Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	5	5
TfD	0	0	0	11	11
MfD	0	0	0	3	3
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	0	24	24
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

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

The situation on the List of Nobel Laureates page

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

---

There are numerous disruptive edits going on, anonymous IP accounts en masse revert changes and promote nationalist agenda, the page is unsorted and the users refuse to discuss this issue on the Talk page. I've requested protection, but was refused, yet this keeps going on and on. What should I do? Athoremmes (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Athoremmes: I'm not seeing any problems at List of Nobel laureates (only 24 edits this calendar year...none seem especially controversial or inaccurate). I assume you mean List of Nobel laureates by country? Buffs (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I have meant List of Nobel Laureates by country Athoremmes (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

RFPP request posted for you. Expect it will be handled within about 3-6 hours (if not sooner). Don't fret :-) Buffs (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Athoremmes (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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

2000editor

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

---

• 2000editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor was indefinitely blocked a little less than 24 hours ago by User:Star Mississippi for disruptive editing, consisting mostly of tendentiously trying to move a draft of Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18 from draft space into article space before it is ready. It appears that other editors want to work in a more deliberate fashion on the season, but that 2000editor was getting in their way with misguided enthusiasm. My first, unimportant comment is that I think that the block was in order. This editor has then made four unblock requests which say only that they want to be unblocked. Three of them have been declined by three administrators, and the fourth is open. I agree with the declines of the unblock requests that they didn't address the reasons for the block, but we already knew that.

I think that this editor has a competency problem, probably linguistic, and it is time to disable their user talk page. Can someone advise them, in Hindi that they might be better off editing the Hindi Wikipedia? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support removing TPA, which I will not do as original blocker. But there's nothing in any of the requests that makes me think 2000 will be a productive editor if unblocked. Star Mississippi 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• I’ve left them a couple of sentences about the Hindi Wikipedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

As with the many attempts to previously guide them, it does not seem to have worked. I think removal of TPA at this point would be appropriate. Their unblock requests (six of them) continue to demonstrate the amount of time editors have wasted. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. They flat out ignored good advice and kept repeating the same. Daniel (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

ThecentreCZ unblock request

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

---

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

Copied from their user talk page:

Hello, I would like to ask administrator to put forward my request to the Administrators' noticeboard for unblock, according to WP:Standard offer. I have been contributing to other Wikimedia projects meanwhile as is recommended for users at unblock requests.

I would like to acknowledge my misconducts and mistakes like of inproper citations, especially that I did considered List of banned political parties and also other instances of lists as Stand-alone list, because I didn't take in consideration that there is also column which contains ideologies and year of occurance and I did not given proper citation in my first edits. I then reverted the edit more than once which let to the editor to report it as an incident there. Sadly, I didn't get a chance to properly repond to the most of the instances discussed and apologize again in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because I was blocked for a period of month on the same day that the incidents were raised, on 15 March 2024, and I couldn't respond anymore. Factically it was somehow connected to the instance of incident of other blocked user, who probably used his account for singe-issue editing, but he also did other benefitial contributions to Wikipedia so I just presented my concerns there. In the case of disruptive editing and and insults, I would like to say that I will no longer edit contentious topics and use such language I used. I would like to apologize for about 3 vulgar words in the last 5 years I used, which could have been rightfully taken as insults and about 8 edit disputes, where I wrongly accused someone of something they have not ment. I agree that vulgar-insulting words are unacceptable and it was proper reason for blocking. It was very bad of me, but as of my editing I many times got into situation that people removed sourced information and it is not always easy to keep cool thinking and distuinguish proper and inproper editing, as I did many sourced corrections in about 10,000 edits I've made. In the matter of what I will be participating in the future, as I created about 80 articles in the past on English Wikipedia, I will continue to create only sourced articles with proper information and I will not participate in any disputes and in disagreements in such disproportionate language I did in the past. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Final comment from ANI thread prior to block. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• That is a pretty messed up discussion, and past. Still, I'm inclined to accept this with the understanding that there will be a short WP:rope for future incivility, and a low threshold for refusing to source content. For me, the saving grace is you also have a history of creating worthwhile articles. I don't care if your mind is "politically incorrect", however, I do mind when it comes out in your interactions with others here, which is disruptive. Honestly, that is why you got the indef block; not the sourcing; it was the comments re: autism/retard, and by community standards, it was a perfectly valid block. Editors here have a very low tolerance for that stuff, even when it is said in jest/hyperbole/as slang. If you can restrain yourself, then I'm fine with an unblock. My guess is that not everyone would agree, but we aren't here to punish "wrongthink" (as a lot of people use terms in RL that wouldn't be acceptable in this public forum). We do need to enforce a reasonable level of civility which this clearly breached, in order to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• It's fine to unblock TCCZ, but certain restrictions might apply. Insulting other editors is a huge mistake, TCCZ. I consider weak support for the unblocking. I hope TCCZ will not repeat the same mistake he did before. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblocking as editor seems to understand why they were blocked and that what they did was wrong. It must be understood that such unblock is on pain of swift redoing should further offences occur, but let's at least give a chance here. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment I'll leave an opinion on this soon but just want to point out the AN/I thread that got them indeffed. It's important to understand what this user had actually done that resulted in them getting blocked. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure why the user is mentioning the amount of uncivil comments they've left over the years. They certainly deserved an indefinite block for their actions but considering that they seemed to have apologised for that and have promised to not do it anymore, I agree with Dennis Brown on giving them another chance to see if they have improved their behavior. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Rosguill had already posted this above, so I'm assuming everyone opining had already read through. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak Support: If this is admins-only, then delete this and notify me on my talk page. If not, then I'll input my opinion.

The user seems like he's apologized for what he's done, and I think WP:ROPE applies. I say that we give him a second chance, but if he makes any edits in bad faith, he gets hit with a block. Maximalistic Editor (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support I'm fine with the arguments per Dennis Brown. Short rope...make the best of it. Buffs (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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

IBAN appeal

I would like to request an appeal of the two-way involuntary interaction ban between myself and MaranoFan. It was imposed by the community a year ago in October 2023. The conflict originated in the context of nomination pages like FAC. I wouldn't interact with them at those types of venues in the future anyways, and I don't see why replying to one another in a WikiProject discussion or something similarly low-stakes would lead to further conflict. To my knowledge there have been no violations of the IBAN in the year since it was active. I genuinely believe it has served its purpose; let's move on. Heartfox (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak support - As long as those two people are moving on for a long, it is not useful to let IBAN in place. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - The IBAN discussion was reopened and reinstated after being closed once, because some thought it was also necessary to prevent drama on noticeboards and stop the wastage of community time. The fact that this has not been acknowledged in the opening statement looks to me like dodging blame and does not instill me with confidence that that behavior would be avoided. I would have appreciated being reached out to through email or something else but, alas, ANI has been taken as the venue directly without reaching out to me or any individual admin to waste less community time. IBAN remains necessary.--NØ 07:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since my participation on the Carey article has been brought up, it is related to efforts to save it from losing FA status (I stumbled upon the FARC since Carey came up while I was doing research for another article). I started helping there because the comments there were not being engaged with. Authorship is looked at to determine major contributors, and Heartfox's shows up as 2.8% which doesn't really qualify (even I have 1.1%). Anyways, on the topic of the IBAN itself, since there is no admission of wrongdoing and they feel the necessity to assert that their original escalation to ANI was "valid", it is absolutely still necessary.--NØ 01:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

MaranoFan, I said above that "I genuinely believe it has served its purpose". This was me saying I am acknowledging my responsibility; ie the IBAN had a purpose. The second ANI was unquestionably valid as it led to the exact thing I suggested and this was later affirmed at AN, so it was not a waste of time even though I understand your point of view. MaranoFan, you are one of the rare people on Wikipedia who actually improve the project by writing quality articles. I respect you more than 99% of other editors and wish we could move past this era. Sincerely, Heartfox (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would have appreciated being reached out to through email or something else but, alas, ANI has been taken as the venue directly without reaching out to me I don't think this is a reasonable expectation (without comment on the merits of your other thoughts), because it would be a de facto breach of the IBAN. We don't expect IBAN appeals to be preceded by an IBAN violation. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't know all the history of this, but it doesn't seem wise to lift an IBAN if one of the parties objects. We've got 6,898,024 articles; surely there's enough room for both parties to find stuff they're interested in without having to be editing the same pages. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well right now anytime I edit Mariah Carey in the future, which is an article to which I am one of the top-ten authors and is one of my top-ten most-edited articles, I have to go back to the 30 edits MaranoFan made yesterday every time and ensure I don't change anything that they happened to add or get potentially blocked for IBAN violations. This is very discouraging to my activity on Wikipedia. Heartfox (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  So it seems like the solution there is to p-block both of you from that article. RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  There's no history of edit warring or content disputes so that seems completely excessive. Both users are members at WP:MIMI, so "We've got 6,898,024 articles" doesn't apply here. The IBAN is preventing improvements to articles when both editors have to tread over eggshells when editing even though the IBAN had nothing to do with content. MaranoFan should be able to fix a typo or a misplaced link in an article I wrote so articles can be improved, and vice versa. To continue an IBAN in part because I opened a valid ANI thread over a year ago and because I am appealing the IBAN to the community instead of an individual admin (which is not even the process?) is unjustified. Heartfox (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

  What would that accomplish? McYeee (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Let's give such interactions a chance. It's been a year and he seems to have learned his lesson. We can always re-enable the iban. Buffs (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would like to see recent evidence where either of the two users have violated the IBAN, otherwise I support this request. >>> Extorc.talk 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Come on, guys. Heartfox said he would "be certain to avoid [me] in the future" in November 2022 and ended up starting two ANI threads about me after that. They also called me "someone so insecure in real life or online, it is low-key scary. Due to their insecurity they see everything I do as a form of competition against them and go to FAC coordinator and Did You Know talk pages to spew nonsense about how I am trying to 'take them out'", which they were just allowed to get away with even though I had been blocked at the time. After the IBAN had formally been enacted, they joined an RfC I had started, a mere 15 minutes after I was having a heated argument there and took the opposite side. They have also gone to an FAC a mere few days after I reviewed it, to "agree" with two of my comments ("I would agree that People's Daily does not seem to be a high-quality source", "I would agree that claiming "crisper and warmer" to be a paraphrase when it also happens to be verbatim from one of the citations attributed to the consensus is problematic") but making sure to indicate that they did not agree the work had to be done outside the FAC process. Anyways, this is my last comment here. All I am saying is, they have some trouble staying away from me and it is well documented.--NØ 18:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support per MaranoFan's diffs. When the person on the other side of the ban opposes it because of violations, and the best evidence is (1) several diffs before the ban was imposed, and (2) one diff afterward, which doesn't show signs of "interaction", then (3) I suspect that there's no violation, or otherwise actual diffs probably would have been found. After a year without violations, WP:ROPE I suppose; as Buffs says, we can always reimpose it if needed. Nyttend (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support. I can understand from where these concerns of MaranoFan are coming from. Unfortunately, MaranoFan has faced a lot of harrassment and it was really difficult for Wikipedia community to provide her with a pleasant environment where she could edit productively. However, this appeal is sincere and should be accepted. Capitals00 (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support accepting appeal request, with the additional statement that it can be reimposed with a quick consensus should issues reoccur. I second Nyttend's comments immediately above me. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

IP talk page with extensive history of warnings hijacked for a draft

212.219.59.241 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks )

I'm not sure what the appropriate procedure would be here. If the content of User talk:212.219.59.241 appeared in an article I would probably tag it for G3 (I don't think this person is real), but the history shows warnings being issued from 2005 to 2022. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the content and advised the user to request an account. If they try to write a hoax, we can deal with it then. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that this Barry Winston chap exists, but even if he does the achievements (such as "wildly successful") are exaggerated and he is almost certainly not notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the history, and it seems to be AI Generated Content as well as completely made up, just in case anyone was wondering about it. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree, it was ringing my AI alarm too. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Assistance Desired

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

---

Hi,

I am a participant in this article, which seems to have been subject to intermittent vandalism – involving unjustified mass deletions of well-sourced content – especially by a registered user (113 edits) who exhibits continuous WP:NPA and WP:HA violations across several pages, to show but a few: I, II, III and IV.

In one of those messages, I was dehumanised by the user as an “entity” and “[not being able to talk as] a mature Wikipedian [human being]”.

So far, I have been extremely polite and restraint in dealing with all the aggressive correspondence from the user, alongside my willingness to remove a tremendous number of entries undesired by the user – against my will – which hasn’t apparently appeased the user. Rather, I’ve sensed considerable intimidation from the user’s persistent refusal to be respectful.

I do not want to deem this an urgent matter, but the user doesn’t seem to be interested in good-faith participation. May I ask what would be the best course of action?

I wasn’t active on Wikipedia until recent months and ain’t familiar with the handling of such situations.

Steven1991 (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991: report their vandalism at the Administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard; that usually gets a pretty swift response (but check WP:VAN to make sure their edits are "blatant vandalism"). If they attack you or make egregious policy violations in other ways (as they seem to have done here), then that warrants a report to the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (but note that's for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems). If you want to make a career oput of it, get a few weeks decent vandal hunting under your belt and then apply for the WP:ROLLBACK permission. The Counter-vandalism unit is a good training ground. You should probably be extended confirmed by now? Refresh yourself on contentious topics, designated by the arbitration commitee, and be aware of the restrictions on edit warring. Hope this helps! ((Non-administrator comment)) SerialNumber54129 17:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am an extended confirmed user. Steven1991 (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Those edits aren't vandalism; this is a routine content dispute over inclusion, where WP:ONUS applies, especially given that there are WP:BLP concerns. If anything, repeatedly re-adding contested material without consensus is the most problematic behavior here. Anyone reviewing this should also be aware of OP's recent history. [1][2] Grandpallama (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, right... That'll teach me to AGF. D'oh! Guess I haven't had the brutal upbringing required to post an ANI  :)

@Steven1991: On consideration, I suggest that you find other, less controversial topocs to edit. You will find it easier. So will others, I imagine. SerialNumber54129 17:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion. Steven1991 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to note that, while trying to mediate between @Wikipedious1 & @Steven1991, Steven had opened a sockpuppet investigation against Wikipedious & 2 other editors who had disagreed with them in the past. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The CheckUser staff concluded that there’s nothing wrong and closed the case. I feel that it’s not relevant to the current issue. Steven1991 (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those mistakes were made by me before and I already apologised for them. I don’t see the purpose of casting aspersions on me over here and selectively considering facts when I presented evidence of the user’s repeated aggression which constitutes a totally different case?

Regarding some of the reverts, the primary instance was a result of the user’s vandalism in which the user engaged in mass deletions without reason (either blank or Lol in several editing summaries) for which the user was blocked for 48 hours, so those reversals were justified as per Wikipedia guidelines on vandalism. I don’t see how it can be trivialised as “content dispute” ? Steven1991 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC

In looking at the article talkpage, there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own--to an unwise degree given your own recent block history (three in the past month), and made doubly so by your decision to call admin attention to this dispute. My best advice to you is to withdraw this filing, show more good faith at the talkpage, and make sure you understand WP:ONUS, WP:BLP, and WP:BLPCRIME; your hands are far from clean here. Grandpallama (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I already accepted the highly subjective judgment of certain users including the one repeatedly using charged words, and removed most of the poorly sourced or allegedly irrelevant content from the list within that article as per the Talk page discussion. What am I further expected to do when significant compromise has already been made? Throughout those discussions, I have been extremely polite, patient and humble regardless of the tone of that user. And as explained, some of the reverts were made pursuant to guidelines concerning mass deletions of well-sourced content without reason, i.e. vandalism. It is nowhere “personalizing” to point out offensive word usage or manner, including being referred to as an “entity” rather than a human with a username. I don’t see how you can paint me as an aggressor, based on some past wrongdoings I have already taken responsibility for or issues I cannot agree with as a matter of principle, when I have been at the receiving end of all those apparent personal attacks as shown by the evidence (if not more)? You appear to have ignored or misinterpreted all the evidence and fixated on my “personality”, which I find unfair. Just because an editor made mistakes in the past, it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve basic respect as a human being or aren’t entitled to raise concern on this noticeboard when necessary. I would appreciate if you can show some basic respect to me.Steven1991 (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have ignored or misinterpreted all the evidence but fixated on your perception of my personality, which I find unfair. Just because an editor made mistakes in the past, it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve basic respect as a human being. I am afraid that your judgment is wrong. Casting more aspersions isn't going to end well, but by all means, keep digging; you asked what should be done, and you've gotten the answer--withdraw the filing and drop this. I also note that you didn't inform Wikipedious1 that you opened a discussion about them, which is required, as explained by the giant yellow banner at the top of the page displayed when you edit. Grandpallama (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “casting aspersions” to express disagreement with wordings that are not an accurate representation of what happened. I would appreciate if you can assume good faith when you expect me to, and stop defending the apparent instances of WP:NPA violations by the user as discussed in my #1 post. Steven1991 (talk) 18:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Since you still haven't notified Wikipedious1, I have now done so. At this stage, based upon the responses here that mirror the battleground nature of those that you provided in the previous discussions about your behavior, I suspect a TBAN may be necessary. Grandpallama (talk) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t added further content to that article for days while complying with other users’ demands to remove content they consider as irrelevant, so I don’t see how I am “uncooperative”. I have been listening, engaging and following when appropriate. I would appreciate if you refrain from classifying someone’s self-defense as “battleground” when they are trying their best to explain to you how they perceive what have happened to them and why they find it difficult coming to terms with it. Steven1991 (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I have stated all my points and will return to the article to continue the discussion with relevant users on the content. Have a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Steven1991: what makes you think that WP:ARBECR applies to this revert? M.Bitton (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You have already asked the same question on an uninvolved admin’s Talk page. Please avoid WP:SHOPPING forum shopping. However Nevertheless, for convenience, I’d state my points again:

The edit you linked may not be directly related, but the article itself is tangentially related to the A/I conflict given that many of the incidents are associated with events thereof to varying extent. In that article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” 6 times and “Gaza” 3 times, almost all in the context of A/I conflict-associated issues, not mentioning over a dozen of edits was made by another non-EC user in which the Gaza War was discussed directly, which shouldn’t have been done in the first place until that user has become an EC member. Just because it hasn’t been noticed by an admin, it doesn’t prevent EC users from making discrete reverts of non-EC users’ entries on the stated ground as per the protection under WP:ARBECR’s clause C and D.

Steven1991 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please refrain from casting aspersions. 1) I'm not involved in the dispute. 2) I did ask you for clarification, but you refused to answer and said This is the personal Talk page of an uninvolved admin. We need to respect their space., so here we are.

The edit you linked may not be directly related it's not related at all (unless proven otherwise). Which begs the question, why did you invoke ARBECR as a justification for your revert? M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Two editors reverted that, so it's just edit warring, the ARBECR justification is just wrong because assuming Arbpia restrictions apply on that page, they only apply to related content. Selfstudier (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It was only a single revert within 24 hours. It’s not edit warring. Steven1991 (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the ECR, an uninvolved admin ruled to another non-EC user that this example (from this page), despite not mentioning the war directly, also constituted an ECR violation. It’s not “my definition” but how they perceive it:

You [another non-EC user] cannot engage with this topic on the talk page, and this is another ECR violation. I suggest you stay well away from anything that is even tangentially related to the Arab/Israel conflict until you are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Steven1991 (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

How is it not related? How do you decide it? How are you so sure? Please see the example I quoted from an uninvolved admin who passed by the thread of the article – the admin considered it as related and asked one of the non-EC users to stay away from it. Steven1991 (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “casting aspersion” to describe what you are doing on this thread. It’s rather I am being subject to it throughout the correspondence, including the aggressive ones in violation of the WP:NPA by the non-EC user concerned for which the user issued me an “Apology” on my Talk page. Steven1991 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That article is not covered by ARBECR, and that edit certainly isn't. You edit warred it right back in over the objection of other editors, despite being told on this noticeboard to review WP:ONUS. Grandpallama (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “edit warring” to revert a specific edit that hasn’t been asked by other extended confirmed editors to remove. The specific non-EC user, who shouldn’t have been engaging in those activities tangentially associated with the A/I conflict in the first place, is the ONLY person who unilaterally removed it without having received prior input from other participants beforehand. There has NEVER been a consensus to take that specific case off from the list. It had not apparently been discussed fully. You CANNOT make up one when there is none. That edit reversal was a single edit I made within 24 hours in that article. It has neither hit the 1RR nor 3RR bar, so I don’t see how it’s such a serious matter. Is it only “edit warring” when the reversal involves the removal of something not aligned with your personal view? I don’t want to guess, but I have the impression that it’s been mischaracterised by you and/or another account who has never participated in that article’s editing activities, i.e. disinterested parties. Steven1991 (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The ARBECR doesn’t consider such issues on the basis of an article as a whole but related content. Clause C and D authorise an extended confirmed user to revert an non-EC edit if the content of that edit is tangentially related to the restricted topic(s). Steven1991 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please note that another editor has already pointed that out to them (see [1][2]). M.Bitton (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The user’s judgment is not accurate, unfortunately. Steven1991 (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Is that some kind of joke? M.Bitton (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are going after me over this? The user you quoted doesn’t appear to be an EC user themself? May I know how is it an issue to you? Have you ever been involved in that article’s editing activities? Steven1991 (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don’t want to argue with you. I will be away once I’ve made my points clear. Steven1991 (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

 Note: as if harassing other editors wasn't enough,[1][2] the OP decided to template me (for no reason whatsoever). M.Bitton (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not “harassing” to give multiple reminders when the non-EC user engaged in personal attacks on me repeatedly. The purpose of the reminders is to save the time from getting specialised admins involved. Steven1991 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to know how you would perceive if a stranger online repeatedly refers to you as an “entity” and uses insulting language in most of their correspondence associated with a discussion in which you are involved? Steven1991 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Steven1991 (talk) 22:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

My last reply to you. Feel free to have a look at the following quote guideline:

Accusing others of harassment

Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle. At the same time, claims of harassment should be taken seriously and not be summarily dismissed unless it becomes clear the accusations are not well-founded.

I’d appreciate if you stop tagging me as well – have a good day. Steven1991 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Steven1991 (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. There is now another thread about this at WP:ANI, because Steven1991 decided to WP:FORUMSHOP their arguments to WP:RFPP. Their longwinded bludgeoning there resulted in the entire thread being declared unsuited for RFPP (of course) and being moved to ANI. Steven1991 needs either a broadly construed TBAN from the topic of antisemitism, or (in light of their numerous recent blocks), an indef until they are able to demonstrate an understanding about editing collaboratively. Enough is enough. Grandpallama (talk)

And in response for my calling for sanctions, Steven1991 dropped a NPA template on my talkpage. Grandpallama (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps don’t do it if you don’t want one? Steven1991 (talk) 08:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this thread has (thankfully) subsided as a result of the ANI one, but for the record, I have never leveled a single PA against you. Grandpallama (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German

The name of the suspect at Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German needs to be suppressed once again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe a new RfC needs to be held on the issue? Taking a quick look at the article, the trial is now underway, so it's going to be attracting fresh attention from casual editors. The circumstances of a year and a half ago regarding the individual are different (beyond just arrested and charged), so it might be worth revisiting, even if just to reaffirm there is no consensus to include. Grandpallama (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

This is really a disconnect of WP:BLP that I haven't known how to even begin addressing until now. For this case, we have the following in the article: and on October 31, was charged with two counts of murder. - properly sourced to a reliable source that names the suspect. It is absolutely absurd that we must avoid naming the suspect on Wikipedia even when it's named in a source that we link to in the same sentence. BLP is a very necessary policy. However, it should not prevent naming someone as a suspect when they are named in reliable sources. Currently, BLP states the following: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. This should be changed to "not including material - in any article - that suggests the person has committed a crime". Reporting on accusations should not be subject to BLP so long as those accusations are sourced. The fact someone was charged with a crime is almost always due, even if they were not convicted of that crime. Being charged with a crime does not imply guilt.

In other words, I agree with Grandpallama above - if there is a prior consensus that the name of the suspect is inappropriate... there needs ot be serious reconsideration of that issue and of whether it's a BLP issue to begin with. This is a high profile crime and the suspect's name is linked to from the citation at the end of the sentence. Surpressing it here does fuck all for preventing it when it's literally one link click away (or are we claiming we don't encourage readers to use our citations to verify the information we present?). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The rationale behind BLPCRIME is that we shouldn't name non-public figures, particularly criminal defendants, who did not choose their status. Reliable sources naming someone is one thing, but I believe that we have an ethical duty to avoid creating a permanent record—one that affects how search engines, AI chatbots, etc. present information—for someone who might be innocent. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a perfectly reasonable take, and I don't know that I have a position on inclusion vs. exclusion. But I do question relying on RfC results for a situation that is different now than it was in April 2023. Separately, I see the RfC resulted in no consensus for inclusion, but I'm not sure how that leapt to "edits must be suppressed". Grandpallama (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

See, I'd support that... but the problem is that no other source has this sort of policy. When charges are first announced, sure, they will wait for an actual indictment before they report a name. But I cannot think of a source that has a similar policy.

The concern over presenting an indicted/charged person as a criminal is real. That is solved through requiring the prose be accurate. It is not our problem if an AI chat bot uses Wikipedia to hallucinate that someone was a criminal. It's not the fault of the news organization for reporting that someone was charged with a crime and that information is misused. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If editors want a wider RfC on BLP policy perhaps at WT:BLP there could be merit for that I guess. I don't see what purpose an RfC on naming the suspect will serve at this time. The trial is set to end by November 15th. With an existing RfC even if it was no consensus, and considering the BLP importance it seems to me ending any RfC early with a new consensus is questionable no matter how clear any initial consensus seems to be. Meaning the RfC should run for at least a full 30 days before we can name the suspect. And this is a jury trial meaning that barring very very long jury deliberations we should have a result within 1-2 weeks of the trial ending. So at best starting an RfC now, we might be naming the person 1 week before the situation is likely to change significantly with either an acquittal or conviction. While it's always possible there will be a hung jury or some other kind of mistrial, I think better to just wait those 6 weeks or so and see what the situation is then and then do an RfC. Further if things have significantly changed, there will be much more reason why it might be reasonable to end the RfC early if consensus seems clear. Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

For now, we should suppress the edits, then repost the name only if there is a conviction. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an RfC would be worthless at this point due to the time constraints and with the majority of the points above (aside from the need to supress a name that is covered in the majority of reliable sources and citations in the article. Seems rather drastic to leap to the need to supress when the name is widely published).

And at this point, is the guy even a 'low profile person' anymore, where BLPCRIME is concerned? Looking over the old edits of some of the people who had a hand in actually making that policy, Bbb23, SlimVirgin, and even though he didn't have a hand in making the policy Jimmy all seemed to think that a high profile crime could make someone a high profile person.

There is also the fact that the subjects attorneys pushed for his name to be released a while back 'in the hopes it would bring tips [3]' or similar. A press conference followed by a press release, and later a fundraiser to get his name out there.

Are we not supposed to take into account what a subject wants in terms of inclusion/exclusion? Jimmy said yes years ago [4] [5], ARBCOM said to consider the legal and ethical implications of our edits for BLPs, WMF stated we should be Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest.

I could understand waiting for a resolution to the trial to follow a strict following of the letter of BLPCRIME, but if the subject/his attorneys wanted his name out prior to the trial to help him, it seems like waiting for a conviction before considering what they want goes against the above paragraph. It is essentially saying a policy put in place to protect someones reputation from false accusations holds more power than what the subject wants, which seems wrong on so many levels.

Awshort (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that there may be cases where defendants who have not been convicted yet may want to publicize their names—such as in cases of civil disobedience, public ransoms, or acts of terror—I do not believe that this is one of those cases. The comments at the pressers were pretty bare bones and the press release expressly states: "We do not want to try this case in the media and we intend to adhere to the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct that provide guidance on pretrial publicity." The spirit of BLP is that we shouldn't publicize the name of a a person who hasn't inserted themselves into the press, and a limited press conference, press release telling journalists to buzz off, and a fundraiser page do not, in my view, meet that threshold. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The original edit that sparked this discussion I believe was by me; I added the name to the 'trial' infobox parameter and added the name of the trial further down with just the last name of the defendant since I thought MOS/LAW was the guideline to follow when legal things were being discussed. It was pointed out to me later that this is incorrect, and it's only relevant for legal articles. That is what Jax ran across and I believe wants supressed for whatever reason.

My intention was to try to update the article a bit and add a subsection later about the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that involved the suspect in this case, which is under a different case name and ended with the Judges issuing a new ruling about when a suspects court appointed counsel can be removed, since it was notable and widely covered at the time (and essentially set a new case law for them, I think [6]). Are we not allowed to list trial names now because it can be seen as a BLPCRIME violation?

Awshort (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

These decisions are very fact-specific. This case is in the States but we write policy for the globe; I don't think we ought to publish the names of the accused in cases that geolocate to Russia or China, for example. I think we have the right rules and wouldn't encourage an attempt to change them. We have a presumption against publishing the names of unconvicted people. Talk page consensus could overrule that presumption in individual cases and I wouldn't object if that happened here. Even though the name is published in reliable sources, this is at heart an ethical judgement we're making, so a reliable source is a minimum threshold to start a discussion, but not a mandate to publish the name.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Masada_myth Procedural RfC Closure

The RfC on Talk:Masada_myth#RfC_on_the_article_lede appeared to me to be malformed and unanswerable so I proposed a procedural close. There is no dispute properly demonstrated at the RfC and the editor who began the process has not clarified the situation at all. The RfC asks editors to answer Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes? without making any mention of what the basis for the question is, what the disputed nature of the content is, and seemingly without having actually undertaken any attempt to WP:FIXIT themselves as they haven't edited the article at all except to revert the edit of another editor after they began the RfC Special:Diff/1251948920. The discussions the editor who started the RfC refer editors to read for context in regards to the RfC are long, meandering, and full of sarcasm and mostly seem to center on fixing a DYK Hook that has since passed. Is the lead "OK" or "Not OK" is an overly broad question due to WP:NOTDONE, and this opinion has been shared by other editors on the RfC itself. The creator of the RfC has insisted twice now that I take my motion for a Procedural Close of the RfC to the Admin Noticeboard Special:Diff/1251937669, so, here I am. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Involved, but as far as I know the ship sails for a procedural close once this many people have responded substantively to the RFC question. Andre🚐 02:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The RfC does not satisfy the requirement of having a clear-cut well-posed question. Since no specific issue is raised in the RfC, nobody knows what things are actually relevant to it and the discussion is wandering all over the place. Basically it says "I don't like the lead, do you agree?" An uninvolved administrator should close this RfC (whether as procedural or "no consensus" doesn't matter), with the understanding that a properly posed replacement can be opened. While I'm at it, someone should examine the behavior of the RfC poser User:Herostratus who asserts that the editors of the page are clever antisemites. Zero^talk 03:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't find the word antisemites in that diff, did you mean a different one? And as far as the RFC question, "Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes?" Seems clear enough to me, it's not specific about article text changes but it appears to be a question to which you can answer one way or another and then as a result, will determine to either change or not, the lead. Andre🚐 03:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

The word is not there, but the implication is. "Myths like this omit any mention of African-American may demonstrate an African-American resistance to modernization which may have contributed to a culture of backwardness and poverty among African-Americans in the South" and whatnot. Can probably find a historian who said that if we dig enough. Want to go edit that article? Won't get far will you. The hypothetical the editor is presenting here implies bigotry in response to the other editor saying all the bolded words you mentioned (and all the issues you raise elsewhere) appear basically verbatim in the sources - fully quoted in the citations - in the references section. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, but that is different thread. We are talking about the RfC. Maybe I'm an asshole. Maybe my motives for starting the RfC were bad. I don't think that that matters enough to close down the RfC if it is otherwise OK. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Anyway... I didn't insist on anything, but I did say "step up or pipe down". The editor decided to step up, xir perfect right, so here we are. I tend long-winded, so here goes. Skip it if you want.

So... at least three editors at least asked for a procedural close as malformed -- a nonsensical question, a question from which no actual benefit could come, and so on. That's enough that you have to pay attention, yes. I opened a separate thread to discuss it, at Talk:Masada myth#Procedural close of above RfC? and there's more material there.

I wrote the RfC. It is:

Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes?

In all this, I haven't yet seen any suggestions for what should be written there instead. I have asked.

My reasoning for starting the RfC was this:

• The article lede is very poor -- POV, and way overly negative in my opinion. I can back that up with good evidence (doesn't prove I'm right, granted). Ofc that is the personal opinion of one person, yes.
• The matter involves Israel, and the Jewish people generally. People are having really really really strong feelings these days about Israel and Palestine, both ways. Let's not pretend this isn't so. It's a data point.
• In the local discussion, there were some editors -- two or three -- who were defending this (bad IMO) lede super strongly. I wasn't going to get anywhere (I believe that, on grounds of being required to assume good faith and to be civil, I'm not allowed to say if I think that this was because of emotional and political factors rather than ice-cold NPOV scholarship, let everyone decide for themselves.
• Yup, I did get sarcastic in an earlier thread. Within bounds I think, but definitely not my best moment. (I have strong feelings too! But mainly that this is the sort of thing that is going to lose us Michigan). But anyway that's a different thread. In the RfC itself I haven't been too involved and have not yet "voted".
• So the reason I started the RfC was to get more eyes on the matter. Eyes backing me up? Hope so -- I'm human. But whatever happens, it is what it is. IMO the RfC itself is neutral and I did not canvass.
• I offered a general big-picture RfC because it's a very fraught, emotional question, we want to go step by step. If the consensus is "OK", we're done. If it is "Not OK", we can move on to another discussion on how to fix it. I did not want to start off with "Should we have the current, or this version I have provided?" cos I thought that would bog down into "Neither. say such-and-so" "No, say so-and-such" etc. If I'm wrong, may I please have some suggestions of what the RfC should say, instead and we can start a new one I guess.

I think that some these requests for procedural close are political. That is my personal opinion. You decide. In fairness, the first person to request a procedural close was summoned by bot, and thought the RfC was terrible and was mad about it. So there is that.

But still... a number of editors are engaged in the RfC discussion to possible useful effect, so I think a shutdown is too late and would be not excellent. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't insist on anything

I am unsure how I am supposed to take essentially telling me to shut up or take it to the admin noticeboard in response to proposing a procedural close as anything but insisting I take it to the admin noticeboard. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

You are not my puppet, colleague. I mean I offered the option to pipe down (I did not say shut up). and of course you always have the option to roll your eyes and mutter "what a jerk" or whatever and move on. God knows I do that often enough. Herostratus (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Two editors seem to have missed it so I'll quote from the Herostratus' diff to show that the accusation of antisemitism is there explicitly.
"The editors we are dealing with here are clever. They are not going to use material that is not well sourced. That would be stupid. So they are clever, so what? Have you not heard of cherry picking. Have you not heard of spin, of propaganda. The Devil can quote scripture. [followed a few sentences later by:] So, the material is not anti-Israeli, itn is anti-Semetic." So, once the subject has been established as the editors of the article, and they are described as engaging in spin and propaganda, it is said that the material they wrote is antisemitic. In my opinion, a charge of antisemitism against other editors (except on a behavioral noticeboard with strong supporting evidence) should merit an immediate indef. Zero^talk 04:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

An accusation of antisemitism combined with comparing editors to The Devil? Yeah, a pretty clear case of a personal attack in the form of serious accusations lacking evidence. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Herostratus opened an RfC while showing with long and tortuous personal harangues that they have not troubled themselves with reading the sources. It was also clear that the quip about editors being 'clever' was a disingenuous shot at the putative ulterior motives driving those who actually have read the sources and aided in the composition of the article, a point unambiguously underlined later by the crack:' the material is not anti-Israeli, it is anti-Semetic.' That misspelling always puts me on my guard, since it crops up frequently as, for me, an index of quarrelsomeness uninformed by any serious reading. No fuss was made, but I will note that when I tweaked the lead to remove 'by Jews', - precisely because of my own sensitivities about generalizing about Jews (a premise of antisemitism that all Jews are involved whenever one or another does this or that) - Herostratus reverted to restore it, after waiting 5 days, just as this report opened. That is deeply ironical. In context, Herostratus is insinuating those who support the article are motivated by antisemitic feelings, and, with his restoring the usage 'by Jews' I considered potentially coloured by the kind of imprecision that plays to antisemitic feelings, telling me he thinks editors like me are perhaps both anti-semetic and 'philosemitic'. This is on a par with the vexatious incoherence of most of the things written on that talk page.Nishidani (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

None. Of. This. Has. Anything. To. Do. With. The. Question. At. Hand. Which quashing the RfC or not. If you want to want to have a conversation at WP:ANI on grounds that I have made false accusations of anti-semitism, OK, do that. That's a different conversation.. Herostratus (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

<- So much inane timewasting trolling. The malformed RfC should be shut down regardless of how many patient people participated. The editor should be made to go away. It would be an act of kindness. WP:DNFT Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Procedurally closed or not, this RFC is going absolutely nowhere, an unfocused mess.Selfstudier (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone is as confused as I was: the African-American bit is comparing this article to John Henry (folklore). Nobody's suggesting that African Americans need to be mentioned in Masada myth. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly just shoot me, maybe

It's too late to procedurally close the RfC now. It'll age out on soon enough. Yeah it was badly written, but too many people have engaged anyway.

BUT

I don't know if topic bans are imposed her as they are are WP:ANI, but really there is maybe some editor behavior to consider, I don't know, just raising the question. Maybe just my behavior, fine, I hereby turn myself in.

If I should be topic banned, fine, if that's the decision (I never engage in this subject anyway, I don't care much about it per se, it's stressful and people feel really strongly about it and its hard work, I just came to that article because of a hook, and honestly if you want to put me out of my misery it'd be a kindness). If other editors should be topic banned, I don't know, that'd be up to you. I am not suggesting it as that is not my remit. Maybe nobody here should be topic banned, or maybe everybody here and their dog should be topic banned on the principle of "you made me get up and come down there".

So IMO what happened is this:

A lot of these editors are really really mad at me because of my behavior in the immediately preceding threads, Talk:Masada myth#C'mon people and Talk:Masada myth#Hook. Then I made an RfC. Yeah the RfC was poor, but still, asking for a procedural close so vociferously was just a proxy for being mad at me generally. That is my personal view of what is going on here.

Hey, people get emotional, its a emotional subject, it's understandable. And I was not at my best in those threads. No wonder they're mad at me! And it is entirely in the purview of the admin corps to consider larger factors like this, up to an including behavior going back to the Eisenhower Administration, and fine.

My defense -- we are talking about Talk:Masada myth#C'mon people and Talk:Masada myth#Hook now -- is basically

1. Yup I lost my head and was sarcastic and didactic and maybe prolix and (if you say) disruptive in places, my bad.
2. I pride myself on at least trying to be an ice-cold NPOV editor. I make a point of occasionally looking at articles of people I despise and who are not generally popular here (Jim Jordan etc.) and trying to make them more fair if they're not. I do feel kind of strongly any POV. But I keep my head.
3. But not here. I think that the POV I saw here was just really red flag egregious and [can't say]. I'm not sure if any people agree all that strongly. But believe I am right anyway. I formed my own opinion about various other things, which I will now keep to myself. So yeh I lost my head a bit.
4. Some of the statements and implications I made I can demonstrate to some level of satisfaction, some relate to other editors' internal feelings and motives etc. and can't be proven. Doesn't mean I don't regret making some of them. I do. Doesn't mean some of them weren't prolix, inflammatory and counterproductive. They were. Doesn't mean some of them were unkind. They were. As to whether or not I thought they were nevertheless correct or still do... I'd best keep that to myself I guess. I'm not going to lie to you.Herostratus (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg

Hi, Please undelete the first version so that it can be moved to Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The uploader, who is an administrator (@Holly Cheng:) had labeled that version as non-free. Has that changed? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but it is currently labelled as public domain with {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Yann (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done WP:REFUND is the normal noticeboard for this type of request. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The public domain notice on the file says it was first published in 1942. But Adams modified the negative over the years, in particular making the moon brighter. Our image comes from a gallery listing that says in was printed by Adams in the 1970s, so that analysis does not apply. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Yann, @Graeme Bartlett, our image was printed by Adams in the 1970s so it is not PD-US-not renewed. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly brightening is not a copyrightable modification. But probably an older image as published with unrenewed copyright should be used instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The high res photo we now have gives its source as a MOMA 1964 print, but the source link goes to a lower res image. Whether the 1942 publication was renewed probably doesn't matter. Adams was not satisfied with the image because it didn't reproduce the scene as he thought he saw it. One would have to look at publication of the image in the form we have it now, and see if that copyright was renewed. The 1961 print at the Minneapolis Institute of Art has a prominent copyright notice and says "Because of © restrictions, we can only show you a small image of this artwork." Wikipedia is probably in the same situation. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have asked on Commons: c:COM:VPC#File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Wipe user edits

Is it possible to fully delete a vandal's edit history, such that their spammed replies don't show up in my notices (or potentially a way to hide certain notices)? Tule-hog (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like that user has been blocked, their ability to edit their talk page has been removed, and the edits/edit summaries have been removed. Are you still seeing anything that needs to be taken care of? Joyous! Noise! 16:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Very minor thing (not effecting readers), but the actual content of their reply (this one) is still shown in my Special:Notifications; I was wondering if there might be a way to remove/hide that. Tule-hog (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

*poof* DMacks (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Fake news websites

• zaobaodaily.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singaporeinfomap.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singaporeera.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singdaotimes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• todayinsg.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• lioncitylife.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singapuranow.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• voasg.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• singdaopr.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• alamak.io: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Singapore government just had this ten websites blocked for "potential hostile information campaign", stating that these websites are using domains either resembles legitimate news websites (i.e. zaobao.sg vs zaobaodaily.com) or gives an appearance that they have a connection to Singapore; content are AI-generated; gives an appearance that certain sentiments are an reflection of Singapore's public and/or government.

• News: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/mha-imda-websites-hostile-information-campaign-foreign-interference-fica-4692746
• Press release: https://www.imda.gov.sg/resources/press-releases-factsheets-and-speeches/press-releases/2024/ten-inauthentic-websites-blocked
• Annex containing the ten websites: https://www.imda.gov.sg/-/media/imda/files/news-and-events/media-room/media-releases/2024/10/ten-inauthentic-websites-blocked/annex-b-list-of-websites.pdf

While my first instinct is to put these sites onto the spam blacklist, given that Singapore does engage in censorship practices that include blocking websites for not following POFMA orders/directives (among other reasons/laws), I would like second opinions before doing so. Out of the ten, one (alamak.io) has been used as a source for two articles on English Wikipedia. – robertsky (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• We generally only put websites onto the spam blacklist if they are actually being used for spamming. If the issue is unreliability (and frankly I wouldn't trust the Singaporean government on "internet reliability"), then you probably want WP:RSN. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't trust the Singaporean government on "internet reliability" heh. indeed. RSN does seem to be the right direction. – robertsky (talk) 10:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Concur that the spam blacklist is not the right place -- but don't we have a hoax noticeboard or something like that? Or had at one point? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think there is a hoax noticeboard (but I could be wrong about that!) – RSN does discuss hoax websites of various kinds, though. Discussions there sometimes lead to blacklisting (though usually only if a site has already been used as a source), but more importantly, a lot of editors experienced in evaluating hoaxes frequent that board. --bonadea contributions talk 09:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  WP:FTN is probably the closest we have to a hoax noticeboard, but it's more for dealing with content from pseudoscience/crank sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

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 and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. 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

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

Sanction being appealed

One month block by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs) for repeated ECR violations

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by IdanST

I believe my ban is unjustified for the following reasons: 1.This one is clearly an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. - pointing out that Maariv (newspaper) "source" is a LIE. Maariv NEVER reported on this lie, the source is in fact Al Jazeera which has been proven to have lied in this instance, as shown HERE. 2. This is not an incivility nor breaking the rules, it's allowed under WP:BARN. 3. This is a warning before taking actions, like reporting, for blatant violations of WP:POINTy and WP:WAR. I understand now that I should have reported the user instead of leaving a notice on their talk page, as it seems that discussing and warning is discouraged, and direct reporting and banning are preferred.

IdanST (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I appealed the first block.

I didn't appeal the second block yet because I am not aware of the alleged violations for which I was banned for one month. IdanST (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC) {{{1}}}

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish (IdanST appeal)

First block for a week was based on [7], [8], and [9] which are all clear ECR violations. Their talk page access was pulled by Doug Weller. When the block expired their first edits were [10], [11], and [12], which are also clear ECR violations. They continued with personal attacks on their talk page and again had their talk page access removed. Oh, and the Simple English Wikipedia page on barnstars doesn't have much weight on en.wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller (IdanST appeal)

IdanST says that [13] was an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. which it clearly is not, just a statement that something is a lie. this is a personal attack on ScottishFinnishRadish. Yet more attacks here Doug Weller talk 15:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST

• I may be a simple Wikipedian farmer of minor corrections and !votes, but a few things confuse me.
  1. Why aren't these pages under ECR protection? It seems that this is a simple solution to the problem
  2. Some of these cited by SFR and Doug seem to fall under WP:NPA, not "clear ECR violations". We need to be a little more precise if we're going to ban/block people. Those alone are worthy of a block given previous interactions.

Buffs (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-EC editors are allowed to make edit requests on the talk pages. Generally, article talk pages aren't ECP unless there is enough disruption to necessitate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

These do not appear to be edit requests, but personal attacks. That they were on an ARBPIA talk page seems immaterial. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

A personal attack explicitly and particularly related to an ECR topic area, such as Your Constant Lies ...regarding Israel and Arab–Israeli conflict,[14] is surely a clear two-fer. NebY (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

YMMV, I suppose. NPA seems to be reason enough for a block without additional justification. If anything, such behavior there should be grounds for ADDITIONAL measures Buffs (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing about this appeal gives me confidence that this editor will be a net positive with respect to ARBPIA content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• This edit[15] is clearly note an edit request and the editor had been previously warned, I would oppose the appeal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• IdanST chooses to defend only three of their edits, and their very first defence demonstrates the appropriateness of the current block. This disruptive post was clearly not a request, let alone an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1, and that IdanST claims that it was, and makes no attempt to suggest their editing will improve, shows that this block and maybe more will be needed until they understand and accept the various limitations and restrictions on their editing. NebY (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
• The appeal should be declined for the reasons set out by ScottishFinnishRadish. Additionally, the polemical style of the appeal and the appellant's personal attacks and their mischaracterization of their edits indicate that the appellant should be topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict as unsuited to collaborative work. Sandstein 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think a topic ban would be effective as the existing extended-confirmed restriction is being ignored. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Nableezy has a (Personal attack removed) userbox

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

---

Nableezy, on their user page, has a userbox showing support for Hezbollah, which is not allowed, as per this discussion. The user in question has also just been generally mean-spirited and extremely biased, especially to matters about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thank you, Pyramids09 (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

While I am in general agreement with criticism of the userbox, I don't think is going to go anywhere. The userbox itself (by design) doesn't directly express support for Hezbollah, and when I discussed this with Nableezy they stated the purpose of the UBX was to highlight a hypocrisy in Wikipedia's policies. (I am unconvinced by that, but that's just me.) Nonetheless, I believe this is a debate that has taken place many times in the past and, sadly, goes nowhere. — Czello ^(music) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That stuff about "mean-spirited and extremely biased" is an incredible WP:ASPERSION. You might want to avoid that in the future to avoid a block. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Asking the question "could I be wrong?" is a good habit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's news to me that any and every act of 'violently resisting' aggression is classifiable as terrorism. If that is so, then we shall have to rewrite the history books from the Battle of Thermopylae and the Jewish–Roman wars down through the Indian resistance during the frontier wars to things like the Spanish Maquis, and the French and >Italian resiatance movements. The Greeks should have bowed to Xerxes and Darius, the Jews succumbed eirenically to Titus and Vespasian. the Sioux consigned their bowsnarrows to General Custard, the Spanish government should have capitulated en bloc with the people after Franco's coup d'état, de Gaulle should have chummed up with Pétain, and the leaders of post-war Italy should have been gaoled as terrorists for opposing the Republic of salauds, etc. Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Not as if core site policy has changed, but it's odd to point to a 2008 discussion the same way one would point to a contemporaneous one. Nableezy's work here seems equal parts political and rhetorical. I am personally unmoved by OP's outrage over it, though. What is unacceptable is calling them pro-terrorist—let's not mince words here, that's the intent of the language you chose. Remsense ‥ 论 10:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I quite like the immediate sabotage of any point you may have had by throwing in "mean-spirited and extremely biased" as if it was going to make your argument stronger. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Think we’ve gone through this already. nableezy - 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It's become an annual holiday tradition. Levivich (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Request

Hello, I recently moved the Imphal Airport Wikipedia page to Bir Tirkendrajit International Airport, but I accidentally used the incorrect spelling. The correct title should be Bir Tikendrajit International Airport, which reflects the official name of the airport. Unfortunately, I am unable to correct the move myself due to system restrictions. Could you kindly move the page to the correct title: Bir Tikendrajit International Airport? Thank you very much for your help and time! Best regards, AstuteFlicker (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done, in the future you can go to WP:RMTR for things like this. nableezy - 14:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike

The article 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike has a move request at Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#Requested move 27 September 2024. It has started on September 27 and should have been open for just a week; we're almost in a full month. The last vote was made on October 7. I know that this is a controversial topic, even reached with arbitration remedies, but someone should close it (although non-admin closures may be valid, it may be better if an admin closes it, considering the controversial nature of the topic). Cambalachero (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done, closed as no consensus. Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

WDBZ

User:Welcome to Dragon Ball Z was made on 24.09. Today 24.10 they made 500 edits to their talk page like this this one. They then got the "extendedconfirmed" user group because they were created 30 days ago and made 500 edits. Could an admin remove this group please? Fulmard (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

They are now attacking User:Magnolia677 and it looks like a "MidAtlanticBaby" puppet. They should be blocked. Fulmard (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Blocked. Nthep (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Nthep Could you block BossedUpWithACheck? This account was created on the same date and is doing the same thing now of ramping up edits. Fulmard (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328 got there before me. Any CU around who can do a sweep for sleepers? Nthep (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I've had a look. Those familiar with the matter will know that that might not portend much. Informed by my magic goggles, I've also preemptively removed TPA from the 2nd account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration committee 2024 election: nominations to start on November 3

The nomination period for the 2024 arbitration committee election will start on November 3. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to talk to them now, well in advance of the election. For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Internal Error when opening Special:Notifications

Is anyone else having issues with the notifications? I'm getting:

2024-10-25 05:06:40: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException"

when I try to go to Special:Notifications and if I open the top notification window it just shows "no notifications"? Raladic (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Try WP:VPT if nobody here has an answer maybe :3 -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 06:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems to have resolved itself overnight. Thanks. Raladic (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of my user account AKS.9955

Dear Admin, I have been an active user of Wikipedia since past several years. I do not wish to continue being on this site, and owing to personal attacks and privacy concerns, I request that my user account be deleted / made indivisible (you decide best way). I wish you all the very best. Thanks and have a good day. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:AKS.9955 and regional airline articles in India and Kyrgyzstan. Sincerely, James Bond GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, if any administrators reading this wish to read the thread and make a decision concerning ARK.9955's autopatrolled and NPR rights, that would be most appreciated. But for a TL;DR version - AKS.9955 has had a financial stake in the airlines TezJet and IndiaOne Air, created those articles, and failed to disclose that they had a COI regarding them during creation/deletion discussions. The sourcing in the TezJet article is likely poor enough for autopatrolled to be pulled on that basis alone (the article is cited almost entirely to Planespotter's and the company(AKS.9955)'s own website.) Glancing through their Xtools reveals a host of similarly-sourced articles, such as Sky FRU, Taftan Airlines, Hongkong Jet. Which isn't the end of the world- and AKS.9955, this doesn't need to be the end of your time on Wikipedia. You're clearly passionate about the project - you just need to be whole lot more forthcoming when it comes to declaring when you have a connection to an article subject, and you can't personally attack editors when they bring that up.

For the sake of anybody watching, the some of the personal attacks I'm referring to can be read below:

All these James Bonds getting a high after pointing out a COI [...] I think Wikipedia has reached a point where it is no longer possible to contribute constructively without some sore losers sitting in their basements and preaching the world how things work. (emphasis original)

GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:VANISH. It is not possible to have an account deleted and vanish is only partially effective. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, courtesy vanishing would be clearly rejected in this case because this user is being scrutinized for sanctions. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've removed all advanced rights/tools. See log for details. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

24.43.82.89

This user has made many unconstructive edits, which seem very immature. I'm going to presume that they're a school IP, but either way, they should get hit with a ban hammer Maximalistic Editor (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

See also the edit filter. Blocked for a week. Thank you for reporting, Maximalistic Editor, but for another time, it's better to take such cases to WP:AIV. Bishonen | tålk 12:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC).

Disruptive editor via multiple ip addresses (I think)

For the last few days I’ve had to deal with an anonymous user, possibly the same person across multiple ip addresses. Here’s the most recent ip address: Special:Contributions/77.65.93.205. Here are the other ip addresses that I suspect are the same person: Special:Contributions/109.173.147.66, Special:Contributions/109.173.147.194.

This user keeps making repeated disruptive edits on the same pages, plus similar disruptive edit on other pages.

I’m hoping that something can be done about this user and their disruptive editing. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The chances that this is the same user are very high. All IPs come from a small town in Poland. Block them. Full support from me Maximalistic Editor (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The anonymous user, under the ip address Special:Contributions/77.65.93.205, is still making disruptive edits. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Query re possible clean start for a blocked user who hasn't edited in 14 years

Hi admins and friends, once again, I don't know if this is the best forum for this question so redirect me if it isn't. I came across a {{helpme}} request from @TheAmazingCoffeeMan who wanted to appeal a block on his old account @GageCSayre, which he can't log in to because he's lost the password and email address. Given that the block was imposed 14 years ago and he apparently hasn't tried to edit in the interim, would he be a candidate for a clean start? If so, would it be enough to declare this on both user pages? Or does the 14-year-old block prevent a clean start? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well, technically it wouldn't be a clean start because those don't apply to people who have active sanctions (including blocks), but this is a fairly normal place for an unblock request, and if they were literally only blocked because of one day of vandalism 14 years ago I wouldn't expect there would be any issue with one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:QUIETRETURN. If he returns and start editing in new areas, there's no need for a helpme request. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That would be sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I can only speak as one member of the community, but I have no issue whatsoever with this user participating with the new account, and I certainly don't think TheAmazingCoffeeMan should be forced to jump through too many hoops simply for trying to do this properly instead of quietly editing. If we have to WP:BURO this, then I suppose they can just post a quick unblock request wherever an admin sees fit? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree, although it would've been better if they'd just not said anything about the old account, it looks a fairly ruitine block and would likely merit a WP:ROPE unblock, which I will just go aherad and do so as to put the matter to rest. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I will, as I do every time one of these threads pops up, plug my user essay User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 02:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Nice.I appreciate an essay that is blunt and honest about the sausage factory. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 03:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Just thinking out loud, Taz, is it worth linking WP:LTA in second bullet point If there is a history of sockpuppetry, it is not particularly extensive or disruptive? Excessive SPIs on the same menace tend to equal LTAs, in my experience, but hey, you’ve been Wikipedia-ing a lot more than I have, so I can be wrong. MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 12:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT consultations, October 2024

The Arbitration Committee has received applications for CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT queue access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment at the CheckUser and COI VRT consultations until the end of 1 November 2024 (UTC).

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT consultations, October 2024

Administrator recall policy adopted

After a request for comments, Wikipedia:Administrator recall is now a policy. The procedure is as adopted by the 2024 RfA review. Some questions remain, which may be discussed at the policy's talk page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your well-reasoned and diplomatic close of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a surprise to me. How many attempts to do this over the years have failed? This will take some mental readjustment. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I had no idea this was going on either, as I don't remember seeing any notices. On paper, it looks interesting, but I haven't examined it close enough to have an opinion yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I had no idea this was going on either, Ditto. Where was this promoted? MM (Give me info.) ^(Victories) 10:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

It was borne out of one of many proposals at WP:RFA2024. I don't think there was any mention of "recall" on Template:Centralized discussion until after the conclusion of RFA2024 Phase I, by which point it had already been decided that the community wanted a recall process. The Phase II discussion (to hash out specifics) treated the Phase I consensus as immutable – wrongly, in my view, given my point about T:CD. The drive to create WP:AR should have been spun out of RFA2024 at the first stage and linked separately to get broader input, given the far-reaching potential of this process. Had that happened, the Phase I and II consensuses might have been very different. That RFA2024 has succeeded in producing a desysopping-style policy where other attempts failed is due to the fact that the Phase I recall proposal was a rider and inadequately publicised. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I echo the sentiments above - this should have been much more widely advertised. GiantSnowman 11:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Need help to open page with contentious name *igger rock - historic cemetery in Quebec

Hello, I have been directed here after trying to create an article with horrible name, but is necessary to use as this is what the place is referred to as. The current populations are rewriting the history of this place. It needs to be entered into Wikipedia to protect many people's research and work and also chronicle the Black lives lived here as well as hold space for the 300 free Black ppl that were dispersed and disappeared:

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/201610/01/01-5026419-la-reconnaissance-de-nigger-rock-comme-site-historique-demandee.php

thank you

I&I22 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I created Nigger Rock. DMacks (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Problem moving a page

Hello, I would like to request moving the page Dinapur Cantonment to it’s official name Danapur Cantonment. Due to system restrictions I am unable to do it myself. AstuteFlicker (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:RM/TR would be the right venue for this. – robertsky (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I moved it. Seems like there is a history of it moving from Danapur to Dinapur, though. Might warrant a full RM? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)