Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
Shortcuts

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

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
  • Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

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

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

Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Click here to start a new discussion

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332
333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342
Incidents (archives, search)
1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085
1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293
294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303
Other links


Open tasks[edit]

XFD backlog
V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
CfD 0 0 136 45 181
TfD 0 0 0 0 0
MfD 0 0 0 2 2
FfD 0 0 0 3 3
RfD 0 0 20 44 64
AfD 0 0 0 17 17

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (19 out of 3693 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Êzdîkî 2022-04-15 21:08 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:KURDS. Keep as redirect until clear consensus to split from Kurmanji El C
Kannur 2022-04-15 19:06 2024-04-15 19:06 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of unsourced material. Yamaguchi先生
Kannur district 2022-04-15 19:05 2024-04-15 19:05 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of unsourced material. Yamaguchi先生
2022 Al-Aqsa Mosque storming 2022-04-15 16:30 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Doug Weller
Alia Bhatt 2022-04-15 11:01 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: Upgrade to WP:ECP. I count _11_ unconfirmed named accounts disrupting the page on April 14 alone! El C
Cat Creek Oil Field 2022-04-15 02:39 2022-05-15 02:39 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry: Long-term abuse TheCatalyst31
Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org bibliography/guide 2022-04-14 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Hina Altaf 2022-04-14 16:21 2022-07-12 15:06 move Imposition of edit semi-protection for good measure; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashfaq nezamani Sdrqaz
Xiasi Inu (cryptocurrency) 2022-04-14 11:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: WP:GS/Crypto spam El C
Template:Script/doc/id-unk/name-to-alpha4 2022-04-13 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2519 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Script/doc/id-unk/core 2022-04-13 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2519 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Script/doc/id-unk 2022-04-13 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2518 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Kyla Carter 2022-04-12 22:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: created under various titles/caps - approved draft needed Ponyo
Kyla carter 2022-04-12 22:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ponyo
Khamzat Chimaev 2022-04-12 19:24 2022-07-12 19:24 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts ToBeFree
Rajput architecture 2022-04-12 08:56 indefinite move Page-move vandalism Lectonar
Operation Rimon 20 2022-04-12 08:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD
Rajput 2022-04-12 00:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing; which resumed within days of previous ECP expiring; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
Tyler Brizyy 2022-04-11 23:34 indefinite create Evasion of salting of Tylerbrizyy Sdrqaz

Odd IP vandalism[edit]

I came across some IP vandalism on Peru-related articles that, on looking closer, seems to be broader than a few bits of vandalism, and wanted to bring it to admin attention.

If you look at this IP's edits you can see the type of edits being made - the particular phrase "Alex alexander huerta avendaño" appears in most cases. It popped up on several articles that I caught doing recent changes patrolling, mostly in Peru-related articles. The problem lies in the fact that this appears to have been going on for, literally, years and has not been caught on smaller articles. I did a Google search for that phrase, and found it all over the web, including lots of Wiki mirror pages that include it. I fixed this as one example, which had been there since last year. There are a fair number of law enforcement-related pages that seem to have been affected as well as regional articles, and it's possible these edits have slipped past. The editor appears to be on IPs starting with 181.176 for the most part.

I've left a note for WikiProject Peru to keep an eye out. Not totally sure what to do beyond that, honestly - the IP seems very, very focused. Thoughts? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 'Alan alexander huerta avendaño' is presumably a reference to User:Alan Alexander huerta avendaño, FWIW. Hmm, I wonder if he is related to User:Wilmer Alexander huerta Avendaño? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The second one is exactly the same edit pattern, same article areas. I'm guessing the first would be tied to the whole lot as well. Whoever this is has made a living of making accounts and splashing that name(?) all over the Internet. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve protected DIRCOTE for a little while, that seems to be a current target. National Police of Peru has already been protected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recently active in the last hour or so at Alexa[1]; User:181.176.98.133 blocked by Widr. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just for reference, the range that seems to be creating most of these vandalistic edits is 181.176.0.0/16. It seems to be an extremely high traffic range. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:808A:F44B:E925:9190 (talk) 00:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though I suspect it’s just a few people using highly dynamic IPs; there may be some proxy use in the mix too. Our friend 'Alex alexander huerta avendaño' has been active again. He appears only interested in a handful of articles so I've now placed a lengthy partial block - as this has been going on for some years - on the /16 range for four articles that they seem to favour. We'll have to keep an eye on this one. (cc Tony Fox). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've got a few pages watchlisted. Persistent, ain't he? Tony Fox (arf!) 02:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They're now spamming at Talk:DIRCOTE in the form of sections titled 'Alex alexander huerta avendaño' with material such as "policia" and "metalrock". 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3581:FAF4:6129:CFEA (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, already reverted. Will keep an eye on this. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found another account User:Alex alexander huerta avendaño 10255323. And of course, User:Alex alexander huerta avendaño. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear oh dear. And the second one was created in 2016! So two accounts that haven’t edited for a year and two that haven’t edited at all. None are causing a problem at present so I’m inclined not to do anything with them for now. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, but keep an eye out for more sleepers, in case they become active again. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:FC97:4774:E325:9B2B (talk) 23:20, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, 2601. Drop me a line on my talk page if you see anything. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Time to start an SPI? This looks suspicious. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:B1AE:A56E:B4C:3EB3 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about vandalism; you might want to search for "Mia Khalifa" every now and then; I have found that she has been the "head-mistress" of numerous schools, etc; just now I removed her beeing the manager of a foot-ball club. I am reminded of the old saying: "Good girls goes to heaven; bad girls goes everywhere", Huldra (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Usually when restrictions are proposed for entire topics at this board hindsight has shown they weren't really necessary in the first place, though the community usually doesn't agree to repeal them. See the Uyghur GS authorisation which has been used for 4 page protections, various other stale GS authorisations, and the topic-wide ECP restriction for India/Pakistan conflicts, which went largely unenforced though the community did eventually repeal that one. The ARBPIA WP:ECR rule is a huge exception to the rule, and only exists for two topic areas currently. There should be a very high burden of evidence required to institute the restriction on more topic areas. The evidence should include showing a chronic pattern of topic-wide disruption, to levels far greater than the disruption naturally present in any contentious event, especially current ones (e.g. consider anything current and American Politics related). In the meantime, there is WP:ARBEE and discretionary per-page ECP protections, which AFAIK has been working well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the need for that at the moment - I think WP:ARBEE page-level and user-level actions are working well. A significant amount of the disruption I've seen has been from anonymous and/or new editors which can be contained via semi-protection, or ECP where warranted. Topic-level ECR would be using a sledgehammer to crack nuts at the moment. firefly ( t · c ) 09:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with firefly --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, we already have tools in place to deal with this and by and large it seems to be working. signed, Rosguill talk 15:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Jeppiz:, I fear that an external campaign is being organized outside Wikipedia to influence some articles related to the conflict, which would explain the arrival of brand-new and single-purpose users who are engaging in discussions on hot issues. I think there is a need to protect this topic. Mhorg (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhorg: Intriguing, I must say! Would you be willing to cite some examples/suspects? Because if this is true, we must assuredly do all we can to flush them out! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear colleagues, I would like to show you this small collection of data. These are just the single-purpose or dormant users, who in these days have taken action to remove the "neo-Nazi" label at the Azov Battalion[2]. I fear that there is an ongoing campaign outside Wikipedia, perhaps through some blog\forum\reddit, to intervene on the article. Therefore I ask some admin to consider protecting the page from users with less than 500 changes. In addition to these users, there are dozens and dozens of anonymous users interventions, all pushing in that same direction:

  • Good dog rex 2 total edits: he says that the Azov Battalion isn't a part of the neo-nazi movement [3]
  • OlgaAlska 2 total edits: says that the current article is "Russian propaganda" [4]
  • Baylrock 3 total edits: join a RFC and says that the paragraph about "Nazism" is "a potential lie spread by Russian propaganda"[5]
  • JKWMteam 3 total edits: says that "This article is deliberately and regularly edited with disinformation describing Azov as extremist and neo-nazi guilty of military crimes, with questionable sources as proof." [6]
  • Wked00 3 total edits: says that they want to change "neo-Nazi" to "right-wing".[7]
  • Averied 6 total edits says: "Could we just add "presumably neonazi"??"[8]
  • Metalsand 9 total edits: says the group "is not strictly neo-nazi"[9]
  • Editdone 21 total edits: says that the current article "is being used for propoganda"[10]
  • Disconnected Phrases 86 total edits, single-purpose user for Azov Battalion[11]: says that "The idea that the Azov Battalion is "a neo-Nazi unit of the National Guard of Ukraine," is straight Russian propaganda".[12] Literally, it would be propaganda a 2021 RFC[13] in which dozens of users participated and defined that part of the text.
  • Berposen 88 edits on the English wiki, 37 edits from 2020 to 2021: says that "neonazi faction separated from the battalion" therefore: it would mean that the battalion is no longer neo-Nazi.[14]
  • PompeyTheGreat 376 total edits with 8 edits in 2022[15]: says "a lot of the claims in this article are either factually untrue, echo Russian propaganda"[16]--Mhorg (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. Many editors note issues with the Azov Battalion page. User:Mhorg was already reminded about NPA and SOAP here. There is a procedure for dealing with socks. Infinity Knight (talk)
New editors make a lot of very good points. Many of those that are coming to the Azov Battalion page are in Eastern Europe, possibly are active editors on other wikis, and often have better access to the facts on the ground. They may not always be neutral - I wouldn’t be either if my children were in danger — but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they are making stuff up, or that they need to be excluded.
For instance, the claims in the article absolutely *do* echo Russian propaganda. I suppose it is possible that Russian propaganda could be correct, as they have such a high regard for the truth, but I personally prefer my Wikipedia articles to have reliable sources. The sources absolutely *were* questionable, and it’s not me saying it, it’s the reliable sources noticeboard. There is an arguable case to be made that the battalion *is* right-wing, or once *were* neoNazi. I have not yet looked at the new sources for “is neo-Nazi”. Possibly the admin that got involved on the RS page has managed to get them to find some actual sources, in which case yay and I will believe them. But as of yesterday or the day before, the sources for “is neo-Nazi” in the lede at Azov Battalion had been uniformly laughable.
I think that valid input is valid input. IPs and new users or not, the fact that people keep coming to the page to say it has problems may just possibly be not so much due to an “Azov Battalion edit-a-thon” as some have suggested —-they are rather too busy keeping Russians out of Europe for that—- as it is to the fact that the page does indeed have problems. If meat puppetry is suspected, then an SPI case is the remedy, not excluding valid input Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian-originated meatpuppetry has been a commonplace on this project for several years, and looked exactly like this one - dormant and new accounts and IPs showing up out of nowhere to make a point, not bothering (pr pretending not to bother) to read previous discussions, and hoping to win by a sheer number of votes. In most cases, CUs can not help, only blocks and protections can. Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Ymblanter: for your opinion. Given this situation, and since we are having an important RFC on this issue, wouldn't it be possible to prevent users under 500 edits from participating in these discussions? Mhorg (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can not act as administrator in this topic area, and honestly I think that a broad ban such as in PIA topic area is not yet needed. Even in the PIA topic area, non-extended-confirmed users may participate in the discussion. I do not have an opinion on the specific Azov discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Topic ban review/revisiting/appeal[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made improvements to other articles.

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

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

I made other categorization-related edits as well.

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

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

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

  • Note: Permalink to relevant AN thread. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too happened across this and wondered what on earth was actually being appealed here, which led me to this lengthy talk-page discussion on it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SecretName101, You mentioned the Thomas Menino article, so I took a quick look. How are this edit concerning Robert Kraft and this edit regarding Elizabeth Warren not violations of a topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed"? That's as far forward from the topic ban as I looked, because I came across these as soon as I started to look and wanted to stop there and ask this question first, before any further examination, in case I'm misinterpreting something. Begoon 13:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s been months, so I do not have a clear memory of every edit. But I suppose I must have seen those passing mentions as integral to a full biographic picture of Menino in their respective subsections. But seen them as merely biographical of Menino, not Kraft or Warren. Since it was a BLP ban, I figure I must have thought a passing mention that was necessitated to paint an integral fact on a diseased individual’s bio was not an biographical edit on on either Kraft or Warren. Neither changed a bit the narrative how Wikipedia portrays their bios across the project, I must have figured. I suppose I felt it problematic not to include his support or opposition of stadium construction, as that was a key development in its subsection. And Menino’s endorsement of Warren was well stated in other articles (such as 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts), so it was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretName101 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you thought it was ok, while topic banned from all edits concerning living persons, broadly construed, to edit about living persons anyway if you could mentally excuse it? Or you thought the topic ban was too broad? Or you didn't understand the topic ban? Or you just didn't take enough care? Sorry to be so inquisitorial, but I'm struggling to understand if you knew you were violating the ban, somehow thought it was up to you to decide if a very clear ban applied depending on your own flawed interpretation, didn't think about it at all, or thought nobody would notice? If you could clarify that it would be helpful in case I decide to look at any more of your edits. Thanks. Begoon 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have not a photographic memory of every moment of my life, so asking me to recap my exact in-the-moment thinking on everything I have done in five months is an ask I cannot oblige. But I had, during my ban, asked for clarity before on what it covers, and how to navigate it, and been given very little guidance in return. I have attempted to navigate confusion over this. A moments, there have been edits where I went “shit, was the the wrong conclusion?” After I hit publish. SecretName101 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you're basically saying you violated the ban but it wasn't your fault because nobody explained what "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" meant (despite the linked conversations above)? There's a viewpoint that would say - "Well, ok, nobody pulled him up for this as he went along." There's also one which says "Why on earth should we? it was very, very clear and we don't have time to police every sanctioned user who wants to edit outside a clearly defined ban. We can only really look when they appeal the ban and we discover they didn't comply with it, unless something is spotted in the meantime". Where do you stand on that? Begoon 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There have been small edits I have made after being un-fresh in my memory on the topic ban outline, and that I later (upon refreshing myself) went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. But they had already been published by that. Which has me paranoid here (and hesitant to appeal) out of fear I’ll be attributed intent to deceive or violate, rather than being understood to have practiced misjudgment or poor memory of how to interpret the topic ban. It’s been five months. Early into the topic ban, I was figuring it out. And later into it, my memory of how it works subsided or got foggy. So there are a few changes I would not go back and make, for sure. But I did not intent to sneak them in unnoticed or deceive anyone. It’s tricky to adjust to a topic ban’s outlines, and tricky not to have your memory of its rules fade amid five-months of drama-filled life. I apologize for mistaken edits, and would request leniency/understanding, instead of the usual rush-to-judgement and condemnation I feel I have been repeatedly met with in these months. The point of these bans is to negate damage to the project, not inflict pain or punishment upon the user, as I understand, so the question should be whether I have been or will be causing harm to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Let me ask you a couple of questions then:
  • Why can't you indent your replies properly (half-kidding, but it's really quite annoying that you expect others to clean up after you - I've had to fix your posts 4 or 5 times now... If you wanted to show willing you could do something with the random snippet you plonked, unindented, below this while I was typing it - I have no idea what, if anything, it responds to... struck, because they finally did do that...)
  • What did you do that led to the ban? Here I want you to describe what happened in great detail: why it was wrong, why you did it, what you think about it now, etc..
  • How would you handle the same situation now - again, in great detail, please? Begoon 15:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The word concern had thrown me off at moments. “Concern” generally means “be about” “scrutinize” “analyze”, all which implies principal involvement and not passing relation. Passages like those you mentioned were about Menino, not the others. The sentences were about Menino what Menino did and how he acted, not the others. I am sure that my understanding at the moment was that those were not as clear a violation of the spirit or letter as you currently see it. SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the question of what led to my ban: I created an article on an individual I believed surpassed the notability threshold for their business exploits (having established a nationally notable music club/bar and received accolades for it). In retrospect, since the article was an incomplete picture that leaned negative, and since the individual's notability was so-marginally above the threshold, I would have not published the article if I could do it over. Instead, if I desired to see it removed from the draft-space to the article space, I could have requested other users review it, modify it, and balance it out to the best of their abilities. I should have certainly asked for further eyes on it. More ideally, I would have instead created an article focused on the bar/club for which they were notable for running, and only had a redirect under their name unless I could create a more adequate article in the future. SecretName101 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the article indeed was poorly-considered. It painted too negative a picture on a figure that do I believe is notable, but I also believe threads the line between sufficient and insufficient notability for this project.
I think I would have done a faster about-face to the community, instead of wasting time focusing on arguing with those who were attempting to prescribe malicious intent to my creation of the article.
The article was foolish, but was in no way an effort to defame the individual. The primary content that painted a negative picture was sourced to a reliable newspaper, and was not a smear. However, that still does not excuse that the article painted an unbalanced portrait on someone who did not urgently necessitate an article on the project. It would have been better to leave there being no article on the subject than an unbalanced one. SecretName101 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also mistakenly did not take a closer look at one online source I used. It was not reliable. However, it was not a source that led to the unbalance of the article. Nevertheless, it was a giant f-up to include that as a source. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are almost encouraging answers. You still seem to think there are scenarios in which creating the article might have been a good idea though? Could you expand on that? Begoon 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the article had been far more balanced, and more thorough, there would have indeed been a case to make that it had a place in the article-space. The subject of the article indeed (in sources) appears to be an (at least regional) celebrity who founded a quite notable business venture. The subject also generated more recent headlines for more recent actions (such as fundraising for, I think it was, police carrying AEDs), a promised upcoming biography with headline-generating claims about their relationship with their ex-spouse, and other actions/ventures. There are grounds that this was indeed a notable figure. A balanced article on the individual certainly could warrant a place on this project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. It really would not. I'm very concerned that you still profess to think that. Begoon 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elaborate? SecretName101 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban is not to be given to someone simply because you disagree with the notability of a potential article subject. That's to be resolved in deletion discussions.
A topic ban is for someone who has given tremendous detriment to the project.
I myself have disagreed with the notability of articles the Wikipedia community has decided to keep. It is quite possible I am wrong to think there could be enough notability behind this subject, but that is not a heinous sin. But I would urge you not to render a verdict on your absolutist stance that there is no potential argument for this individual having been notable enough. SecretName101 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely correct that this isn't the place to debate whether a totally hypothetical article could be justified, as opposed to the "...speedy deleted shady attack page of a subject whose marginal notability would qualify him having his bio deleted as a courtesy anyway" which we had, so, yes, let's not get carried away with that speculation. My apologies for the tangent. Begoon 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, disagreeing about whether a single individual has just-enough notability for Wikipedia or not is not a cardinal sin that should bar anyone from being allowed to edit parts of Wikipedia. So that should not be the crux of your judgement at all. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously trying to say that "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" was unclear because of the word "concern"? I don't, quite honestly, think that's a sensible thing to say to the generally intelligent people who will be reading this. Some of the things you are saying are close to plausible, but that is not one of them, and reeks of desperation. That's not how you'll get a topic ban removed. If you weren't sure then why didn't you ask? If I look at later edits will I find more cases of you ignoring the ban because you thought it was subject to your own interpretation rather than seeking clarification? It was very clear, regardless of your apparent intention to skirt it by the "letter" or "spirit". There was nothing open to interpretation however much you might like to wikilawyer it now. Begoon 17:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Concern" is the operative word. I never made any intent to ignore the ban. But I indeed have stated there are moments I am retrospectively worried were unwise edits with the ban, but at the moment had judged to be fine, either through fading of my memory of the language of the ban (which indeed happens over months) before I refreshed myself, or due to lack of initial clarity on what the ban entails. I am confident that a phishing expedition will find cases in which you will question my edits out of the 8,000 or so edits I have made in these months. If you want to make your vote punative based off of these, it is your prerogative to. But I urge you to instead judge on the principle premise: is my editing malicious and harmful to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Phishing expedition" (sic), "punative" (sic) - wow - any more ridiculous knee-jerk responses you want to utterly fail to understand then, for good luck, amusingly spell wrong and baselessly fling in my direction?
I don't think you are intentionally malicious, but I do think you lack BLP competence and nothing you've said here has really made me reconsider that opinion yet.
What, to you, is the most important consideration when we edit articles about living people? And how did you let us down?
Anyway, I'm conscious that I've already said more than I ought to in one discussion, so I'm going to make this my last comment and let the consensus form. Good luck. Begoon 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most important consideratio? I mean, for the survival of the project, not getting a defamation lawsuit seems a major concern.
But in general having accurate well-sourced content that paints a proper (as-balanced-as-possible) portrait is the benchmark. SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, there are several “good articles” and b-class artices that I am the primary contributor of that are BLPs, so I do not think I am incompetent with BLPs SecretName101 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this "competence" now encompasses an understanding of why "Subject is an American businessman and convicted fraudster" is not an advisable first sentence for an article on a person of no real notability, which would be the first google result for their name. Begoon 00:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has been acknowledged that the article was ill conceived. That point has been run into the ground by me. To characterize one misconceived article as representative of my editing on BLP versus the totality of my previous contribution to it is simply unfair.
I have explained how I had seen similar (perhaps equally wrong) intros on articles of more notable subjects, and made the wrong conclusion that this was standard practice for articles on convicted individuals. I had not regularly created articles on subjects convicted of past crimes, so that was new territory, and I made a major misstep.
I have repeatedly owned that that article was badly conceived, have I not?
have owned that the article was badly conceived . Have I not? SecretName101 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm still struggling to understand here, though, is that you claim general BLP competence, yet profess inability to properly understand an extremely clear topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" because your "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy". Can you see how that might be a concern? Begoon 13:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I explained that the operative word "concern" is one that gave me trouble. "Concern" typically implies principal relation to something. SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: I really don't appreciate that your first reason for voting against lifting is that you believe I denied "obvious" motivation for creating that article. I resent that users have been attempting to force a false-"confession" of malicious intent. I had no malicious intent, and I will not lie that I did. It is a sad state of affairs that the rule-of-thumb of assuming good faith on Wikipedia is being so blatantly violated, and I have been repeatedly reprimanded for not agreeing to make a false confession. I made a mistake, and I have admitted that repeatedly. I urge others to take that at face value please. SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of topic ban. The question is whether the BLP topic ban is still needed to prevent disruption to the project. Secret's statements indicate he understands what he did wrong and what to do (or not do) in the future. As he is a 12-year editor with >80k edits and an otherwise clean block/restriction log, I believe the block can be lifted without harming the project. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they indicate that at all. I'm still unclear that the editor understands what they did wrong, and I'm concerned that they appear to have treated the topic ban as an inconvenience to be wikilawyered around, rather than a restriction to be complied with - but I'm going to wait until they clarify that and answer the questions, rather than !voting prematurely. Tentatively, I'm thinking that now that they seem to retrospectively be beginning to understand the problem and sanction we should let them comply for a few months more with that understanding, and then judge the results again, but let's see how it pans out... Begoon 17:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support lifting topic ban given their answers, it's unlikely that they will repeat the inappropriate behavior that got them sanctioned initially. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I'm not convinced that someone who created basically an attack BLP, and cannot, apparently, properly understand the extraordinarily simple parameters of the resultant topic ban is an editor we should extend BLP editing rights to. The parameters for BLP editing are simple and clear - we do no harm. An editor so prone to wikilawyering on the edges of rules and restrictions is not suited to the role. If they can't understand a perfectly clear, black and white, topic ban to the extent that they insist on wikilawyering it in their appeal and explain their misunderstanding as being because their "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy" then I have no real confidence that they will be able to respect the BLP policy itself, going forwards. And that could impact real people, again. They should give this serious consideration and perhaps appeal again later when their understanding is clearer. Begoon 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of topic ban. If ever there is a clear cut case, I would think this would be a fine exemplar. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regret, I also oppose for now. This was an arbitration enforcement sanction, in response to the creation of an article that was speedy deleted as an attack. I revisited the discussion and the previous appeal, in which I made a statement, and am struck by SecretName101's responses to Begoon above, which do not show an understanding of why the article was inappropriate: the at best marginal notability of the subject, coupled with the wholly inappropriate emphasis in how it was written. Moreover, they show the editor has several times violated the topic ban, which forbade edits concerning living people "broadly construed". I appreciate that SecretName101 has found this a severely constricting topic ban given their interest in politics. I appreciate that they did ask for clarification, but editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons  ..., broadly construed is very clear: SecretName's responses above, and the edits given as examples by Begoon, show that they did in fact understand, they just didn't want to believe it could possibly be that broad a ban: There have been small edits I have made ... that I later ... went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. I am not imputing to the editor an intent to deceive or violate; but they should have reverted those edits when the realization hit, and tried harder to keep within their topic ban. [I]t was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia is neither here nor there. This editor was under a topic ban imposed for something rather grave and had already appealed once without success. They knew their next appeal would be evaluated in part on how well they'd honored it. But they violated it repeatedly, it appears, and hoped no one would notice, or that it didn't really matter. I'd like to give them full credit for continuing to write and improve articles, even though looking at the examples they cite, I still find their writing clumsy, stringing together bits from the sources. But maybe they dislike my writing style, too; this time I resisted the temptation to meddle. What matters, unfortunately, is that they still are unable to recognize the gravity of the problem with the Stevenson article, and they have not been able to adhere to the topic ban. So in my view, there is no basis for lifting the topic ban yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I was extremely unimpressed by the original issue and the fact that the OP tried to deny what was very obvious in their motivation for writing that article, and I am equally unconvinced by the further evasive answers to Begoon and the fact that they still don't appear to understand the problem. Also, they're not even keeping to the topic ban anyway, as per the examples above - and also a number of edits like this. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on reporting a complaint about an administrator[edit]

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


Apologies if this is not the correct place to ask, but I would appreciate knowing how and where to make a complaint about an administrator who has been making a number of untrue comments about my editing. Is there a particular place to do this? Thanks, Afterwriting (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's something you don't mind discussing in public, you could post the details right here. If you'd rather keep it off-wiki, you can contact the arbitration committee. See WP:AC#Contacting the Committee for instruction on how to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Roy. Much appreciated. I will give this some more thought, especially if I continue to be treated with further untrue comments about my editing in edit summaries and on talk pages, coupled with reactionary block threats, by this particular administrator who seems to have article ownership issues. Afterwriting (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please also note that if you do discuss it here, you have to notify the admin in question on his/her talk page. 93.172.232.172 (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think that what's being got at is the six year long history of edit summaries such as:

And in discussions of edit summaries:

The warning given explicitly referenced:

Then there are these:

Hello CorbieVreccan ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYI : 1. My "Removed fake report" comment was about exactly that. It was a non-existent "report" added by cut and paste to my talk page by a disruptive IP editor who was adding BLP violations to an article such as this one. 2. The recent "Reply to dishonest warning" comment was in response to an editor who admitted that the warning was made incorrectly and apologised. 3. Most of my other impolite comments would have been made in response to editors who were being either repeatedly disruptive in various ways or who were blatantly misusing unjustified warnings in order to assert their own POV and to attempt to "warn me off" rather than for any legitimate reason. When I've received justified warnings from an administrator I have nearly always accepted them without any argument. Afterwriting (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of which excuses or justifies an administrator making a number of untrue comments about my recent edits to an article and also just reverting them even when they included some clear stylistic improvements. Whatever my faults have been in the past the behaviour of this administrator has been high-handed and also indicates article ownership issues. And accusing me of being uncivil by wrongly claiming that I had accused the administrator of lying is in itself uncivil and isn't acceptable. Afterwriting (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have the time to look into this, but from my experience an editor complaining about templated warnings they've received, even from an admin, doesn't tend to go well for the complaining party. At best, even if the warnings were completely unjustified it's lame, just ignore them (with or without reversions) and move on. While technically a false warning could be a personal attack, unlike an accusation in an edit summary or especially one at ANI, since it's primarily personally it isn't generally seen the same way.

And at worst, we often find those warnings weren't as unjustified as the editor suggests. And since all editors behaviour is scrutinised at ANI a WP:BOOMERANG can easily result. Note also it's reasonable to look at an editor's recent or persistent behaviour when issuing warnings. So for example, if an editor has persistently touched or even gone over the personal attack line, it's far more acceptable to give a level 4 or serious warning straight away. And likewise for more mild personal attacks.

An editor inappropriately issuing warnings is far more likely to be seen as a problem if it can be shown they've consistent issued inappropriate warnings to different editors. Or in the specific case of admins, far more serious would be if it can be demonstrated the admin was threatening to directly block an editor while involved or persistently threatening to block an editor for inappropriate reasons but that's not going to come from templates as these should not be interpreted as a threat of personally blocking the editor.

As for reversions, well WP:BRD always comes to mind whenever there's some dispute over reversions. Ultimately if the other editor is willing to discuss and had reasonable reasons for reversion most of the time (which doesn't have to mean they were correct), it'll be rare we'll sanction them for it, so it won't generally belong at ANI.

As always, if someone makes an edit or a series of edits with some improvements and some changes seen as harmful, we generally don't demand an editor reverting needs to pick through these to keep the good while removing the bad. There will be exceptions like BLP violation, but stylistics ones won't generally fall into that category. I mean ideally they should, but most of the time it's not ANI worthy if they don't.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the diffs posted by Uncle G (thanks!), Afterwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a long history of incivility, revert-warring, and blanking their talk page to hide the warnings. I've just recently encountered them doing punctuation and spelling changes on Two-spirit that change the forms of words used in the sources and cited quotes, and that go against the discussions we've had on talk. They don't appear to have read the talk page. While I appreciate that Afterwriting has good intentions, their edits I've seen are disruptive, and they respond to all feedback with hostility, personal attacks, and further disruption. After looking through their edit history further, I gave them a final warning on incivility as there's already been far too much of this. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I want to acknowledge that I was wrong in one instance about some punctuation changes Afterwriting made. The WP:MOS is slightly different from some other style guides. This is not used consistently across WP, but the form Afterwriting used of periods after quotation marks does align with the WP:MOS in that instance. So when they changed it again, I let the second change on their part stand. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accept that any of my edits to that article (apart from one typo) introduced, as you claimed, "multiple punctuation and grammatical mistakes" or that any of my edits, as you also claimed, were just my "preferred" style and were contrary to the MOS. There were no obvious mistakes or anything contrary to the MOS. Nor were there any spelling changes (unless adding hyphens to be consistent with the article name itself is a "spelling" change) that made any actual change to any sources or cited quotes. I also thought, apparently incorrectly according to your comments, that stylistic consistency within an article, which this article doesn't have, is actually a good thing and something to be encouraged in all articles. Expecting any editor to consult an article's talk page before making what seem to be very straightforward improvements is an unrealistic expectation. Regarding my editing history, my editing is not "disruptive" as you've claimed. Just the opposite in fact. I am nearly always a very constructive and responsible editor and my editing has consistently made numerous stylistic and other improvements to many articles over many years. I have rarely edit-warred, especially in recent years, and nearly all of the reversions I have made were clearly justifiable for MOS or policy reasons. And selecting some of the relatively infrequent instances, mostly from years ago, when I have responded to other editors with some uncivil comments, especially without any understanding of the context in which most of those comments were made (such as unjustified warnings by POV-pushing editors), does not give an accurate depiction of my overall editing behaviour at all. Also, like every editor, I am entitled to remove comments and warnings from my talk page and it is my preference to only keep comments on the page that I may want to come back to at some time. I don't see any point at all in keeping comments on my talk pages once they've served their purpose. That is my choice and it is not appropriate to attribute some kind of other motive to this preference. For the record here are the original so-called punctuation and grammatical "errors" which I was accused of making and which were reverted and the Two-spirit article talk page section on style uniformity so that other editors can judge for themselves just how much in "error" my editing was and whether the reversions and other claims about my editing were justified. Afterwriting (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see zero issues and largely agree with User:CorbieVreccan's actions and comments in this thread. Disagreement is the normal state on Wikipedia. User:Afterwriting needs to learn this and learn to disagree in a collegial manner (instead of hauling disagreements to AN). I'd be thinking trout instead of boomerang, but I see no reason for admin action in this thread. BusterD (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "haul" any disagreement to ANI. I merely asked about the process for making a complaint about an administrator in case I wanted to do this. Others, for their own reasons, chose to make it an issue about my editing history instead. Afterwriting (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody should say on their user page that they do not suffer fools gladly unless they are damn sure that they are not a fool themself. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly is this comment not uncivil? Afterwriting (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith: If you'd rather keep it off-wiki, you can contact the arbitration committee This is a common misconception. ArbCom will not here a case in private just because a user wants it to, there has to be a compelling reason that it has to be discussed privately, like confidential information, off-wiki evidence, etc. Anything that is entirely on-wiki can and should be discussed on-wiki. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the correction. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User rights removal request (Interstellarity)[edit]

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

Can you please remove all my user rights? I haven't been as active as I used to be and haven't been using the rights I have. I may request to have my user rights returned should I be active again. If in the event my account is hacked, I want to be confident that they don't have access to these rights since I do not monitor my account on a regular basis. Interstellarity (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done. I have removed your various user rights. Thank you for your service. If you become active again, please feel free to request these back. --Jayron32 12:07, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for doing this. I still plan to edit on occasion, but I have been more of a reader than an editor these days. Have a great day! Interstellarity (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Jayron32,
    I would also like the autoconfirmed permission to be removed. I was wondering if this is possible and something you can do. Interstellarity (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:AUTOCONFIRM, that user right is automatic and cannot be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Johnuniq says above, this is not an admin-granted permission, so it cannot be taken away by admins. It's granted automatically by the software. I bet some hoops could be jumped through to get it removed involving stewards or something like that, but it's probably not worth it. --Jayron32 11:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your responses. Based on the responses above, I’m happy with keeping the autoconfirmed permission. It might be useful as time goes on. I’m content reading as well as editing Wikipedia on a reoccurring basis. Interstellarity (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone properly close AFD vandalized by nominator?[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Twists_of_curves Five people said to Keep it, the nominator arguing with everyone, no one agreeing with him, so he closed it as "Whatever". Can an administrator go and fix that properly?

He also closed another AFD he started with Merge, and I don't care about that one, just someone starting an AFD then closing it seems like its against a rule somewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Westinghouse_Astronuclear_Laboratory Dream Focus 03:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also can someone tell him not to go through and remove a large number of links to an article he nominated for deletion which is still at AFD? I asked him to not do that at User talk:TenPoundHammer#removing links to an article that still exist after reverting some of them. Many of his edits are still not reverted though. Just checked and Search Engine Watch actually ended in keep so he needs to undo his removal to all links to it. Dream Focus 03:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed article merger, authority control and Wikidata issues[edit]

Hi, I came across an article merger that remains unattributed at the destination page. Buddha (title) was merged into Buddhahood with Special:Diff/978231398 & Special:Diff/978230841 respectively. The merger is not attributed at the destination page. Also, the prior article (now a redirect) is already connected to a Wikidata item and has an authority control box in it. I don't know how to deal with it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 09:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the authority control just be removed? It was added almost a year after the article was made a redirect, and it's not needed there. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for raising this! I repaired the attribution (WP:RIA) with a dummy edit and added {{Copied}} templates to the talk pages (contribs). Alternatively, there is the {{Copying within Wikipedia}} tag, but its Category:Possible CC BY-SA or GFDL violations due to copying within Wikipedia is not empty. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libelous entry on Wikipedia entry for Thomas Palley[edit]

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

RE Wikipedia page THOMAS PALLEY {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Palley}

(1) I do not have the coding expertise to go through the process of correcting slanders against me.

(2) Wikipedia user AndyTheGrump {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AndyTheGrump} has entered libelous accusations against me that I am an "avid apologist for the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

(3) I have attempted to correct the entry which is that I have "openly questioned the US Government and mainstream media account of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine."

(4) AndyTheGrump keeps deleting my correction.

(5) Please restore my correction which states the position I hold. Additionally, I think AndyTheGrump should be banned from making changes to Wikipedia. Furthemore, it may be necessary to temporarily freeze my page until the intolerance triggered by the Ukraine war subsides.

Sincerely,

Tom Palley (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.168.24 (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This can also be found at WP:ANI#The webpage describing Thomas Palley (myself), where it's gradually being processed. I'm sorry 71.126.168.24 but you're incorrect. AndyTheGrump has not added anything, but removed the sentence which was added recently. There's a number of reasons that neither the original sentence, nor the sentence as modified by you, belong in the lead of the article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I removed entirely unsourced assertions regarding Palley's opinions regarding events in Ukraine, as required per WP:BLP policy. And that is all I have done to the article. Such unsourced material doesn't belong in the biography, regardless of whether it comes from unidentified IPs, regular Wikipedia contributors, or Palley himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Problematic edits by User:84.92.40.23[edit]

84.92.40.23 Is making contentious edits on coordinates of many articles (see their contributions), some of which have been reverted. I can't tell if this is sneaky vandalism, but I doubt that a troll would spend extended periods on something that will just get reverted. Wretchskull (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, this edit moved the coordinates out of the city into the sea (and note that the precision guidelines say that "cities must be specified with a precision of degrees, minutes and seconds to respect historical norms" [my emphasis]), and this one moved them off the castle itself. I don't think that this is "sneaky vandalism"; the edits appear to be made in good faith, but there's such a thing as reducing coordinate precision too much. The IP seems to have gone rather overboard in his or her reading of WP:OPCOORD. Deor (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too much precision for places makes no sense. However, I think distances from Oxford are measured from Carfax, the major cross-road in the centre, not the castle. --Bduke (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the responses! I have poor knowledge of coordinates and I was uncertain about the validity of the edits. I'm sure it's done in good faith but I decided to get some input from editors more experienced with the subject. Thank you again and have a good one - Wretchskull (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heated discussion between two editors[edit]

Can an administrator perhaps keep an eye on this discussion, checking that WP:PERSONAL is not violated (too much). Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the behaviour by Dakota Allie L. there is already beyond the pale, see for instance this comment. Isabelle 🏳‍🌈 17:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was considering going to ANI myself over this if the insults continued. Funcrunch (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I left a warning. That indeed is over the line. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - You beat me to it. ;-) Some users have taken to collapse that part of the discussion - I removed it. It is full of personal attacks, and very uncivil insults, tone, and demeanor. It has absolutely no place here, hence into the "remove pile" it goes! ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Oshwah, thanks--I was wondering about that too but didn't have the time to look at it more carefully. In hindsight (20/20) I should have done that too. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - No worries! You can't be expected to do everything around here. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: I didn't think it was my place to remove the discussion, so I chose the second best option which was to hide it. Thanks for deleting it, though. Isabelle 🏴‍☠️ 03:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isabelle - No problem. The buck has to stop somewhere, right? So, I figured I'd be "that user" and do what really is needed. I really don't think anyone is going to run here and make a compelling argument as to why it should be kept. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle - Thanks for bringing this to our attention. There were a couple of editors who responded solely based out of personal emotions, thoughts, and feelings. I've responded to both of them. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah and Drmies: Unfortunately she is continuing the attacks on trans people. I recognize that she's trans herself (as am I), but this is absolutely unacceptable and I request you strongly consider a block at this point. Funcrunch (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Funcrunch - The user has been blocked for 36 hours for repeated incivility and personal attacks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 20:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: Thank you. Though based on her latest talk page remarks I think this user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. Funcrunch (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not only NOTHERE, but this flies pretty firmly in the face of the gender/sexuality discretionary sanctions. I've made the editor aware of them now, doubt they will take heed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close review - "She" for ships[edit]

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

The RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"She" for ships was closed with a consensus to change the MOS guideline, but retain usage in existing articles unless sources show such a usage is not preferred in relation to that specific ship. This close has multiple problems, and was discussed by others on the closer's talk page. I think it should be overturned to no consensus based on the following:

  1. There simply was nowhere near enough support for a change to justify a change to the guideline. Participants were very evenly divided, and neither side's arguments are much stronger than those of the other: some cite competing style guides, some cite other types of works besides style guides, arguments and counter-arguments about how this is or isn't an acceptable use of gendered language, ...: in short, nothing decisive)
  2. The proposed solution is a novel one which was not suggested or espoused by any suggested by only very few of the participants (there were plenty of arguments stating that this minor style change was not worth the trouble; and there were of course arguments to rewrite the guideline, but I fail to see much of anybody supporting both of these somewhat contradictory outcomes). As such, it would be something of a WP:SUPERVOTE - yes, probably a good faith attempt to reach a compromise, but one which had not been much discussed during the discussion, nor one around which an agreement by participants of the discussion was formed.
  3. In light of the above two, given there was no clear outcome from the discussion, and that the proposed closure is incorrect, the only proper outcome is to close this as "no consensus", because there wasn't one.

Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But perhaps the best thing to do would be to revert the non-admin close and ask for an admin close?North8000 (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: WP:NOBIGDEAL. Whether the closer was an admin or not is not, IMHO, a relevant factor. In fact, we most certainly want (experienced) non-admins to make closes when those don't require admin tools, and when they are done in a proper way (and it also serves as perfect practical training for future admins). I would not support reverting any close merely on that technicality, and I have intentionally not mentioned that in my rationale here, because I don't think it's a valid one. And even admins occasionally make bad closes (at RfCs or elsewhere), for what it's worth. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on all of that. But to argue the opposite side, from a pure closing standpoint, we're saying that it is an erroneous close. On average, an admin is less likely to to make a close in error than a non-admin, it could be the easiest most logical next step? Or to put it another way, what action would you expect from this venue? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my comment. A review here by multiple persons is a good way to go. North8000 (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your second point is incorrect; the result was suggested by a participant. Thryduulf wrote "Use "it" in most situations. "It" should be the default, but "she" should be allowed if a clear majority of recent sources (specialist or general) use that (if there is no clear majority for either, then use "it"), and obviously allow it in direct quotes. "It" is simply the overwhelming contemporary style in general sources, and Wikipedia is contemporary general purpose source. However, don't edit war and don't mass-change articles. (or nearly exactly what I said last time)." This statement aligns with what I found the consensus to be. Heartfox (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. It might have been suggested by a few participants, but it doesn't seem to have garnered the kind of support (or the significant amount of discussion) that would make it a consensus. As for comments regarding "contemporary style", there are plenty of guidelines which do not favour any style explicitly but simply say (and, experience will prove, are correct) that the simplest and most effective solution - to avoid edit wars and/or any wasteful discussions over it - is simply to stick with whatever was first present in the article (MOS:ERA, MOS:ENGVAR, ...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reclose as No Consensus largely per OP. This appears to be a remarkably poor reading of consensus. (Full Disclosure: I am INVOLVED and opposed the proposed changes to MOS.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not involved, but I agree with point #2. Also, the close contains variants of "therefore ... there is also a consensus" (etc), but their determination of consensus doesn't clearly follow from the preceding sentence, and it's not otherwise clear how the closer reached these conclusions. The closer's responses to questions/concerns on their talk isn't too illuminating, and their position seems a bit inconsistent. Unless they can explain the reasoning better here, I'd suggest they let someone else take a shot at closing it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm involved here as I supported the change and believe there was consensus for a change as discussions are not votes and all that. What I don't see is how a closer could find consensus for the change but also mandate an RFC-level discussion for every single ship article. Calidum 19:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how NOTAVOTE could justify a finding of consensus despite the lack of any clear majority here. Consensus is not determined by counting heads or counting votes, nor is it determined by the closer's own views about what action or outcome is most appropriate. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue. (from WP:CLOSE). The close does not explain why that would apply, nor can I find evidence of why that would apply. There might be a few arguments, on both sides, based purely on personal opinion - but discarding those wouldn't dramatically affect the outcome: once all the other arguments are taken into account, none are so convincing that they make others irrelevant, and none appear to have been convincing enough to a majority of the participants, either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTAVOTE applies because comments like "Why do we even need to have these discussions?", "If you don't like the English language, others are available", "We need not reduce everything to bland, flavourless, wikistyle devoid of all colour and whimsy", "Personally I see it as a bit of harmless fun", "Soon everything will be boring objects", etc., etc. should carry little weight in a discussion. Ditto for the countless reminders that the last RFC on this matter was "only" two years ago. Calidum 20:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There were invalid arguments on both sides: Support this change - it's simply plain English (editor opinion); This will change on Wikipedia eventually, it's just a matter of time (a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy?); It's outdated, plain and simple. We find both in print, but we all know which way the future is leaning (a mix of both of the above - so both forms are found in sources, but one is "outdated, plain and simple"?). Even if all such similar arguments are disregarded, there remain plenty of valid arguments on both sides, which is why it cannot be said that either has a convincing strength of argument to support it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Calidum: Where is an "RFC-level discussion" mandated? Assessing usage of one variant or another (e.g. regarding capitalisation, national variety of English, etc.) is done day in day out in informal discussions on talk pages and in RM discussions, and I don't see anything in the close that implies discussions about she vs it would or should be held to a different standard. (disclosure: I supported the change, but have not looked to see whether the close reflected consensus and so I am explicitly expressing no opinion on that). Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The closer didn't specifically refer to future article level discussions as RFCs; I'm presuming that would be the case based on how stubborn users can be before changes are implemented. To use your page move analogy, note that only controversial moves require an RM; pages can and are moved without one. An RM is not required for every single page move, and a discussion should not be required before changing every ship's pronouns. Calidum 19:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn ( I was not involved) I think there was no consensus to change. They tried to craft (or select a minority) a "middle of the road" solution, a nice move in most other venues but a super-vote in the context of a closer. Overturn either to "no consensus to change" or else to needing a new close by and experienced admin. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Along with, during the overturn, thanking the previous closer for their work and efforts. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uninvolved—ambivalent about the MOS and downright uninterested in ships!—but as I wrote earlier, bore I knew of this discussion, Considering, as the closer notes, there's only slightly more editors supporting the MOS change than those in favour of keeping the status quo, that's one helluva brave close from Heartfox; I certainly don't see—nonobstante NOTAVOTE etc—the overriding strength of arguments necessary to enable ruling in favour of the proposal.
    I.e., overturn to no consensus. No issue with the {{nac}}; per WP:NACRFC, ny non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin.But without getting into the minutaie as to whether this even was an RfC, either... SN54129 19:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per RandomCanadian and several other opposers. I have just stumbled across this, am uninvolved and don't much care how it turns out, but it seems a staggeringly inappropriate close. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I supported the change, but I don't see a consensus emerging from this discussion. Editors couldn't even come to an agreement on how to evaluate usage in sources, let alone the relative weighting of policies. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn no consensus - the conversation very much ran its course, but it's also clear there isn't any consensus unless you count votes which we don't do. Also since it seems the question changed during the discussion, and the result wasn't an outcome of the question, it all seems just wrong not even counting the no clear consensus. Canterbury Tail talk 20:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & Close as "No Consensus" - In the closer's own words: "slightly more editors supporting the MOS change than those in favour of keeping the status quo", makes it clear there was no consensus in this lengthy, (at times highly-charged) and controversial debate. (ftr I !voted) - wolf 20:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (involved comment) Overturn to no consensus - I just don't see how there is a consensus to this discussion - no argument really "won out", and there are policy-based arguments for both sides. Hog Farm Talk 20:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (involved comment) - this was a pretty clear no-consensus to me Nosebagbear (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (involved) - there is no clear consensus, with both those supporting and opposing presenting strong arguments. Further, the RfC was flawed, being led for the first four days by a non-neutral statement, during which time the majority of !voters commented - when this non-neutral statement was removed, there was a strong swing towards oppose, suggesting that the statement did predispose editors towards a specific viewpoint, meaning the RfC should be closed as no consensus on those grounds alone. BilledMammal (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or new closure by admin panel. I come to this discussion, especially this discussion, with many preconceptions. I was born in a naval hospital, lived either on base or in family quarters, raised by a senior CPO and his very CPO wife. My first job, selling Navy Times in Pearl Harbor, involved boarding as many ships as possible, selling papers and getting tipped from enlisted and commissioned adults, heroes to me. Hundreds of vessels, tens of thousands of sailors. Then my dad retired and I didn't see the ocean again for six years. For the first time I lived among non-military families. It took time to accept any such existed. Other readers will may come to these pages with preconceptions they either don't recognize, didn't announce, or refuse to confront. I don't blame them; we share different experiences. There's a reason I digress so thoroughly. This non-admin close situation massively fails both BADNAC #2 and NACPIT #1. No matter what outcome the closer came to, no matter who the single closer was, this discussion on this board was going to occur. King Solomon wouldn't close this alone. Not foreseeing that is a disqualification for closing the discussion at all. reading this discussion, preconceptions on this issue appear deep and powerful. And mostly unconscious. There are reasons why ENGVAR exists. Regional variations in the English language are not merely taught and learned, they are felt. Unconsciously. Trying to enforce New England English on an Australian is just never going to work. Salt and lubber the same. Sorry for the length of this post. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BADNAC doesn't apply to non-deletion venues. Izno (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    BADNAC and NACPIT are not policy but are part of an essay on all types of discussions, this would be a concern with the second cautionary reason to avoid with non admin closures it is still a valid point and valid reason to request an overturn of any discussion. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I've explained in my first reply above to North8000, we actually do want experienced non-admins to close discussions when possible. The problem is when the closure is not appropriate, and that happens both to admins and to non-admins. If an admin had made the exact same closure, the arguments for overturning it would be very much the same. Adminship is not a big deal, and it's not diplomatic immunity either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and do new closure by a panel. This was an extremely contentious discussion that took a lot of time and energy from editors. Given this, it's probably best to do a panel close by a few experienced discussion closers. The use of a panel should reduce the risk of a supervote. And don't forget there is WP:DFD in case the closers need a place to discuss. The board is ripe for new participation. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:F4E8:3E1B:616:B8B3 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think having a panel close is worth the effort. There plainly was no consensus: having the close reviewed by the community here is as good as any panel. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yup, that was the wrong close. Overturn to no consensus per everyone above. There's no need for a panel to look at it when the whole AN is reviewing it.—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A bear reading the style guide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)
Is that a limo? Why would a bear need a limo? She is a beaut, though — the limo, not the bear. Okay, also the bear. El_C 12:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: that's a locomotive. SN54129 13:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are locomotives also she? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Hebrew, a locomotive is a he, but a train is a she. Down with the rail patriarchy! Now, about that limo... El_C 02:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC) :Please. Hebrew is sexist. Use Theybrew. GRuban (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Und in Deutsch, "Lokomotive" is feminine and "Zug" is masculine... Same in French [words the same spelling as in English: pronunciation, of course, a whole different ball game] (which doesn't have a neuter gender). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that izno mentioned Bringing actual style guides to bear, which seemed like a good idea, so I'm doing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a cute picture. :) 2601:647:5800:1A1F:F4E8:3E1B:616:B8B3 (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (not involved) If ever there were no consensus, this is as clear an example as ever existed. - Nick Thorne talk 00:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, but not to no consensus. I kept track, there's a sizeable numerical majority for preferring it (55% to 45%, 76-63) and if I weren't involved, I'd say the our more general rules on the use of pronouns and external style use in general works prefer it, which is what our MOS takes after. Either way, it should be a full reclose, not decided ad hoc at this forum. --Izno (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that 55% is a "sizeable" majority. In the US that'd be called a swing district. And besides, discussions are not votes to begin with (and if 55% was a "sizeable" majority, there would be far less no consensus closes than there actually are...). The counterpart to what you're saying is that Wikipedia rules generally don't care about English variety or stylistic choices like that, so long the article is internally consistent; and I think there are plenty of arguments and evidence which shows that both sides of this are defensible. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:V, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors". In this case, I viewed "content" to be "she" or it", and I viewed there to be a consensus for both style guides and specialized sources as examples of "previously published information". Editors tended to argue for the legitimacy of one or the other, not that one or the other was illegitimate. I don't think multiple forms of legitimate previously published information means there is no consensus for either. People seem to be missing what the close is about. It does not ban "she"—it defers to the sources. If the relevant sources use "she" for a particular ship, then that's what could be used. Likewise for "it". But if "she" is used, it could be expressed to readers in some way why it is so, because it is an unfamiliar/confusing appellation.
All this close is about is that when "she" is used it should be clear to unspecialized readers why it is so. There was no consensus to change all "she" to "it" (as is noted in the close... I don't know what people mean when they support overturning this close to "no consensus"—this was a "no consensus" close in regard to changing all "she" to "it"). The thing is, there was a consensus that "she" for ships is an unfamiliar/confusing term to unspecialized readers/editors. I can't ignore this consensus just because it wasn't directly asked in the RfC question, which, as others have noted, was not even what guided the discussion to begin with. Heartfox (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V applies to verifiable matters of fact in articles (such as saying that HMS Victory was at Trafalgar), not ruling whether the ship is a "she" or an "it" (for the record, Victory is absolutely "she", but that's not relevant to the close challenge here), which is stylistic decisions (there are plenty of places where one would expect to diverge from sources on style if one were to follow the MOS for internal consistency). there was a consensus that "she" for ships is an unfamiliar/confusing term to unspecialized readers/editors. No there wasn't. There were plenty of valid arguments that both forms are legitimate (as evidenced by usage in different forms of reliable sources). Given that, it's simply incorrect to conclude that one of the forms is "unfamiliar" or "confusing". There was plenty of back and forth on it, but I don't see the strength of argument, or the numerical support, to establish consensus. That ships (or other inanimate objects, or other concepts which technically don't have a gender) may be referred to in the feminine is a well known quirk of the English language (as many oppose !voters at the RfC argued). That ships are referred to in the feminine in plenty of reliable sources (such as history books) is another, presented by again a fair amount of oppose !voters. These certainly seem to be valid arguments, and I don't see how they can be ignored. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus: Only a small minority of editors even touched on whether "she" is a specialised usage, so I don't see how there was any consensus on that point. And the closer admits there was no consensus to outright ban "she". (Full Disclosure: I voted against the proposed change) Ficaia (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone here dispute any of the following?
    1. Most style guides favor "it"
    2. Most editors favor "it"
    3. Our guidelines (MOS:GNL) already favor "it"
Does anyone think any of these three things will change at any point, ever? This is one of those perennial proposals where we all know it's gonna pass eventually (remember Kiev/Kyiv?), so why call 55% no consensus and delay what is obviously inevitable? (I am involved and supported the RfC.) Levivich 02:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. 1 was quite explicitly disputed by many at the RfC, of which a good share argued that style guides are not the sine qua non of usage and that plenty of sources, do, in fact, favour "she". No. 2 is, self-evidently, not correct (given the number of editors - including those who write the actual articles about ships - who actually do favour "she") and also an ad populum. No. 3 is wrong. MOS:GNL quite explicitly says Ships may be referred to using either neuter forms ("it", "its") or feminine forms ("she", "her", "hers"). Either usage is acceptable, but each article should be internally consistent and employ one or the other exclusively. - which seems quite in line with other guidelines such as MOS:RETAIN, and with the very pragmatical advice of WP:AINTBROKE. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also find the argument that "it's gonna pass eventually" entirely unconvincing. A similar RfC was proposed a couple of years ago, and the result was not different from this one: in fact many of the arguments were the same, many of the participants were the same, and the margin was also very similar. If asking the same question at 2 1/2 years interval yields basically the same answer, I don't see what justification there would be to think that asking it again in x years is going to bring about a different one. Short, of course, of the ever so popular self-fulfilling prophecy... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus". A good-faith attempt, but still a bad interpretation of consensus by the OP Original Closer. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 03:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean "by the original closer?"North8000 (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
...yes-- RockstoneSend me a message! 20:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW ACTION? seems that this discussion at least has clear consensus, can an uninvolved admin action on this? Canterbury Tail talk 12:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was coming here expecting to close this discussion but I don't think it's actually snowing. There is a clear consensus that the current close should not stand. What's not clear is if it should be straight changed to no consensus or if it should be re-closed with more recent comments in this discussion leaning towards a re-close. So I think this should probably be given another day or two to see where the discussion is at because whether it's declared a no consensus (which would also mean there's no closing statement, just a link to this discussion) or is declared in need of a new close (with no consensus being the most likely, but not only, outcome but which would have a closing statement that might be helpful for the future) does seem material to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Full disclosure: I participated, and while the closer did enact a result I favored, I cannot deny that it is difficult to read the discussion as anything except "no consensus" one way or the other. This should probably be overturned.--Jayron32 13:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn In English, a consensus is "the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons". A narrow majority is quite the opposite. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, Wikipedia's defines consensus differently. Per WP:DETCON "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Calidum 17:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      And as shown previously, the quality of arguments was here and there on both sides. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We get it, you don't like the close. Calidum 17:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because ships are female. (Unless they have expressed another preference, in which case of course we wouldn't want to upset the ships feelings.) -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reclose uninvolved, no to a two word close there is too much in that discussion for a two word close Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always possible to link to this discussion; or for whoever closes this to write a short a thoughtful summary of the concerns with the original close when it's overturned. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not good enough. The close of that discussion should cover the arguments, sources, policies, guidelines and sub issues. That is the only way to move forward with such an extensive discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt a single closer can do a better job than the community at AN (i.e. here). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - Even by the closer's own words, this was fairly evenly split, which indicates there isn't a clear consensus to make a change. Perhaps in good faith, but seems to lack the experience to close complicated RFCs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's obvious where this is going, so I'll just comment on the "good faith" part of Dennis's comment. A core tenet of this project is WP:BOLD. Intrinsic in that is the acceptance that not every bold move will be correct. When it's not, we just fix it and move on. So, @Heartfox don't feel bad. You made a good effort, and that's appreciated. If it didn't work out, well, the only way to get better is to make mistakes and learn from them, and that's how the project keeps growing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed the close now. Heartfox (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Close This Review has been open for most of two days and consensus is overwhelming. It's time to lower the curtain and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: (and everyone else, if they hadn't noticed) The closer has altered their closing statement (although I think it lacks a bolded "no consensus" somewhere). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to close this. I am not a fan of piling on once consensus is clear. The closer acted in good faith. Let's not rub salt in any wounds. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: The problem is that the closer's remarks are lenghty, and the added statement that it's now a no-consensus is in the middle of them. Shouldn't it be placed at the top or bottom, to make it more clear what the outcome was? As to rubbing salt in wounds, I don't see how a minor modification would be a slight against the closer. - wolf 05:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewolfchild: I'm not suggesting no modification. I'm suggesting that we have a very strong consensus here and it's time to close the discussion. The closer , who IMO should probably be an admin, can handle the closing statement on the RfC however they wish, consistent with the clear consensus here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but the purpose of my previous comment was not to pass judgement, or otherwise opine, about the closer, or the subject of that RfC or even this discussion. It was really just a question; don't closing statements typically begin with something like: "The result of this discussion was no consensus", (or "keep", "delete", "merge", etc. - in bold)...? It just makes it easier for people, than hunting through the closer's remarks. Anyway, like I said, just a question. And either way, this is likely my last comment here. Thanks - wolf 17:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2019 close result was neither at the beginning nor bolded. Heartfox (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merely because someone in the past did the wrong thing, doesn't bind everyone to continue to do the wrong thing forever. --Jayron32 17:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:SMI violation?[edit]

Hi everyone! I hope you're all having a great day, and that life is treating you well! :-) Is this kind of content allowed? It's zalgo text, which can cause issues with page, interface, and text rendering for some users on older browsers or hardware and in other situations. Per WP:SMI, we don't allow any kind of disruptive text or content that may interfere with the MediaWiki interface, or cause elements and content to be harder to read or navigate through. RD3 also allows for "browser-crashing or malicious HTML or CSS" to be redacted. These are the two policies / references that come to mind in regards to whether or not this user box is acceptable, but I'm wondering if this might be considered a "reach". Hence, why I am here, and my question: Is this kind of content (zalgo text) acceptable? Or do you believe that it is disruptive and, hence, should be redacted, removed, or deleted? I'd be interested in your thoughts, and I thank you in advance for sharing your input. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah seems to be capable of disrupting the interface, for example on w:en:User:BiscuitsToTheRescue it overlaps the control bar. — xaosflux Talk 02:11, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CrazyMinecart88/user zalgo opened for more input. — xaosflux Talk 02:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great link, Xaosflux - thank you! This is exactly what I'm talking about. Zalgo text, to me, is disruptive in that it disrupts the MediaWiki interface, content organization, and impacts how users interact with the page it's linked to (some users are impacted much more-so than others, of course). In the end, it serves no positive purpose, and I don't believe that it's acceptable here. But, who knows! The community may feel differently, which is why I opened a discussion here about it. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at the MFD, it can also be disruptive for screen reader users like me (see this technical village pump thread). Graham87 06:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not know whether this is related or not, but yesterday I blocked 95.58.136.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for vandalism which included inserting zalgo text to pages where it was clearly not appropriate. After this block, the user went to my Russian Wikipedia talk page (why?) and vandalised it with zalgo text twice.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ymblanter - Sounds like a really stand-up person. :-P Also, RD3'd. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a link to make clear to all what zalgo text even is... Sandstein 14:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of those of us who are technologically challenged? (I remember the first time I saw and used an electric pencil sharpener and thinking "this is the future.") -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The short version is, computer text is allowed to have lots of marks added above and below it to help support a wide array of human and (not human) languages. By using characters with lots and lots of diacritic marks, you make letters that are of unexpected height. Any software that needs to interpret these oddly made letters has choices to make, and since those choices aren't the the same between say, Firefox, Chrome, and Edge, the displayed result can be unexpected. In general, it isn't malicious. But, poor software can't handle it well. This can lead to broken appearing interfaces in some cases. 107.115.5.118 (̤̤̤ẗ̤̤̤̤̈̈̈alk̤̤̤̤̈̈̈̈) 08:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal[edit]

Can somebody please take a look at IP editor 2409:4043:2D1E:7B71:8EC0:BAC1:D440:2742, who just vandalised the coin noticeboard for some reason. NOT here to do good work anyway. scope_creepTalk 06:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep - Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned user. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns about UPE (renamed from Misuse of powers)[edit]

The page Draft:BoAt Lifestyle is already accepted twice in AFC submission, but still, the page is been sent back to draft by Hatchens who is already been warned in past [20]. Initially, I thought he is admin, but he is not. Its a clear way to create a deadlock and disruption of Wikipedia. It seems like I should not submit any page in AFC in future due to such improper draftification. I am Sorry.Rickinmorty (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rickinmorty; Thank you!, I acknowledge the tag and talk page update. The page was draftified by me becauase you reverted Praxidicae's draftification move and moved it back to mainspace without waiting for an another AfC review. Besides that, you have 109 103 edits in your history so how come you know to use "Draft re cat" script? Well, will wait for others' opinion and then I'll chip in further. - Hatchens (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is that User:Nomadicghumakkad accepted the draft in this edit. He should not have done that: it wasn't ready for mainspace. There's scope for scrutiny of Nomadicghumakkad's other AfC passings, I think, because his standards are pretty far from where mine would be. I think Hatchens was right to re-draftify.—S Marshall T/C 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with S Marshall on this which is why I draftified it in the first place. I'm not going to fully debate the merits of said article here but the sources are piss poor - mostly press releases, dubious and unreliable blackhat SEO outlets and WP:MILL. I too question Nomadicghumakkad's AFC editing but I don't have the mental or physical energy to bring it to a noticeboard myself. I also don't know where this recent idea i'm seeing everywhere came from, but AFC is not insulation against deletion. CUPIDICAE💕 17:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also I am skeptical of the creators motivations here as well, but that's for COIN. That being said, I find it funny that several of the sources are just copies of one another and generally written by the same "author". CUPIDICAE💕 17:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that this article has been created by multiple sock farms in the past (User:Northern Escapee and User:Agastya11) and has been moved to various titles and is likely tied to WP:UPE.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets not get distract. The question and topic of this thread is about draftifying. Praxidicae draftification was fair. But Harchens draftification was against policy. In WP:DRAFT it is written, A page may only be moved unilaterally to the draftspace a single time. If anyone objects, it is no longer an uncontroversial move, and the page needs to be handled through other processes, such as deletion, stubbing, tagging, etc. It had been moved to draft a single time already. So it is against policy to draftify again. They should have deleted it. No one is saying AFC is insulation. It is not even the point. The point is wrong draftification and going against policy even after being warned. The current draft is well sourced with neutral language. Rickinmorty (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that, after all of the comments here in this thread, Hatchens' move to draft space is no longer unilateral. You say we shouldn't get distracted, but that means you're asking us to look at the more minor issue here and ignore the bigger issue. It's a "beam in your own eye vs. the mote in someone else's" kind of thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) When you bring an issue to ANI, you can expect all aspects of the issue to be examined. In this case, I see an article that has a long history of socking and UPE editing created with full referencing markup by an editor with two previous edits. Add that to the creation of several articles of individuals of dubious notability, and it's not surprising that editors and AfC reviewers who deal with paid editing day in and day out have reservations about your drafts. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to be that person, but does anyone else find the timestamps suspicious here? We have first submission template added, the eventual first reviewer editing the article 9 minutes after that, then after another intervening edit by OP, accepting it 8 minutes later. For the second go-round, we have the submission for review here, and then acceptance the very next minute? I'm not super familiar with the AfC standards and timelines, so if that's not weird or suspicious, fair enough. But that doesn't sound legit to me. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Writ Keeper you're not wrong and it is all very suspect, including Nomadic's acceptance but also Behind the moors which is without a doubt another paid account. There are multiple firms taht operate accounts like this that manage to get AFC (and some even NPR) that get paid to literally accept spam articles. I can say with certainty that BTM is one of those accounts. CUPIDICAE💕 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The creating an article one word at a time to balloon edit count certainly is suspicious. This seems like EC gaming at the very least. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[21] [22] [23] Well this is no good. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And here's the accepting reviewer, participating in the same AfD as Northern Escapee - a sock who previously edited Draft:BoAt Lifestyle.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like it might need a checkuser. Draft:PharmEasy seems to be another example like Draft:BoAt Lifestyle ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PharmEasy is absolutely some UPE garbage. I wish I could find where I saved the adver for Boat Lifestyle...CUPIDICAE💕 20:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Especially odd on an article that needs a random capital letter to avoid the logs at Draft:Boat Lifestyle. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to reveal too much but this is known to many of us who are active in identifying UPE/spam wrt these firms operations. This and this (the last vote is from another Sanketio sock just like Ponyo linked) and this are another excellent example like what Ponyo pointed out. Unfortunately CU isn't often reliable in these cases because 1.) it is often numerous people because it's part of a firm and 2.) the location where they're coming from is a shitshow CU wise (for lack of a better description.) It flies under the radar when paid editors vote delete in articles, because well, why would someone get paid to do that? Here's the reason: it's usually a competitors job/awarded offer and because they bid on it, at least on Freelancer and some other sites, they can see who the client actually is. CUPIDICAE💕 20:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And of course this gem which includes both the reviewers in question agreeing with each other...CUPIDICAE💕 20:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I've blocked Behind the moors and GA99 as related accounts (whether it be closely-connected WP:MEAT or the same person). I think the issues with Nomadicghumakkad need to approached from a different angle. There have been concerns raised regarding their acceptance of articles not ready for article space and overlap with a number of UPE sock accounts, but they're not technically related to Behind the moors/GA99. As Prax mentions above, CU is a shitshow when it comes to this extensive web of UPE.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ponyo: then you ought to look at this particular AfD 1 where Nomadicghumakkad's "miraculous AfC approval" had been discussed (as far as I can recall, it was the same situation as explained above by Writ Keeper, pinging TheAafi for more clarity) and then have a look at the RattanIndia's current edit history, where GA99 and Sonofstar are the common denominators. A similar AfD 2, where Cunard is a common denominator when checked with RattanIndia's edit history and Afd 3 where Nomadicghumakkad and Chess are common denominators. Besides that, what is the most common activity among all these IDs? They all work on substandard company pages; do controversial edits, execute controversial AfC approvals (No idea of NPP), if pages are nominated for AfD, then they try to twist the narrative like in this AfD 4, where Cunard and Inchiquin are the common denominators. Now, if we connect the dots, in each above mentioned AfDs, one can find three editors (Nomadicghumakkad, Chess and Rickinmorty) who have dragged me to ANI on 3 different occasions - 1st one, 2nd one and this is the 3rd one; based on self-twisted interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and in some cases, playing the victimization card. This coordinated targeting makes the whole matter quite apprehensive. Despite knowing all this (also knowing about controversial AfC approval of Draft:BoAt Lifestyle), I decided to follow Timtrent's advise and tried to stay away from it... till they openly challenged Praxidicae's draftification on the basis of past two "controversial" AfC approvals. - Hatchens (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. To me that was a well enough judged action. Different actions are available, of course, but this one has worked and brought it to the fore. Nothing else to add here except "Please can we slam the sock drawer shut on their fingers?" 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had no plans to come back any time soon but looks like I must (once again justifying, sigh.). These notes are for the closing admin and not a response to any editor. I do not intend to justify to other editors or engage in arguments since these conversations cause me undue anxiety.

Boat was reviewed/accepted with several other submissions made by same editor. Check the interaction here [24]. After Praxi moved it to drafts, I suspected if I was wrong in my review and reached out to Highking to discuss it along with another page that I had draftified. Check here [25]. They didn't give a positive response to my perspective of notability, hence left it in the drafts. What happened post that, none of my business. I didn't even want to come online for a long time.

Pharmeasy is not really garbage. If we see the talk page Draft talk:PharmEasy, notability was discussed and it was agreed that it is notable. Frankly, my understanding of notability has been mostly okay. Also, at times, it hasn't been (just like for other reviewers) and I have agreed and disagreed with folks - all of which is a part of the process. At times, there have been loops of understanding where I first thought it was notable, then thought it wasn't and nominated for deletion and then AFD resulted in Keep, indicating that my first review was indeed correct, at Falguni Nayar.

If I accept articles and others feel it was not the right move, NPP reviewers (or others) can nominate them for deletion. That's why that layer exists. Notability, as much as we choose to believe, is not black and white. Hope this helps. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Does this whole matter belong at SPI, then? N.B. I personally am convinced that Cunard isn't a sock or meat puppet but a good faith, highly inclusionist, highly prolific participant at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Cunard? How did his name come up? SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In Hatchens' post, above: suspicion exists because he's said keep in AfDs where alleged UPE editors said keep.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No way Cunard is a sock or in league with those guys. He's one of the better wikipedians out there even if (when) we don't see eye-to-eye. I don't see any real connection between Cunard or any other editor and the overlap with those editors is small. HighKing++ 20:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is *any* issue with a draftification, put it back in mainspace and AfD it. Use of draftspace and AfC is *optional*. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But you can see why it's attractive to UPE editors. By using AfC they can select who the patroller is.—S Marshall T/C 09:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    COI editors are told to use AfC. UPE editors are told to disclose. Regardless, a disputed draftification goes to AfD, not AN. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with SJ. In the case of Draft:BoAt Lifestyle, this is an interesting submission. First declined and rejected by RPSkokie, and then all of a sudden Nomadic approves it, with which Prax disagrees, hence the submission is draftified again, though I believe it should have been straight away sent to AfD. Following this, it is once again approved by, now blocked, Behind the moors and then again draftified by Prax. Rickinmorty shouldn't have engaged in move-warring, but instead heard what Prax was telling them. If Hatchens reverts their false-move to mainspace, I don't see a problem with this. A little note, before blaming someone of misusing powers, did you try using your own powers in a legit way? Moving a rejected/declined AfC submission again and again to mainspace isn't something good.─ The Aafī (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hatchens being hatchens. Sudshare - I nominated it myself for deletion after accepting since I was not sure of notability. This approach was suggested by Tim. I didn't even vote there. Rattan has been discussed so much. Nothing to add except that it was notable indeed. I see GA99 (now blocked) recreated Rattan for the reasons only known to them. My guess would be that they recognized it was notable and might help with a good AFC record. Nonetheless, I don't control how others behave. From the logic I read above, any two editors voting same are sock of each other (My guess is that I would have participated in around a 1000 AFDs). I am not sock to any one. Clearly, people have problem with my AFC accepts (all of them have been scrutinized by Hatchens twice and they nominated some that they found problematic for deletion. Some were kept, some were not; we all did learn something new though). But since, there are these suspicions and doubts on my quality of work, I have asked to give up my AFC rights [26]. If admins feel there is substance in the arguments, against me, they can take actions they seem fit. I don't have a good feeling about hatchens though. I had analyzed them some time back but left it there for my own mental peace. But, I think I should raise these problematic NPP or accepts since they keep finding problems in my work. Editors can interpret this as they like
  1. Koenig Institute - NPP done by Hatchens. Zero notability as a company. Promo page.
  2. Prasun Chatterjee - AFC + NPP (Concerning)? No notability. An AIIMS doctor who did some charity. Their book has no reception. Created by a blocked user.
  3. Nikhil Kamath - AFC + NPP(?). Didn't have his own notability. Was moved to Praxi as a redirect to Zerodha with a remark 'not remotely close to being independently notable'. I had asked about this one before but they didn't respond then as well.
  4. Jawad Sharif - AFC + NPP. Created by utmost clear SPA. Hatchens didn't event put a COI tag there.
  5. I. M. Kadri - AFC. Created by clear SPA. The draft was accepted in state that is far from WP:NPOV.
  6. Everstone Group - AFC. Created by clear SPA. Didn't put any COI/UPE tag. Accepted in pathetic promo condition.

I think I can find more but this is sufficient to show that as an AFC/NPP editor, there are problems. We should see their allegations against me accepting COI/UPE/Substandard pages in light of their own accepts/work.

About AFD voting, I am sure if I find some time, I can find the patterns in their voting that they are making allegations of. 

Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomadicghumakkad, Thank you for the highlights and the Afd tags. So, let there be a natural process ahead. Now whatever reply I'll put it would not make any difference at your end because of you being in a "revenge mode" and showing your "true color" out of "sheer desperation". But, since its an ANI and I'm duty bound to give an appropriate reply;
  • Let's start with Koenig Institute. Yes, the institute is notable because it got extensively covered in various media outlet such as Al Jazeera, Foreign Policy, Fortune etc for its involvement in the training of one of the most significant whistleblowers in the history of mankind. As long as the page is outwardly not a promo page and documents a very important moment of the history then I've no issue with accepting it with my NPP rights.
  • Prasun Chatterjee; satisfies WP:THREE - The New Indian Express, Business Standard, The Hindu (the last one is an interview, but since its with WP:THEHINDU/WP:RSP).
  • Nikhil Kamath, accepted it but redirected by Praxidicae to Zerodha. They are the authority and I accept their assessment. If I had been paid editor like Nomadic and having an army of UPEs, then I would had had tried to influence the outcome with second attempt, third attempt or nth attempt.
  • Jawad Sharif; satisfies WP:THREE - The Wire, The Dawn, The News, The Nation (the last one is an interview).
  • I. M. Kadri, accepted it as per the list of his architectural work and many of them have their Wikipedia pages. Besides that, kindly refer to the talk page Talk:I. M. Kadri, where I clearly put a statement - "I've accepted the draft. But, the review part, I will let it pass to more experienced editor or an editor who has the required subject matter expertise."
  • Everstone Group, on September 30, 2020, I was the one who had put up for an AfD tag on Everstone and reasons are quite well-defined. And, on March 14, 2021... it was me only who accepted this article through AfC and I gave a proper reason for acceptance at the Talk:Everstone_Group - "Six months ago, I myself nominated this company's article for an AfD discussion. At that time, the entity's page was purely promotional (WP:PROMO), was lacking credible citations as per the WP:RSP list and top of that series of WP:SOCKS were involved. Today, I accepted this draft on the basis of its content which satisfies WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RSP, WP:THREE... in true sense. If anyone agree otherwise, I'm open for it."
Now comes the very important but a genuine question, and please do correct me... if an editor has an AfC reviewing rights with NPP rights? Can they use it in tandem? or is there any reservation on it?
By the way, If there had been a disturbing pattern, then you would had brought it to ANI way before... to save your skin. But its ok, just take your time. Unlike you, I know my editing history quite well and I believe it will itself speak for myself.
Others should duly note, Nomadicghumakkad, out of "sheer desperation" is now indulging in revenge based Afd tagging - Koenig Institute AfD, and Prasun Chatterjee AfD. I have no idea how we should account such behavior in LIVE ANI discussion. However, if its valid, then I'm OK with it. - Hatchens (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am only doing what you have always done with me when I have tried to question you, go and AFD my accepts. I haven't tagged my associates (like you tagged Aafi) because I don't have any.
  1. If you thinkKoenig Institute meets, WP:CORPDEPTH, I don't even know what to say anymore. I'd like other experienced editors and admins to note that Hatchens feel this page meets CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited. CORPDEPTH requires independent analysis, discussion and commentary on the subject. This could have been a mention on the whistleblower page and not more than that.
  1. Prasun Chatterjee - Did you see that BS is a PTI release? It contains a not below: (This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.) I'd like other experienced editors and admins to note that Hatchens tried to provide a PTI feed as a source to establish notability. Do they understand what 'independent sources' mean?
  1. Nikhil Kamath - so if you accept Praxi's decision to redirect, you are fine. But if I accept their decision to let BoAT remain in draft, I am still a paid editor? You do agree you made a mistake then? Your mistakes are forgiven and mine are not? I still don't buy that if you do unerstand notability guidelines, you accepted AND NPP it.
  1. Jawad, I. M. Kadri - my question is not about notability. You clearly saw this is an SPA. Undeclared COI and possible UPE. I'd like experienced editors and admin to note that they still accepted them without (a) asking the editors to declare COI (b) putting a COI tag. In short, they accepted a SPA/COI article without flagging it.
  1. Everstone - I did pretty much same with Sudshare. So what I did is problematic but what you did is not?
  1. Looking at creator of Koenig Institute and Hatchens, They both have edited Fore School of Management at time gap of 23 minutes [27]. Creater of Koening RPSkokie is a major contributor to this page, adding a lot of non-NPOV content. Hatchens had moved it to drafts but were suddenly later okay with it. I see the page was closed as non-consensus in a recent AFD where Hatchens put a tag so they were aware this was happening. If they were okay with it, why they didn't put a keep there? I will further check the records of SPSkokie and the editor who finally accepted it.

AFC reviewers can NPP their own drafts. There is no rule against it but it is discouraged because the whole point of NPP is to provide an additional layer of review. The question is, you did AFC + NPP at Prasun Chatterjee (created by now blocked editor) AND Nikhil Kamath. I see this as an attempt to have them not appear in NPP feed so that it can slide by. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomadicghumakkad, kindly note, you and I both are in ANI not at any regular AfD discussion. Let the competent authorities judge our editing history and behavior. If they find anything on me which compromises the very tenet of Wikipedia, then I'm ready accept their decision without a fuzz. And, please kindly keep your sassy fights with you only. - Hatchens (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. I am only replicating your own past behaviors my friend. If you think I am a paid editor because you feel my accepts are sub-standard or the creators had COI/UPE, yours are clearly very same. Yours is next level - doing AFC AND NPP to COI pages to make them disappear from the feed altogether. Or, we agree that editors can have different perspectives of notability and they can be both right and wrong. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS: My request to give up AFC rights was accepted and I have been relieved from my AFC duties :) I encourage Hatchens to do the same till it is cleared. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

  • The difficulty with a lot of these sources is well explained in our article on Paid news in India. For anyone who hasn't read that recently, the executive summary is: (1) Most Indian news sources provide positive coverage for pay; and (2) They don't disclose when they've done it. This practice is rotten to the core, and it means that we as Wikipedians can't accept most news sources based in India as reliable. There are of course honourable exceptions, notably The Hindu and The Indian Express.
    This is deeply unfair on India because it means that we describe the US using American sources, and the United Kingdom using British sources, but we describe India using sources from Western democracies. We call this unfairness "systemic bias". But we can't make it any better without breaking our own rules on sourcing.
    This culture of paying for positive coverage also goes some way to explaining how many complaints about UPE we get about India-related topics.—S Marshall T/C 14:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! I was not aware of this. Shocking. @Fowler&fowler: background request. El_C 14:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can the interlocutors here, or should I say, "the interlockers," i.e. those whose horns of mind and tongue are interlocking, please describe in a short paragraph what is the nub of the issue? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there may be multiple WP:UPEs who have infiltrated AFC review and NPP and battle it out for their employers against other UPEs through article creation and article deletion, and the possibility of pay-for-coverage in Indian media further complicates the issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler Ok, summarizing the whole thing... I've been accused for "Misuse of Powers" at Draft:BoAt Lifestyle by Rickinmorty. But, the discussion had taken a turn towards blaming and counter blaming exercise between Nomadicghumakkad and me - mutually suspecting each other to be UPE/COI editors. So, I voluntarily submit myself for a background check. - Hatchens (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going to rephrase this a bit. Started with Rick blaming Hatchens for improper draftifying. It then shifted where Folks pointed out that my accept for BoAT was not right. I showed them how after it was draftified, I discussed it with Highking and since they didn't give a positive response, I left it in the drafts. After that, they made further allegations on my editing. I demonstrated that the allegations they make, they do have same (and worse) behaviours. So, yeah, I guess that's where we are. 15:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomadicghumakkad (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a question for both @Hatchens: and @Nomadicghumakkad: A very large number of your edits are in start class articles, or stubs. Do you create those pages or simply fatten them up a little? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Generally I create and work on WP:NRHP articles which are sometime borderline start or stub class articles. But, recently I tried my hand in creating two Ukraine-focused articles. When it comes other stubs and start pages, its either marginal expansion to average expansion (if its possible) or most of the time, its either AfC review or NPP review work where newly launched pages are generally of these categories (start or stub) only. - Hatchens (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fowler's expertise in India-related matters is widely respected but it's not obvious to me why ElC pinged them here. I think that what's needed is close scrutiny of editor intersections in India-related articles at AfC, in the light of jobs advertised on Freelancer and, likely, other boards like Freelancer.—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think El C was looking for verification that paying for media coverage was commonplace in India. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, I wanted confirmation, first and foremost (+ a bit of historical background on this new-to-me phenomenon). Was just trying to express that politely to you, S Marshall, is all. El_C 18:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, there's something suspicious about Hatchens that should not be mentioned here for OPSEC reasons. It is a huge red flag, but I don't have enough evidence of spamming or accepting spam to block. MER-C 16:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally don't work on contemporary India, actually contemporary anything, so I tend not to use newspapers for sourcing, Indian, British, or American. My learned (i.e. learnt in IE) knowledge of both Urdu and Hindi, such as it is, means that I have to work doubly hard to understand the content, sometimes to play TV reports again and again, or read newspaper reports again and again, like a child. But once I understand, I do have a pretty good idea of the nuances.
It's true that many media outlets in India have caved in to the pressure brought to bear by the government in the last half a dozen years. But quite a few have not. Not just, The Hindu and a lesser extent the Indian Express, but also the Calcutta Telegraph and Statesman, and maybe the Deccan Chronicle, the Urdu The Siasat Daily. On TV, many people stand out, such as the Magsaysay Award-winner Ravish Kumar at NDTV's Hindi, the very articulate Urdu-Hindi presenter Arfa Khanum Sherwani on The Wire TV, NDTV's English Nidhi Razdan, or The Wires English Karan Thapar. They seem to be people of great integrity who I doubt could be bribed to spin a story your way. The last-named, though, a stiffish holdover from the Raj, should be bribed with some of that which Bill Clinton did not inhale, for his own sake that is, not a story's.
There are quite a few magazines or online newspapers, such as Caravan, The Wire, Outlook, and Scroll, which too seem impervious to the charms of money. And there is the famous Pakistani newspaper Dawn which routinely carries stories on India written by Indians. The government probably doesn't care about them too much as its main support base is not English-literate, at least not at a level of comfort to make it their first choice for news. I did understand what El_C was looking for. I was asking the disputants the questions I was to get a feel for the kinds of news stories we are talking about, whether they were even in the pale of what these reporters or programs report on and I read. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My more philosophical question to these editors is: Why? Why would you create stub after stub and expect others to pick up after you? There are thousands of topics, that traditional encyclopedias care about, that lie withering on India-related WP. Off the top of my head I can think of Alfred High School (Rajkot), Pye-dog, Bhola Paswan Shastri, Chettiar, or Goshan, that await fattening up ... Why then such additions? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're not paid to give a shit about those articles. Now, bear in mind, most of this comes from my experience working #wikipedia-en-help on IRC, where about 50-60% of users I've (attempted to) help have been from the Subcontinent, but these users generally have a monomania for their particular article, are resistant to any explanations as to why their sources are useless, (usually) have not disclosed, and very quick to try to justify their garbage article by pointing to poor articles, many of which predate 2011 and have lain mouldering in a corner. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hatchens and Nomadicghumakkad: I wasn't implying you are paid editors. At least I have no evidence one way or another. I did want to get a feel though for why you might prefer articles about these companies, to those such as the ones I mention above, or below. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Fowler, I created a lot of short articles at the starting of my journey. It's a good question that you ask - why create stubs and expect someone to pick them up. I had this dilemma myself - to contribute to existing articles or create new. I saw it from a reader point of view. So many readers look at Wikipedia for reliable information. Adding articles, for me, meant adding more topics for people to read, even if they were small. The length of the article also depends on the available sources. I am on the conservative side of WP:VER where I prefer to source everything from a good quality source (I also reject a lot of articles if they don't meet WP:VER and have been criticized for it). So sometimes, if you don't have a lot of sources, you might not have a big article. This was specifially true for some topics I picked from Women in Red project. Also, I have almost never classified any accepted article in a class better than start. I think again, I am conservative when i think of what a Class A article quality should look like. I don't prefer articles about these companies. I review them as part of my work as an AFC reviewer. They get flagged more often because WP:NCORP is a complicated policy and there can be polarizing interpretation of it. I have said this many times before, we pick and choose the part of policies that appeal to us. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I'm not into curating company articles. In fact, I'm more into reviewing them. And, with time, approvals of those drafts/articles (either at AfC or NPP) are low - mainly, because of semantics, doubtful sources, and getting seasoned. So, what I look at is one or more historical events or any independently verifiable events associated with those entities which are widely reported in the portals listed in RSP - but at the same time, satisfying other important criteria such as NCORP, NPOV, ORGIND, etc. Whenever I'm in doubt, I always ask for guidance from more senior and seasoned editors - many times they agree and disagree. But, when it comes to taking a call, I generally rely on HighKing (for policy-based assessment), TheAafi (for policy-based assessment as well as verifying the Indian sources), and Timtrent (for holistic guidance). Besides that, in recent times, it's extremely rare on my end...taking unilateral decisions on company pages (especially when it comes to "acceptance"). When I look at Indian or any South Asian subject/entity, they all are treated on par with any other western subject/entity (as long as the text is written in English). As far as Indian/South Asian/Asian sources are concerned, I would refrain from passing any comment because of this August 2020 incident. After that (incident), I constantly relied on local Indian/Asian editors for an unbiased assessment. - Hatchens (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are being a little unfair to India, and other non-Western countries, in that we are very quick to discard many media outlets on the basis of a few bad apples, but we tend to regard the bad apples in the West as simply aberrations in otherwise reliable media. My view is that the best way to approach this is to follow WP:NOT#NEWS and to treat news reports, wherever they originate from, as the primary sources that any historian would tell you that they are. From previous discussions it seems that I am almost alone in that regard and that Wikipedia will continue to treat news reports as secondary sources, although nobody else does so. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the idea that this is "a few bad apples" doesn't withstand the weight of sources in paid news in India. I was clear that there are honourable exceptions, but nevertheless, I think it's well established that both politicians and businesses pay news outlets for positive coverage in Indian news sources, and the Indian news sources don't disclose their financial relationship with their client. We allow WP:THEHINDU and WP:INDIANEXP, and Fowler gives other examples above, but if we haven't specifically evaluated them as reliable, then we've got to treat them as unreliable. We do deprecate sources from Western democracies as well.—S Marshall T/C 07:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding to what is being discussed about paid news in India: it is a real problem but finally many publications have started to create a distinction. I remember seeing Business Standard flagging paid articles as BS Marketing Initiative, India today writing impact feature or something like that. For me, red flag with paid news is seeing an all praises article for biographies or companies. I think no good journalist will forgo objectivity when writing pieces. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Devine[edit]

I have been blocked to make further changes to my bio.
This is totally unacceptable:
- have had to make corrections to errors made by others.
- because of my public profile have attracted attention from hostile individuals who have removed information which has been validated in sources and recorded in bio to substantiate all information.
- this is the second time I have been subjected to this behaviour.
- I am now 76 years and not well.My recent changes to the bio have been to ensure my family have an accurate record of my career and achievements after my death.
- how can I be assured that this disgraceful unwarranted online aggression will cease with immediate effect?

Professor Emeritus Sir Tom Devine University of Edinburgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:1394:9C00:A887:AD76:C6A:5590 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you seem to misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. If you want to keep records for your family, I suggest you find a more appropriate place to do so. Meanwhile, it is down to Wikipedia to decide what it thinks is appropriate in a biography: an article about the subject, rather than one created on their behalf. Having looked at the article in question earlier, I'm inclined to agree with suggestions that it was over-filled with information about awards etc, and lacking in substantive content which gave much in the way of an indication of what the awards were for. A biography of a distinguished historian ought surely to concentrate on their work, and on its critical reception, if it is to serve as any sort of historical record. Or even just as an explanation for the casual reader as to who the subject is, and why they keep getting awards...AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also the thread on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. [28] It appears that there is work being done to rectify some of the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, Andy--thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor who tagged the article for a promotional tone, and raised it at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and I had tried to tone down some of the language in it. I would like to assure Professor Devine that I have no hostility or animus against him, simply a desire to see the article conform to Wikipedia's standards. Indeed, one of the things I want to see in it is more in-depth information about his work over the years - the work that has led to him receiving so many awards. We want to know about it and its importance! Wikipedia is not the place however for an encomium, however well-deserved, and we do have strict rules about editing articles about yourself. I do appreciate how frustrating it can be for an editor unversed in our ways, and I hope the Professor makes use of Talk:Tom Devine to make constructive suggestions for the article. He may find it helpful to create an account, as that would, I think, make constructive communication between himself and other editors easier. DuncanHill (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tom Devine. I am the admin who responded to the alert and who issued the block. Please note that this block is only partial. It does not prevent you from editing the article talk page, only the article itself. A discussion page which you are welcome to engage, with suggestions, corrections or anything else (you can also use the edit request procedure). Incidentally, I, too, am an historian, and though not familiar with your body work, it looks both impressive and interesting. Best wishes, El_C 02:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it depressing when we get a "Do you know who I am!?" in a signature that holds a complaint. I woudl like to remind Tom Devine that even our founder has the same status in terms of his person in rank and status here, save for certain administration tasks, as does the least of our editors. I am sorry for your health conditions, Tom Devine. Wikipedia has no interest in what continues to be represented after your death nor in what you wish to say about yourself.

    Wikipedia does care about what is recorded about you in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources, and also has some interest in peer reviewed papers authored by you as references. It also cares about statements that disparage. "how can I be assured that this disgraceful unwarranted online aggression will cease with immediate effect?" is one of these. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 07:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a reminder that Prof Devine is a public figure of some significance in Scotland, and we have no confirmation that the IP editor actually is him: this could be an LTA joe job, or an attempt to publicly discredit him (think of the newspaper headlines - Tom Devine blocked from editing his own Wikipedia article). Prof Devine - if that is you, you can create an account and disclose your identity by following the guidance at WP:REALNAME - essentially, you would need to send an e-mail to [email protected] from your University of Edinburgh e-mail account, making the connection between you and the account. Girth Summit (blether) 13:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good advise. That's why I protected as WP:BLP, above all else, because we don't have actual confirmation. A matter which Uncle G's account of various long term problems further exacerbate. El_C 13:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Special:Diff/882335501 is a VRT confirmed edit request. Special:Diff/879550033/880776087 is one of these London-geolocating IP6 addresses making the referred to edits on the 29th. I really really want this to be an impersonation. But it was already good enough to fool info-en if so. Uncle G (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh no. @Bluerasberry: courtesy ping. El_C 14:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hello, I was the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team agent who responded by private email in the ticket at Talk:Tom Devine. This was in 2019, but as I review the ticket, I do not think anything about the VRT response should be a factor in deciding next steps. VRT was just the process by means of which a user got a message posted to the talk page. Wikipedia editors and reviewers can respond as if the user had posted the talk page message themselves. Unless someone has further questions I think my part in this as messenger is resolved. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • You put "from article subject" in your section heading. That's the relevant part. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Uncle G: I did not do any identity verification. If you would like to discuss the process of identity verification then I would join you at Wikipedia:Identity verification. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information seems more appropriate. Part and parcel of not identifying people is not misidentifying them, either. As you had not checked, you definitely should not have stated this person to be the "article subject" under the banner of VRT, twice, explicitly associating the article subject with two IP addresses. Look at the consequences. You almost got the real Tom Devine embroiled in the academic equivalent of stolen valour, and edits like Special:Diff/1057479562. As I said above, I really really wanted this to be impersonation. The geolocation and the sheer abysmal quality of the writing made me want it so. Your misidentification of a public figure as an editor, under the VRT banner, outweighed that. And coming back with with effectively "Oh, I just passed the message on. I'm out!" and only when pressed telling us that you didn't check, is not right. You laundered an impersonator into "the subject of this article" through VRT. We're supposed to be able to trust that VRT people don't do this with identifications. Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admin (or experienced editor) required to close new inactivity requirements RfC[edit]

A week ago, it was suggested that Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Request for comment on administrator activity requirements could be closed, with no serious objections. Could somebody who hasn't taken part in the debate do so? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closed, as relatively straight forward.Slywriter (talk) 13:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, this RFC has passed, the new requirements will be enforced starting in January 2023. This will be included in WP:ADMINNEWS. — xaosflux Talk 13:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this gets some publicity in the Signpost and Admins' Newsletter. This is a big change for inactive or relatively inactive admins. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying I can't just write a quick hello to WJBscribe once every few years anymore? The nerve! 😾 El_C 11:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz there's going to be a seperate talk page message for all admins about this change. If you're interested in weighing in on the wording we're having that discussion here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request about user message for MediaWiki:Sitenotice[edit]

Hi. Can You add this user message or similar for MediaWiki:Sitenotice with this text content:

Your RFC comment, on a one-time change of up to 3+% of all articles in the Main space, is welcome.

How long time period? Minimal one week, maximal 2 week.

Source of count page changes: User:Dušan_Kreheľ/Merging_simple_identical_references_by_bot#Impact_on_enwiki.

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dušan Kreheľ this might be better off at WP:CENT than as a site notice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Now, this request on MediaWiki:Sitenotice is not actual. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:00, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:HitBlitzKrieg[edit]

Need a second opinion on this user name. I was tempted to block immediately (a "soft" one), but it's early and I don't want to make such a decision before I have more coffee. Drmies (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: NinjaRobotPirate, if you're around, I'd like for you to run CU, where you will find a rangeblock you placed last year for "block evasion"--perhaps you remember something. You will also find a brand-new account there without any edits, and an earlier account but no valid ALT account reason that I can see (but with an interest in Nazi aces), so I think we're headed toward a bunch of CU blocks. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no admin, but their edits look constructive, and there's enough listings at Blitzkrieg (disambiguation) where it doesn't necessarily have to be related to something bad. I'd be tempted to let it ride until something with their editing posed a problem or suggested a link. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Eh, not seeing it here. If that's the case then we have a lot of users that need to be softblocked for having BlitzKrieg in their name. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We do? That's not funny. Drmies (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Wikipedia:List_users. Couple hundred it looks like. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RickinBaltimore, I'd rather not--thanks... But two names of that list "are" this user. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That in itself is a different story then. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blitzkrieg is not a Nazi term, it was a term coined by the media describing a military tactic first utilized by the German military. I would not support it being flagged as a Nazi term. Blitzkrieg is not inherently evil or discriminatory in any fashion. Unless the user has been making any nonconstructive edits I see no reason for any sort of block. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 15:14, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear--Myth of the clean Wehrmacht, again. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing about war crimes of the German military during the period of the Nazi regime nor do I deny they ever committed any. I simply said Blitzkrieg is a military tactic, it is not a war crime or atrocity on to itself. Please do not put meaning into my words that I did not say. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Blitzkrieg is not a Nazi term" - The article for Blitzkrieg is in the Category:Nazi terminology cat. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help that someone miscategorized it and would argue that it does not belong in that category. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:34, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Schwarzkopf's left hook in the Gulf War is commonly described as a Blitzkrieg attack, as are other amassed quick attacks. It also see a lot of usage outside of it's original meaning, including Metallica's "Blitzkrieg" and the Ramones "Blitzkrieg Bop". It ascribe it solely to the Nazi operations of WW2 is a very narrow view. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would not be the first time nor the last time a wrong (or at least questionable) category was placed in an article. "Blitzkrieg" is an extension of the existing concept of Bewegungskrieg (maneuver warfare, which was not something particularly new by the time WW2 came around: what was new was its implementation with modern technology - although there again, if we're speaking of "Wehrmacht" and "myths", Drmies, a more à propos link in this particular instance would be something like this). But that's really a discussion for the article talk page and not for AN. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, they seem to be the same user that previously went by the nick User:RossiLeone, but as there is no overlap in time and the previous editor is not blocked, this isn't really an issue (though then they shouldn't pretend to be new[29]). A name with "blitzkrieg" in it, while not in the best of taste, is not blockable: the combination with "Hit" immediately makes one think of Hitler though, which puts it closer to the border between acceptable and unacceptable. If I were them, I would rename my account. Fram (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On English Wikipedia, there are two major socks on that ISP. The first one is a genre warrior who often edits 1980s New Wave music. The other one disruptively edits the critical reception of Hollywood films. It's like a two-for-one special whenever you do a range block on that ISP because there's so little collateral damage, and that's what almost all of my blocks on that ISP are about. @LuchoCR: User:HitBlitzKrieg is a  Confirmed sock puppet of User:RossiLeone, who you blocked on es.wiki. User:BlitzkriegOle, too, but there are no edits to es.wiki (or en.wiki, for that matter). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, we have RossiLeone, who has edited a lot of articles on Nazi-related articles[30][31][32] and is happy to add their own book about the Germans who got the highest awards for bravery to nazi officials who got these awards[33]. I don't think someone with these interests who believes it is a good idea to use a clear Hitler reference in their username, and has shown at eswiki to care little about policies, is a good fit for here. The least would be to get them to pick a username without any Nazi-reference, but just blocking him now and being done with it may be the simplest in the long run. Fram (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New sock: User:Tuttiperlavittoria, IP 186.177.54.210 probably as well. Note that "tutti per la vittoria" was an Italian fascist slogan... Fram (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the last edits of the previous incarnation was this antisemitic edit. Fram (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any one of those things would probably be cause for a bit of concern at ANI: the usernames with questionable fascist overtones, the undisclosed alternate accounts, falsely claiming to be a new editor, etc. The combination of them is probably blockworthy. I've blocked the accounts, but I'll leave the sock master's account blocked with a more generic block rationale so non-checkusers can resolve any unblock requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how that's antisemitic. There are 20 languages with the same official "recognized minority language" status as Yiddish in Romania, most of which are much more widely spoken; unless there's a particular reason to include Yiddish but not (e.g.) Polish, I'd say that's a correct call. (The word 'Yiddish' doesn't appear once in the article, so I assume the town doesn't hold some kind of special significance to the Yiddish language or vice versa.) ‑ Iridescent 15:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're usually better at this, Iridescent :-) The article has a long section about the Satu Mare#Jewish community there, with special attention to what happened in WWII and the ghetto in the city. In 1941, of the 53K inhabitants of the city, 13K were Jewish or nearly 25% were Jewish. This is not some random place where a few Jews lived, it was an important center. Plus, when you have an editor with these other characteristics (name, interests, name of socks...) who is keen to add the German pronunciation of Danish cities, but who then suddenly removes the Yiddish name from a city like here, then to me the only logical reason for this is antisemitism. Fram (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, NinjaRobotPirate, thank you so much for your help. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Educate me, bad usernames[edit]

at 21:41, 14 April 2022 I see two bad names created, according to the abuse filter log [34], 𝙱𝚎𝚜𝚝𝚒𝚎𝚜𝚏𝚘𝚛𝚕𝚒𝚏𝚎12377 and 𝙴𝚗𝚌𝚊𝚗𝚝𝚘𝚜𝚞𝚙𝚎𝚛𝚏𝚊𝚗 except that isn't their names as there is some math code fudged in there to make linking to them impossible for me at least. Not sure what to do about those. Can't even click over to block them, so someone that knows more than I do might want to look. It has to be the same person, both triggered the same filter 1 minute apart, for characters and LTA, so a checkuser might be handy. And educate me on what to do so I understand a little, if you don't mind. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you see the word 'disallow' in the log, and you get the " is not registered on this wiki." error message, then they weren't created. See filter 1168 (hist · log). People use weird unicode characters all the time (or try to) - I currently see no need to run a CU. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. That threw me because I saw LTA trigger as well, and two of them in a row, which was my only reason for thinking a CU might peek, but that makes sense. Ok, learned something new then. The "is not registered" I did see, btw, but wasn't sure if that was glitch, or it was denied, but again, now I understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I'll take this opportunity to point out, generally, that the filter log is a minefield of false positives, testing filters, non-block-worthy conditions, multiple log hits for the same edit, and often some rather unhelpful descriptions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I have noticed that as well, lot of good edits marked with a warning. Interesting though. That is why I came here to ask, to better understand. Basically, it's something I haven't done too much of, which is why I'm working on it now, to learn how to at least be competent at it. Something new. The "examine" feature is the ugliest and most piss poor example of "information" I've ever seen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear! I hate it. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to End topic Ban[edit]

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

  • Oppose This editor has just scrubbed their talk page, in an unsuccessful attempt to hide the context behind this topic ban. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazim ZarSinner shows that they simply do not understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and are trying their hardest to keep a mediocre self-promotional autobiography that utterly fails WP:AUTHOR. Cullen328 (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. See also self-promotional linkspamming [35] and this promotional draft [36] where Saair/Nazim ZarSinner refers to himself as an 'important poet'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with the decision made by administrators, now I want to create an article about well-known Indian poet and writer Koshy AV. I'll begin it in draft space and shall submit it for review rather than introducing it to article space myself. I agree, I have gone too much about myself and shall abstain from mentioning myself in article space in future. But, articles related to WP:ARBIPA should be considered separately from my person, they are about cities, cultures and festivals of mine and neighboring countries and will be a better space for me to participate than other topics. Sinner (speak) 06:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Except, Nazim, if we can't trust you to follow some fairly simple rules about autobiographical content, then that will also make us reticent to believe you can engage in a controversial space effectively. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Since being unblocked 14 months ago you have made 42 edits, 16 of which have been to articles. Of those 16 edits 13 have been self promotional spamming, two have been trivial punctuation fixes and this edit to an article on a village [37] (and your comments on it's associated talk page [38]) seems to be skirting the boundaries of your topic ban from WP:ARBIPA geography. Your remaining edits consist of you scrubbing your talk page of warnings, removing information that editors used to identify your COI, changing your username and trying to prevent your autobiography from being deleted. You have made nowhere near enough edits for anyone here to be able to judge if the issues that lead to the topic ban have been resolved, and many of the edits you have made are problematic in other ways. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Insufficient editing since sanction to demonstrate an ability to play nice with others, the actual few edits you've made haven't really helped the encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as noted above you haven't made many edits since being unblocked, which means we don't have much evidence to tell whether you will create issues in these areas if you are unbanned. Normally for a request like this we would expect a substantial editing history which allows people to make that determination. The few edits you have made include deleting a load of relevant material from your talk page and defending an article about yourself at AfD, which is not a good start. And the topic ban wasn't for fix months, you weren't allowed to appeal it for six months. Hut 8.5 09:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RaeLynn[edit]

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

RaeLynn was moved to RaeLynn (singer) against consensus and without a move request. Can someone please G6 and move it back? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer, can you point to where you have discussed this routine content dispute with the other editor before escalating to WP:AN? Have you left the required notification at User talk:Bookworm857158367? Cullen328 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I thought that was only required at ANI. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles about people also with the given name Raelynn and I just wrote Raelynn (given name), an article about the given name. Raelynn is properly a disambiguation page, Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why there's need to WP:G6 anything nor why this needs to be at AN even if this had been discussed with Bookworm857158367. Just make a WP:RM/TR for reversion of an undiscussed moved like normal. What's so special or urgent about this case it can't simply be handled with a technical request? Also unless I'm missing something it was possible for an ordinary editor to reverse this move before TenPoundHammer added the G6 tag [39] as there were no other edits either on the old title [40] or old title's talk page [41] so I'm even more mystified. Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose moving the article back for the reasons given above. That page should probably be a disambiguation page for people called Raelynn, not a redirect to the article about the singer. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, thanks for responding to one of my two questions. Can you please respond to my other question: can you point to where you have discussed this routine content dispute with the other editor before escalating to WP:AN? Cullen328 (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I brought it to AN is because every single time I ask for a "speedy" deletion, it somehow takes three days to pass through the queue. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
, TenPoundHammer that is most decidedly not an answer to my question can you point to where you have discussed this routine content dispute with the other editor before escalating to WP:AN?. Do you intend to answer, or are you planning to blow off my question? Cullen328 (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not discuss it because I didn't know I had to. I was only looking to get a mod's attention to fix a technical request, nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: (multiple EC) precisely my point. Why on earth do you think this is so special that it needs to happen more urgently than is normal for the reversions of the however many undiscussed moves that happen every week? Do we need to topic ban you from AN? Also your comment still makes no sense even if we accept there was urgency. Why on earth would you do something preventing yourself or some other editor from reverting the move just so it can be moved? Why not just complete the move yourself or at least leave it so an ordinary editor can revert the move? And WTF is a mod? @Bookworm857158367: WP:RMUM is quite clear that while you can do bold moves in some circumstances if they are disputed and it hasn't been long enough for the new title to be established then they should be reverted. If you still think the new title is better than start a normal RM and make your case. Really it seems this is a very simple case that could have been handled by Anthony or whoever at RM/TR as I think many such cases are each week which from reason has been blown up by TPH into something it didn't need to be. Nil Einne (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, there is a big red and orange box that displays whenever you edit this noticeboard that says in caps at the beginning READ THIS FIRST BEFORE PROCEEDING!. You have been here for many years and have been blocked six times in twelve years. I, on the other hand, have never been blocked. Are you really trying to convince us that you were unaware until April 2022 that you are supposed to discuss content disputes with the other editor before escalating to administrators noticeboards? That explanation strains credulity. Cullen328 (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't seeing it as a content dispute, but as an overly hasty attempt to fix an uncontroversial page move which I felt didn't need any other intervention. Bookworm857158367 (talk · contribs) acted in good faith and I thought I was too. The page has been fixed and I'm working on smoothing things over with Bookworm now. Can we please drop this? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, I also see that at 03:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC), only five days ago, you received on your user talk page the exact type of WP:AN notification that you should have given the other editor. So, claiming that you did not know that this was "a thing" is pretty flimsy. We can certainly drop it when you acknowledge how this whole thing went sideways, and commit to avoiding this type of inappropriate filing in the future. Cullen328 (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It was an act of haste, and I didn't think Bookworm needed to be notified because my sole goal was "can an admin G6 this because I always have shit luck with G6's somehow getting lost in the shuffle and queueing for days" -- something which I thought didn't need any intervention on Bookworm's part whatsoever (after all, I don't think Bookworm is an admin and therefore cannot delete something). I did make sure to notify Bookworm when this was pointed out, and I'll make sure to notify any other editors whenever I bring something to AN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, WP:G6 is for uncontroversial actions. If another editor disagrees, it is by definition no longer uncontroversial, right? Cullen328 (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "reverting a page move that was done without consensus" uncontroversial though? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite the contrary, TenPoundHammer. Editors boldly move pages all the time without obtaining consensus, and there is no requirement to obtain consensus before moving a page. There is nothing obviously disruptive about this particular page move, and the other editor's argument is somewhat persuasive and far from spurious. You are supposed to discuss these things per WP:BRD, instead of dragging the editor you disagree with to a noticeboard. I know that BRD is not a formal policy but it is widely respected by experienced editors. You skipped that "discuss" step, and crawled out on a limb at this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Teyora - Development first look![edit]

Teyora Logo Colour.svg

Hi! I'm Ed6767, the original creator of RedWarn, now one of the most popular tools on the English Wikipedia that's been used by over 1,000 Wikimedians to make over 300,000 edits since mid-2020 that's been praised for its user friendliness and ease of use, but criticised for its limited functionality. I'm leaving this message as I think it may be of interest here - I left the RedWarn project in November to develop Teyora, my successor to RedWarn (alongside Chlod's UltraViolet). It's a new in development web app that uses some of the latest web technologies to create a highly extendable all in one editing tool with a focus on administration, counter vandalism and general patrolling - not to mention, it'll work on every Wikimedia project without any prior configuration and can be used by any user with at least auto-confirmed rights*. Now, I'm ready to give the Wikimedia community a first look at what I've been doing over the past six months and what to expect going forward.

You can check out the 20 minute first look at the in development version on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzlpnzXdLP4.

There's lots more to expect too! Why not read the full details page at meta:Teyora and leave any feedback, comments or wishes at meta:Talk:Teyora (please leave any correspondence there to keep discussion centralised). If you're interested, you can leave your signature

*with basic features, advanced features require configuration. To prevent abuse, auto-confirmed users will be in a restricted mode until approved by an admin or via rollback rights.

All the best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of my confirmed and extended-confirmed user rights[edit]

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

@CactiStaccingCrane: It's impossible to add or remove autoconfirmed status as it's an "implicit user group" that is applied by mediawiki. Extendedconfirmed can be removed though. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
192.76.8.70, I never knew that! Still, I don't think I'd have a need to edit blue-locked articles, as my main topic of interest is about aerospace stuff. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done here. Should you want it back in the future, you can leave a message at my talk page or request it via the usual means. Sdrqaz (talk) 09:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1083072883"