak for themselves and that trying to turn this into a user-behavior issue against me is just an attempt at setting aside any opposition to their continued fringe-pushing. In any case as an WP:INVOLVED editor on this topic I have taken no administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The forceful comments in question were made about a month and a half ago, so this dispute seems pretty stale. That being said, David Eppstein, surely you can choose better words to express your disagreement. C'mon. Cullen328 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
[edit conflict] Trout accepted. The quoted text above has been separated from its context (reacting to a previous edit summary that claimed the exact opposite of the truth about what a disputed source contained) but didn't really add anything but heat to the omitted context, and could better have been cut instead of posted. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Infinity Knight. I don't think any action can be taken here. If you wish to re-target the redirect, I suggest you begin a discussion at WP:RFD. DrKay (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, a little bit of tact will go a long way towards a productive discussion, however the last diff edit comment dated 00:47, 4 December 2021 is not perfect either. The more serious issue is pushing unverifiable content. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
"Pushing"? Aren't we talking about one edit? That was then discussed? – Joe (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Diff for "pushing". Is unrelated source that strongly implied exactly what I said is enough? Infinity Knight (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't know anything about this particular topic but have interacted with David Eppstein intermittently for nearly 15 years. He is an editor of exceptional integrity. If he did become impatient, which we all do from time to time, I am sure he meant no ill-will. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Wholly agree. Impatience is hardly the same as wilful personal attack. A trout has already been acknowledged and accepted. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal[edit]

No substantial support for lifting this WP:TE topic ban, and the OP is now blocked for personal attacks after displaying WP:TE conduct in this actual thread. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

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

I would like to appeal my recently reinstated topic ban for Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 topics. The topic ban was primarily reinstated for my edits on the Lachin article. In the time since I have been banned, there has been a consensus among uninvolved users agreeing with removing most of the content I had been removing for much of the same reasons, such as being original research and excessive details used for POV pushing. I feel that my topic ban was reinstated a little too eagerly. The imposing admin Future Perfect at Sunrise said my edits were "clearly a return to the old pattern of tendentious editing". However, the same claim had been made against me not only once but twice since my original ban had been removed, and was refuted in both cases. This also ignores the attempts I've made to solve content disputes with talk page discussions[2][3], RfCs,[4] and noticeboard reports (this discussion never even got a reply despite the user pushing unsourced material)[5]. What should really be clear, is that my reverts weren't deserving of a topic ban, or at least an indefinite topic ban is excessively harsh. --Steverci (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

For completeness, this is an unsuccessful appeal from two weeks ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Just to note, there is an ongoing discussion and RFC on talk of Lachin, and no consensus has been reached so far. Unfortunately, there is very little interest in this RFC from the Wikipedia community. More outside opinions would be helpful. And what is being discussed there is how to better summarize the sources on burning and looting of the town. That is not what Steverci was doing, he was simply deleting content with no discussion at talk. He only joined the talk after I initiated the discussion. I don't think that there is a consensus of uninvolved editors that my edits constituted an original research or POV pushing, like Steverci claims. And repeated removal of Armenia as an occupying party [6] [7], despite the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, and Armenia signing 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement and agreeing to withdraw its army from the territory of Azerbaijan, is a clear example of tendentious editing by Steverci. It was one of the reasons for his topic ban. Grandmaster 16:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I've added an RFC template. That should get it more attention & thus more editor participation. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure that it is accurate to say that the topic ban was the result of Steverci's edits to Lachin. I became aware of the contention of Steverci's edits with regard to Shusha (a different town in the same war zone). So I wonder whether Steverci is mentioning Lachin in order to distract attention from the previous contention about Shusha. I would also say that, by appealing a topic-ban twice within a month after it was imposed, User:Steverci is being a vexatious litigant. I haven't researched the content of the edits, but the pattern is problematic. There should be some response to this request beyond denying it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Procedurally, to your point about the double appeal: in fairness, I wouldn't hold this against Steverci in the present instance, since the previous appeal was cut short and closed speedily on procedural grounds, before receiving a definite consensus response on its merits, so I don't think we should deny him the chance of trying a second time (although from the existing responses to the last attempt it looked clear that it was unlikely to get much traction). I agree with your point about the different articles. Yes, Lachin was by no means the only page or even the most significant page involved. He was engaged in parallel fights across several similar articles (all about towns or villages in the Nagorno-Karabakh warzone, and all about how to handle the mutual wartime atrocities happening in them). For Lachin, I also find Steverci's current argument specious: yes, it may be true that he was removing material that others have in the meantime also objected to as being "excessive detail" – but that was not "much the same" as the reasons for his own actions, because the first thing he did was not to discuss that material as being undue, but to exchange it against other material of pretty much the same nature and the same degree of excessive detail, only turning around the roles of victims and perpetrators [8]. As for other articles, I have to say the edits that made the most negative impression on me were those in Zabux. This [9] edit, all by itself, would have been enough to justify sanctions, in my view. Because saying that one village was destroyed "because" the other side had previously pillaged others, is injecting the logic of wartime ethnic retribution and nationalist tit-for-tat right into Wikipedia's own voice. This one word alone, "because", would warrant a topic ban as far as I'm concerned, if nothing else did. I would certainly recommend declining this appeal, again. Fut.Perf. 17:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't really have any way of knowing what you considered the biggest issues, because they were all generalized as "old patterns" and my statement explaining my actions was hardly addressed before the ban was quickly reinstated. I mentioned Lachin because I do admit I screwed up with it by not starting a talk discussion sooner (even though it was technically Grandmaster's responsibility because he was the one changing consensus) and because I allowed myself to be baited into 3RR (albeit on different days). However, I strongly believe my changes had only improved Lachin and Zabux from their previous state, even if there may have been still room for more improvement. I made a resource request for the sources because Grandmaster's edits were so incredibly biased that I suspected there was info he was leaving out, and I was exactly right. Grandmaster selectively excluded everything from the sources that made Azeris look bad, from the supplies being used to replace what the Azeris looted to the presence of Stepanakert shelling victims. On the other hand, I had never actually tried to remove mention of the looting in it's entirety; I tried to create an equal weight summary of the sources. If my wording could've been improved, I wouldn't have stopped anyone from doing so. But it was an immediate improvement from the previous state (of changes Grandmaster had made just a day ago) because I was including information that Grandmaster had neglected. I wasn't "justifying" anything by writing the supplies were going to help villages the Azeris had looted, I was just citing what the journalist had stated. Unlike Grandmaster, who included MOS:ALLEGED wording like "claimed";[10][11] the journalists didn't write anything casting doubt on what they were told. Or MOS:PUFFERY writing like "and showed no sign of embarrassment at the sight of trucks taking away looted property"[12]. Maybe "because" sounds like wartime ethnic retribution out of context, but was simply about including the entirety of the source information. --Steverci (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
What exactly was wrong with my edits on the Shushi article? There weren't any on the AE request. In fact, it was Grandmaster who failed to get a consensus for most of the contentious changes he kept pushing for. His WP:EXCEPTIONAL/MOS:LEAD addition was removed[13], Nersesov isn't considered an Armenian source, there were no sources for organized destruction of Azeri monuments, etc. Grandmaster even tried to pass off photographs as sources.
And what is wrong with me appealing the topic ban when the last one was closed prematurely, Fut.Pref told me I was still entitled to make an appeal, and I even made the changes Fut.Pref suggested but didn't require by not even mentioning Grandmaster. In the first appeal, I pointed out that Grandmaster had been running an Azeri meatpuppet mailing list on the Russian Wikipedia, and that in the mailing list he had instructed on how to WP:GAME the system to get Armenian users blocked and mass-vote for new admins he thought would help them. My first appeal wasn't a sanction request for Grandmaster, it was to show the AE request was an example of him still gaming the system to eliminate the competition. Grandmaster has never shown any proof of changing his old behavior; he and his mailing list got their indefinite block removed because our own Ymblanter, also a Russian wiki admin, accepted a large money bribe (Yaroslav Blanter is Ymblanter) to unblock them. But somehow I'm the only one being held to their past despite earning my topic ban being removed the honest way. Nonetheless, I left it out of my appeal to try being constructive. So exactly what kind of "response" is needed for me doing precisely what I was asked to? --Steverci (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Been trying to add an RFC template to the RFC-in-question. But, legobot keeps deleting it. Don't know if legobot's got a glitch.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDay (talkcontribs)

Because the discussion started on 4 December 2020, not 2021. The bot sees that it is one year old.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Embarrassingly, I thought it read 4 December 2021. Middle-age effects, no doubt. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because of the diff provided by Future Perfect at Sunrise which reveals a shocking insertion of an enthnonationalist POV in Wikipedia's voice, and the user's record of "flipping the record" in these ugly wars between nationalities. Accusing Ymblanter of accepting a bribe based on that editor saying they were offered a bribe (jokingly or not) is beyond the pale. Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I see that above I am being implicated in a criminal offence. For the record, I have never accepted a bribe in my life, as a matter of principle, and I have never received any monetary reimbursement for my Wikimedia participation. This is libel. Could an uninvolved admin please decide whether the revision-deletion (and possibly an oversight is needed), and whether there is any reason not to block Steverci indef now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Google translates that 2010 passage at .ru (with great poise, I'm sure) as follows:
We were offered a large amount of money. So far, what the other side has proposed is only enough for an unlimited blocking of five participants, or blocking ten for a year. To block all 26 indefinitely, the amount will need to be increased by at least five times. The 26th, if a contract is concluded, will be permanently blocked free of charge .-- Yaroslav Blanter 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... Okay... I have no idea what's happening. A joke probably...? I mean, I doubt an admin could get away with bribery on a major Wikimedia project, just out in the open. Something like that would reverberate, and yet it hasn't (I don't think). I suspect that Steverci knows this. Still, Ymblanter, maybe give us a hint, just a little hint, about what's going on? Like, how are there 26 users facing a un/block on the 26th (26th of what, what?) as part of a "contract"? Anyway, I'm leaning indef, probably for the bribery accusation, but also because, in my view, appealing 2 weeks after an unsuccessful previous appeal is an abuse of process. Which is unfortunate, because I vaguely (vaguely) recall supporting easing Steverci's sanctions in the not too distant past. Ultimately, though, all of this is just challenging to follow. And I'm far from a novice when it comes to WP:AA2 arbitration enforcement, so I can only imagine how confusing this is to the average AN reviewer. El_C 09:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It was indeed a joke. As I mentioned on a number of previous occasions, I was a drafting arbitrator on that decision (note it was in 2010), and "we" here means the Russian Wikipedia Arbcom (more specifically, these seven people). This was a difficult case, and in this episode an Armenian user was unhappy with what she thought was too mild (for the Azeri side) outcome of the case, and she thought that the Arbcom suddenly has changed their stance without no reason. I responded by the sentence cited above, and from the context is is very clear it is a joke. Everybody, including the user who asked the question, understood it in this way, there was no ambiguity. Of course if someone starts to take it out of context and to add details which are not there it might sound differently.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Specifically, if I remember correctly, there were 26 users who were party to the case, but I would need to look up the details. Not that they are important now.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the comment by Ymblanter was a joke as he has confirmed, some context is included here: (again, courtesy of Google translate):

Changes in weather

Judging by the cheering tone of the responses of the members of the group of 26,the consideration of the claim has moved to a new level and the issue of blocking for coordinated actions is no longer being considered. Those. the function of arbitration has smoothly transformed into the function of an arbitration court. I would be very grateful to someone if they could explain how such a transformation took place and for what reason. Thanks in advance for the replies, - Zara-arush 09:56 7 Jun 2010 (UTC)
We were offered a large amount of money. So far, what the other side has proposed is only enough for an unlimited blocking of five participants, or blocking ten for a year. To block all 26 indefinitely, the amount will need to be increased by at least five times. The 26th, if a contract is concluded, will be permanently blocked free of charge .-- Yaroslav Blanter 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Yaroslav, you wrote the funniest remark in the entire discussion of the case of the 26 commissars! - Ds02006 10:28 June 7, 2010 (UTC)
What black humor! But our time also costs money .-- Zara-arush 10:31 Jun 7, 2010 (UTC)
It's at least strange that the money you were offered was huge, but for such a sum you can send half of the Wikipedia participants in all its language sections for an indefinite period. Hmm, it means someone chopped off more ... sort it out among your money listed :-)))) - Lori-m Ր Ե Վ 10:34, June 7, 2010 (UTC)
So yeah, a joke (quite a good one actually). BTW Steverci don't go and pull an out of context diff, because anyone can just find the context and see that you are not being entirely honest. I'll be interested to see how long you end up blocked for. Mako001 (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it is time to put an end to abuse of 2010 Russian arbitration case in en:wiki. The arbitration committee of en:wiki was aware of that ru:wiki case 12 years ago, and did not find it actionable here. And that ru:wiki case is being repeatedly used here to harass other users, and even admins, as one can see. This should stop. Grandmaster 10:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Steverci blocked indef[edit]

User_talk:Steverci#Indefinite_block. El_C 09:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Proposed community ban for User:Steverci[edit]

In view of Steverci's continued I didnt hear that and not me, now with useless block appeals, I propose that we formalize the indefinite block into a community ban that only the community can lift. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

About Pulse Hobart and Draft:Pulse Hobart[edit]

Sorted. Amortias (T)(C) 20:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Hi all,

Somehow the creation of this now this WP:DRAFTIFY-'d article has been attributed to me in articlespace

I must admit I am puzzled how this happened.

  • The (now) draft was created 18:44, November 26, 2021‎
  • I added some comments to its (former) articlespace version 19:04, November 26, 2021‎

If the draft is accepted, its creation will be incorrectly attributed to me, instead of Kiwiradio

If the draft is not accepted, its creation will be incorrectly attributed to me, instead of Kiwiradio

What should the best outcome here? A WP:MERGE? Some other resolution?

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the article was moved to draft space without leaving a redirect while you were editing, so when you then saved the article a new version was created. I think the histories need to be merged. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I merged the histories, should be good now. Wug·a·po·des 20:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iota and Jot[edit]

Because of the recent Signpost article about AfD I had a look at the 2006 AfD for esoteric programming languages, and noticed that Iota and Jot had been closed as delete but had never been actually deleted -- the log entry is in error on the talk page. I'm not quite sure what should be done about it (if anything) -- a procedural response seems inappropriate after a 15-year lag -- but figured someone here might know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

If I read the history correctly, it was first deleted after being part of a large summary AfD, then that deletion was overturned at DRV, then it was relisted in a new individual AfD, and that was closed as "no consensus", so there isn't really a procedural anomaly as far as I can tell. Fut.Perf. 14:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Is the talk page history incorrect then? I only saw one AFD listed. Or would the mass nomination not typically be listed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
You're talking about 2006. Twinkle didn't exist. Friendly might have, which predates it. This was a month after I started. Back then, AFDs and such were often done manually. Doesn't matter that it started as a multiple, it was sent to it's own and the result is published on the talk page, which is more than most AFDs in that era. Dennis Brown - 02:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate snow close of Afd by non-admin User:RandomCanadian[edit]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 December 6 filed by OP. Daniel (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlsen versus Nepomniachtchi, World Chess Championship 2021, Game 6. It is far too early for a non-admin snow close, a clear consensus has not emerged, many of the "votes" are by IPs or simply "per (user)" and there are a several editors arguing for a merge. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to contest an AfD closure, deletion review is the place for it. There's nothing for AN to do here. (I'm not too fond of the closure – "nearly a 2-1 ratio" is definitely not what the snowball clause is referring to – but it's really quite unlikely that further discussion will result in anything other than the same "keep" result.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
But I'm not contesting a deletion, I'm contesting an inappropriate closure. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:DRV is a two way street you can contest keeps as well. Amortias (T)(C) 00:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
A keep doesn't preclude a merge. Mackensen (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP vandalizing tons of Weather articles.[edit]

Please block User talk:2603:6080:EA40:7D9:611A:7DAF:F32E:C19E ASAP as they are vandalizing tons of weather articles. I have reverted at least 9 vandalizations and they are continuing. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have got a third reminder to donate. Wrong! My bank paid you on 28November. Please tighten up your admin reminder process[edit]

Umm yes, not nice to receive reminders in error - and even after logging in I couldn't see how to relay this info to wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebs46 (talkcontribs) 14:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Geebs46: Your donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation. The English Wikipedia editing community and its administrators have no control over any reminders. Please direct any questions to donate@wikimedia.org. – Joe (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Geebs46: You can opt out of seeing donation banners in your preferences. This will only be effective while you are logged in. Rummskartoffel 15:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Dubious content in Philippines–Ukraine relations[edit]

I've reverted that page a couple of times but the fact that no sysop has stepped in makes me think that I'm in the wrong there. Can someone please have a look? Thanks in advance. --Fytcha (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Xavierdmr has been indef blocked. Hopefully that fixes the problem. Fences&Windows 22:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled[edit]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. If you are an administrator, you may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if an administrator wishes to self-assign they may do so now. When the change goes live, I will note it here. Additionally, there is some agreement among those discussing implementation to mass message admins a version of this message. I will be doing so soon and including a link to this thread for questions/discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTS should probably be updated to reflect this change. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Well there's a page I didn't know existed. Looks like Joe has updated it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, the notice that went out didn't have your username on it. So, I was left wondering who or what committee was sending out this news. But it directs people here so I found out. Looks like another discussion I heard about after it was over! This should probably be added to the next Admin's Newsletter for (oh, my) January. 2022, here already. Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Liz yeah I intentionally signed it with five tildes. That said, if you edit there is an html comment showing who sent an MMS if you're ever curious. As for the newsletter I believe someone Tol already took care of that. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I've been (re)-granted it at WP:PERM/A, there may be others like me who don't feel comfortable self-assigning, so I would recommend that that page be given a little extra attention as there may be an elevated volume of requests related to sysops. Unless, of course, there's not many besides me with qualms about self-assigning. Hog Farm Talk 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I will note that I granted it to people on this list of admins who had autopatrol before +sysop who hadn't already self-granted. I figured you and Eddie would not be the only two reluctant to self-grant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Personally I had no qualms at all about self-granting this, and I see that many others on my watchlist also did not. I'd imagine that most of us, and especially Hog Farm, are competent enough at writing articles that this really isn't controversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd also point out that for all current sysops, the community already considered and granted the flag as part of the toolkit, and the discussion doesn't show that the community has lost that trust. I view this change as similar to how we handle edit filter manager for sysops. It's a powerful tool that some people want and some people don't. Not granting by default but letting admins self-assign lets sysops customize their toolkit to fit their needs. If you think you need it, grant it, if you don't want it, don't; I don't think the considerations need to be more complicated than that. Fro myself, I plan to use it similar to a m:flood flag. If I'm going to be making a ton of project pages or doing a lot of housekeeping, I'll add autopatrolled so that I don't flood the NPQ with junk. But if I'm going to be creating a bunch of biography stubs or redirect, I would actually appreciate the second set of eyes as it could help point out areas for further improvement or catch silly mistakes I might have missed. I understand why some might be hesitant to self-grant, but if the community didn't trust admins to grant it, we wouldn't have kept self-assignment as an option. Wug·a·po·des 23:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Autopatrolled should exist solely to mitigate the impact of high-volume article creation on the NPP process, but there's been an unfortunate tendency to see it as just a badge of honour for "trusted" users. We constantly try to explain this to people at WP:PERM/A, but it has always felt a little hypocritical with it being automatically given to admins. So I'm glad that I no longer have autopatrolled, and while the vast majority of admins can of course be trusted with the right, if you choose not to give it to yourself, I think that sets a good example: having another person check your edits is normal in every other area of the project and nothing to worry about. Unless you're creating multiple articles a week or more, you will not have a noticeable effect on the size of the NPP backlog. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. The opposite is true, of course, if you know that you do, in fact, make a lot of pages, it's a good example to have the perm. Whether you want another administrator to grant it, or self-assigning as if you are already an admin, then you have an RfA that suggests the community does agree with you having that perm. FWIW, I always thought autopatrolled isn't a big deal. It shines pretty brightly if an experienced editor that made admin would make poor creations, especially if they have been given a perm that shows we trust them to do exactly that. There is certainly admins that don't make articles, who wouldn't want the tool, which is fine. It's pretty dependant on how many you make, whether it makes sense to have it. Even experienced editors who make an article every blue moon is unlikely to need the perm. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The standard for patrolled is just "It's not vandalism" and "It shouldn't be speedy deleted for some reason", right? It kinda shocks me that we can't trust administrators to be able to do this. Did the RFC introduce significant numbers of articles created by admins that should not have been considered to be patrolled? I've self-assigned the right. I don't see any reason that every admin shouldn't self-assign the right. --B (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@B: - IIRC, the two instances brought up were the Neelix situation with the thousands of useless redirects, and then the Carlossuarez46 arbcase, where an admin mass-created 10,000+ stubs based on a mistranslation of Iranian sources, suggested that there was nothing wrong with such behavior, and then rage quit and called everyone racist when a bulk-deletion request was opened at AN. Both are cases I guess where you could argue that being able to pull autopatrolled flag would have helped (it might have been able to defuse the Carlos situation before things wound up where they did), but you can probably also argue that both incidents indicated a temperament unsuited to adminship. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the bar is a bit higher than that - it's expected that newly created articles will be referenced, categorized, MOS compliant etc. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The File:NPP_flowchart.svg that many of us NPPs follow includes CSD check, copyright check, notability check, duplicate article check, title fixing, adding categories or tagging {{uncategorized}} or {{improve categories}}, tagging as stub if needed, adding maintenance tags, and adding WikiProject rating tags. Some would argue that all NPPs and autopatrolled folks should be following this checklist when creating articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
If someone with autopatrol is needing to check their own work for COPYVIO or needing to apply tags then they're really not at a point where autopatrol is appropriate, in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Coming up on 20 years as an admin[edit]

I just got my 20 year editor badge, and I'll be coming up on 20 years as an admin in Feb next year. I was one of the admins who just got appointed by Jimbo, there was no RFA process back then (RFA emerged around 2004), There were no admins before Feb 2002 because the software didn't support it. (If we needed to delete something, Tim Shell would write a SQL script against the database. It was a different time, that's for sure.) Anyway, you'd be surprised how little has changed - the software improved, procedures were tightened, but the arguing, the debates... yeah, all basically the same. Anyway, here's to another 20 years. Manning (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! Emoji u1f49b.svgMJLTalk 07:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations from me as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The arguments surely just had less policies being quoted! 20 years is ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Congrats for the 20 years! — Golden call me maybe? 09:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Here's to the next twenty! ϢereSpielChequers 09:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and all the best.Keep up the good work :). Lectonar (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Congrats. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Congrats! Just out of curiosity, how did you learn about Wikipedia that early on? I had never even heard of it until several years later. (A now-banished former bureaucrat told me about some of the work he was doing on here.) --B (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations! What will you do for your silver admin anniversary party in five years?

Indeed many arguments are very similar. The very old (2001) history of Wikipedia:Administrators already has debates on whether everybody sane ("one month and three good pages") should be an admin ([14]). I'm starting to wonder how many of us admins have been here forever (I'm at 17 years as editor, 15 years as admin myself). Is there something like the "seniority" graph at User:NoSeptember/The NoSeptember Admin Project anywhere just not twelve years out of date? —Kusma (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

🍰 Three more years for moi! El_C 14:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
18 more for me! Nosebagbear (talk)

Bipin Rawat[edit]

Please put semi protection. RFPP request pending. Large amount of vandalism on a high visibility page. Venkat TL (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:  Done, thanks. I went with three days, I hope things will have quieted down by then. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for the quick response. Hope so. Venkat TL (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability[edit]

As I wrote here at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and as I was suggested to by Tayi Arajakate, I am asking with no prejudice that an admin review the RfC, and a close review for a reclose/amendment. As I wrote there, I am not sure that "[e]ditors achieved a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable. [emphasis mine; strong consensus and successive close wording is bolded in original], and in general did not seem to account for Option 1 and/or Option 1/2 comments when stating that "there is strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable" — e.g. it appears to be there was no clear or strong consensus on whether it was 1 or 2, with a minority supporting 3. I think both sides gave good arguments for either 'green'-rating (with bias and attribution like The Intercept and Reason) and 'yellow'-rating (no consensus).

It is not so easy to tell which colour better reflects consensus, and if a review would change that; however, my main issue is with the closure's wording that should be revised and/or improved, and if so, also amend on the same grounds the current (RSP entry), which appears to be too wordy and could be further improved, perhaps due to the similarly too wordy closure that may be, at least in part, due to being closed by a non-admin. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass deletion of approved articles[edit]

Hello, I noticed there was a mass deletion of articles from User:Athaenara I worked on that went through the standard AfC process, and I'm confused what the reasoning behind that might be? As far as I can see, none of the deleted articles underwent the AfD process (and they met Wikipedia's notability guidelines). I also see drafts that I was actively trying to improve were deleted as well, and one was moved to a published article without me submitting for review:

Deleted articles (as of now, the list seems to be growing), which again went through the standard AfC process, were well established before my involvement, or weren't otherwise flagged before:

  • Jacob Sartorius
  • Smokeasac
  • Salem Ilese
  • All Things Go Fall Classic
  • Corbu (band)
  • Luc Van den Hove
  • Jorge Pelicano (I wasn't even paid for this one + it was created at a Wikipedia hackathon with guidance).

Please help me how any of this is constructive for Wikipedia Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Yes (whatever "approved" actually means to you), I've been going through your contribs after reading your massive "paid for writing article [x]" listings on your user page. You may not have noticed that over half, literally dozens, were redirects to the Sartorius page. – Athaenara 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Athaenara I don't know what you mean by redirects to the Sartorius page? I properly disclosed using the Wikipedia template. I've been through this process before where I've been singled out for being a paid editor, but it was agreed that I would operate in this way of going through the proper channels (which I have). Again, I don't know how deleting these articles is helpful for the community + they were approved by other editors independent of myself. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That's...not a deletion argument. Also, have you just been using the admin tools on your own to singlehandedly delete articles on your own whim? Without going through any of the actual deletion processes? You're not allowed to be both judge and jury when it comes to deleting things. SilverserenC 21:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    The pages were deleted as G8 and/or G11, which is a proper deletion process (no idea whether it applied to these pages). --Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    Are admins allowed to both tag and delete the same page entirely on their own? Because that seems massively inappropriate. Were the pages even tagged or did Athaenara just unilaterally delete them and just listed the G8 and G11 as reasons? SilverserenC 21:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
As has been prominently displayed on my user talk page for over a year, "ANY reliable administrator is free to reverse ANY administrative action I have taken, whether page protection, page deletion, user block, or anything else." – Athaenara 21:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Is that a yes on you unilaterally deleting the pages on your own? Did you even tag them first or just delete them and use the speedy deletion arguments in the log after the fact? SilverserenC 21:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Silver seren: If it was applying a speedy deletion criterion, then yes: speedy deletions are meant to be "unilateral". That's why they are called "speedy". Any administrator can apply a CSD at any time, on their own initiative and in their own responsibility. That's the whole point of having "speedy" criteria. (Just like Ymblanter above: I haven't checked whether those criteria were applied properly here; just commenting on the process as such.) Fut.Perf. 21:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
That seems like a problem. As is shown here, such as with the now restored Jacob Sartorius, that is not at all promotional and looks like a normal article. Why isn't there any oversight for deletion? I always thought someone else had to be involved in the tagging and couldn't just delete on their own accord. The only exception that would make sense are copyvios. But, otherwise, an admin could just go around deleting a ton of articles and have no oversight over their actions if the creators of the articles don't speak up as they did here. SilverserenC 21:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is allowed. Any admin can delete something under the CSD criteria (the policy says 'at their discretion'), they just note that in the log entry. There's no requirement that any page be tagged in advance. The templates are just a way for non-admins to draw attention to stuff that ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking at the deleted history of Jacob Sartorius as well as the pages that Athaenara linked in the edit summary for the page, I see clear evidence that the page has repeatedly been edited by both properly disclosed and UPE editors. Given the amount of different editors that have contributed to the article, and that its copy is reasonably neutral as of its last revision, I'm going to go ahead and restore it, with no prejudice to further discussion on the talk page, at AfD, COIN, etc. signed, Rosguill talk 21:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    Smokeasac, however, is much more flimsy and is not a great look coming from a paid editor. I probably wouldn't have unilaterally G11'd it myself, but I'm disinclined to restore it unless there's a consensus that we need more process here. signed, Rosguill talk 21:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
    Since at least one has been shown to completely not meet the claimed speedy deletion requirements, I think all of them should be restored and then nominated at AfD if there is indeed a question of non-notability. Or is the issue of Smokeasac not notability, but just article structure/wording and sourcing? SilverserenC 21:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)