Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators. It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here. Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Click here to start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	0	14	14
TfD	0	0	1	0	1
MfD	0	0	2	0	2
FfD	0	0	0	1	1
RfD	0	0	5	1	6
AfD	0	0	0	4	4

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 62 sockpuppet investigations
• 4 Candidates for speedy deletion
  • 0 Duplicate files
• 5 Fully-protected edit requests
• 10 Candidates for history merging
• 13 requests for RD1 redaction
• 18 elapsed requested moves
• 13 requested closures
• 66 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 15 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (13 out of 3874 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:Panda619 2022-09-08 23:43 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: up protection El C Camilla, Queen consort of the United Kingdom 2022-09-08 22:32 2022-09-22 22:32 edit Edit warring / content dispute: persisten addition and removal of the word 'consort' DrKay User talk:134.122.47.211 2022-09-08 14:57 2022-09-12 14:57 create Repeatedly recreated; LTA 331dot Elizabeth II 2022-09-08 13:09 indefinite edit I'm extending protection since the silliness has already started DrKay Jody Hice 2022-09-07 16:32 2022-09-14 16:32 edit,move IP edit-warring over language Ser Amantio di Nicolao List of people from Sialkot 2022-09-07 16:00 2022-09-09 12:04 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: upgrade to WP:ECP for the duration El C Draft:Lil Beat Guy 2022-09-07 13:18 indefinite move Page-move vandalism Deepfriedokra Scott Jensen (Minnesota politician) 2022-09-06 22:54 2022-12-06 22:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry Blablubbs Template:Ensure AA contrast ratio 2022-09-06 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2751 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II User:Favonian/ECUX 2022-09-06 16:51 indefinite edit,move User request within own user space Favonian Untitled Mario film 2022-09-06 04:25 2022-12-06 04:25 move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content Ohnoitsjamie Template:Wiktionary-inline 2022-09-05 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Emily Gernild 2022-09-05 00:46 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz

TTP1233 Unblock Request (unarchived)

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

---

The following is an unblock request placed on behalf of - @TTP1233:. It is an unblock request that has now been open for a considerable length of time and warranted additional community consideration. The user was blocked for socking in November 2021. When the most recent appeal in May was made, they were given a clear checkuser so that (technical) aspect is already concluded. I would also advise participants to take a look at their user talk page for a broader context. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Appeal Text

Greetings Sir/Madam, I do like to re-apply for unblock in Wikipedia. It is to inform you that after reading blocking policies and conditions of Standard Offer, I have, Not did any sock puppetry on my any blocked accounts mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_NS_Dibyojyoti for 6 months since my last edit of TTP1233 on 11:01 hrs.; 25 November 2021 (UTC). Neither created accounts for further sock puppetry nor for illegal use. Also, I made productive edits on Simple English Wikipedia. I have created around 30 articles (3 deleted due to my interest) and over 1000 edits before and during block on this account, since created. Explanation how I was blocked:- A year ago I opened an account named TTP1233 in simple.m.wikipedia.org but I never edited in risk until I confirm that admin Ninjarobotpirate blocked that as well. But after some months past, I started editing Wikipedia and after months I got encouraged to edit here. Moreover no one suspected me. But creating Sujit Bose (politician) and Indranil Sen was the biggest blunder I made. Though they are notable but since I made it, I feared if anyone knows. Second thing I made identified is shortening my original name, Dibyojyoti Roy Chowdhury to Jyoti Roy. And I live in same place (As mentioned in my bio in both the accounts). This is the truth I can say. And I have realized that sockpuppetry is unlawful and useless also I'm not willing to create anymore account. So I had decided that until six months has over, I refrain from editing Wikipedia. To continue, I think I have aware myself of my misbehavior to the community and I will not continue to do so, henceforth. I also want to assure you that if I be unblock, then I will be working on the basics, means what a normal editor usually do. I will fully focus on creating, editing and updating articles that are completely based on India-related topics. When I will gain experience on the user rights, I will apply but after few years, as my unblocking immediately will not grant me that right. To conclude, I want to contribute many things and not to spoil the community. I will try my best to get back trust everyone. I hope you will not abandon me. I would request you to please consider my review and then unblock me. If any conclusion comes regarding my un-block, please inform me. I look forward to your response regarding the request. Thanking You, Yours sincerely, --Jyoti Roy (talk) 12:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)}} [Addendum by TTP 19th Aug] "Extraordinary Writ advised me in an e-mail to get involved in other wiki projects to convince other users that I'm worthy to join or not. Currently I'm working in Simple English Wikipedia as rollbacker. Also I made almost 1800 edits by now and created over 45 articles. My aim in working there is to fight against vandalism and create articles (when the activity in editing is low in simple wiki)."

• Just because May was a while ago, I did run a new check and do not see any new activity. So checkuser remains all clear. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
• Regarding the username being used for the appeal, they've noted: "I cannot access my master sock account User:NS Dibyojyoti because I have forgotten the password of it. I have tried to reset the password but it failed anyhow. So I chose to request here." Thus any appeal would unblock this specific account. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock per Simple Wiki.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

bloody sigmabot keeps archiving-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Unblock per Standard Offer. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• The unblock request has been open since May and this discussion has been open for more than a fortnight. Neither have garnered much attention, to the point that this discussion has been archived at least twice. Where we are at now is that there are a couple of administrators who seem to be in favour of unblocking and no user explicitly against it. My thinking, in this case, is that the user has met the criteria to be unblocked per standard offer, has been waiting for a good while and, in any case, reblocks are cheap. So I'm boldly about to unblock him. In the end, should he edit disruptively again, he can be reblocked swiftly and, on the other hand, if he doesn't, we gain a productive editor... Salvio 16:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Request for lifting topic ban user Wickey

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

---

Hereby, I request to lift the topic ban on the Arab-Israeli conflict. As I have never used a sockpuppet to evade the rules – which has falsely been suggested and for which you will nowhere find any evidence – and only wish to contribute to Wikipedia in a positive way, I have no problem with promising that I will abide all the rules. Wickey (talk) 09:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate an overall review and valuation of my contributions to articles, not stick on a single incident. I have been editing for more than 10 years on WP in several wiki's, without being blocked. So, what I ask is to give it a try.--Wickey (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Not editing when blocked is a rule, and the public note on your UTRS appeal notes that you accepted the tie between the two accounts when in your AE case you stated User:Wickey-nl is another user. So to be holding the position that you weren't even now discourages me to remove the restriction. Your content work over the last six months, however, seemed reasonable to me and not in the field. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

If I want to use a sockpuppet for abuse, I will not choose a sockpuppet name that you will easily recognize, right? I had the two accounts from the time I started on WP, which anyone can check. Just to explain. --Wickey (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• I guess this is the link to the topic ban. There is more detail at user talk:Wickey. I don't see where this request addresses the original issues. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Thanks User:Deepfriedokra for posting the links. Wickey's topic ban was mainly on the basis of a combative attitude, with accusations of bias/corruption and elements of edit warring thrown in. So to overturn it, we'll need to be convinced that this attitude has changed. On that basis I decided to take a look at their edit history on talk pages, and the very first page I looked at, completely at random, was Talk:ThorCon nuclear reactor. There I see all sorts of accusations flying around concerning bias, promotion, edit warring and an editor being hounded away from the topic; I'm not seeing any evidence that the required lessons have been learned. WaggersTALK 11:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. seems quite the opposite. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The combative, uncollaborative attitude on display at Talk:ThorCon nuclear reactor shows that it would be a mistake to permit this editor to return to the Israel/Palestine topic area. Thanks, Waggers. Cullen328 (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  In this revealing 2018 conversation, Wickey wrote User:Wickey-nl is another user, who is not even active. Moreover, I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs. So, we have overt lying combined with a terrible attitude about the I/P topic area. Cullen328 (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Wickey was not a constructive editor last time they were allowed to edit in the Israel/Palestine topic area. Number 57 18:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose In order to remove any editing restriction with regard to our perhaps single most contentious content area, the community should expect to see rather a fulsome acknowledgment of why the TBAN was found necessary in the first place and a decent explanation of why the restriction is no longer necessary. That's the baseline for the determination, before we even add the additional concerns raised above of continued combativeness and borderline (at least) disruption in other contentious areas. But though these reasons would have been sufficient in and of themselves for me to oppose the request as a concerned community member, it is Cullen's discovery of statements that directly indicate that the user is lying in regard to statements regarding socking in this very thread that really seals the deal. That is deeply concerning and leaves no question about our inability to trust any assurance the user gives us here for the purpose of assuaging concerns. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose @Wickey:Please describe how your edits merited a TBAN and what you would do differently. Setting that aside, you have claimed to be unconnected with Wickey-nl, claimed to have stopped using that account, and now claim to have had two accounts ab initio. Can you reconcile these divergent statements in a manner that would regain the Community's trust? You are quoted above as having written, "I do not have any intention to edit in an area which is terrorized by a pack of mad dogs." What has changed? Do you still regard editors in that content area as before? Are you now happy to edit in such an area? Can you answer the concern in a prior post that you continue with a, "combative, uncollaborative attitude?" Thanks.(fixed ping) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• One time, no more, I wrongly denied the two accounts are connected. That was when two users were hounding me, trying to get rid of one more editor they don't like (one of them is indefinitely blocked). IMO, a single lie does not justify a permanent block or TBAN.
• It may be surprising, but claiming or suggesting that I broke a TBAN is just a hoax! Both accounts were blocked. Even more, I did not use the other account any more, though it was not blocked.
• I said things in the proces of blocking out of frustration, that I should never have done. I apologize for that.
• I acknowledge that my behaviour ThorCon nuclear reactor was wrong, apart from the question who was technically right or wrong. I am not proud of that incident. I want to change my combative, uncollaborative attitude and give polite discussion priority over my own opinion. I should prevent escalating discussions.--Wickey (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. RE:" I should prevent escalating discussions." Yes, and till you can show you are doing this, I'm afraid I cannot agree to you editing in this topic area. One should not set oneself up for failure. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Wickey: Am I missing something here? Above you say "claiming or suggesting that I broke a TBAN is just a hoax". Yet you were topic banned in from the Arab-Israeli conflict in August 2014 [1]. This topic ban seems to be the ban you are appealing. Yet the entirety of your 15 edits in 2016 and 2017 under the Wickey-nl [2] account look like they probably violated this topic ban e.g. [3].

  As for this Wickey account, your 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th undeleted edits which were in 2017 seem to be a violation of your topic ban [4] [5] [6] [7]. With an edit history like that, whyever you originally ended up with 2 global accounts, I don't think you're going to convince me that bringing the Wickey account here to en was perfectly innocent [8]. And no, the fact you were simultaneously violating your topic ban on both the Wickey-nl and Wickey accounts is not enough to convince me. More importantly even if it really is true, this still doesn't excuse your topic ban violations.

  You seem to branched out a bit with the Wickey account after that but still it was enough for the 2018 ARE case which was partly about the fact you did not have the 500/30 edits to edit in the area. There were concerns you were not properly notified about the 500/30 restriction but it ended up a moot point as it reflected that you were still editing in violation of your topic ban. [9] This is where you told the lie that the accounts were unconnected [10].

  Maybe it was only one time you lied, but now in 2022 you're excusing that lie because you were being hounded. I'm not going to investigate in detail but as problematic as IceWiz is, claiming you were being hounded seems highly questionable when the edits you were being "hounded" over seems to have at a minimum been a violation your topic ban, and regardless of whether and when these alleged "hounders" knew of this, you should have. In fact, if we take things further, while we do not allow editors to clean start and edit in areas where they were topic banned from, if we did it seems the concerns you weren't properly informed about the 500/30 restriction go out the window as noted in the 2018 ARE since as someone who was topic banned from the area at ARE, you should have been well aware of the restriction.

  I'll further note that you even did technically use the Wickey account to edit while your Wickey-nl was blocked for 3 months from 9 August 2017 [11]. It was only 3 minor edits which didn't violate your topic ban [12] [13] [14] but still not something which should have happened and also goes against your suggestion above 'Even more, I did not use the other account any more, though it was not blocked.'.

  Note that all these edits are quite a while ago and frankly normally they wouldn't matter that much. The primary reason they do here is because you've made it out like you didn't really do anything wrong but my analysis suggests this is far from the truth. And I'm very unwilling to trust editors who are unwilling to admit their wrongdoing in their appeal to safely edit an area they were topicbanned from. This isn't even complicated stuff, it seems largely technical of what happened when.

  Nil Einne (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wow. Thanks for that in depth review. Were I not so lazy, I'd switch to strong oppoose. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  This would seem to refute the not abusively socking claim. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Request to lift topic ban

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

---

On April 2019 I was placed under a topic ban in the ARBPIA area, as shown here, and on 18 August 2020 tried unsuccessfully to repeal my topic ban, as shown here, although given an ease of strictures whereby I was then permitted to edit pages carrying the ARBPIA tag, allowing me to edit on subjects related to pre-1948 Arab-Jewish history, geography, and even on post-1948 culturally related issues, farming, adding photographs, etc., but not to divulge on topics of the Arab-Israeli war, extra-judiciary killings, terrorism, etc. In short, I have been unable to edit in the Israel/Palestine conflict area for more than 3 years! This limited topic ban brought me into trouble on 28 January 2022, as shown here, when I was cited for violating my topic ban by writing “State of Israel” in an article describing Jerusalem, being a set of 740+ outlines listed at Portal:Contents/Outlines. Wikipedia outlines are a special type of list article make up one of Wikipedia's content navigation systems and which Outline makes use of a pre-set format. During this last infraction, where I was remiss in that I did not realize the sensitivities felt by part of the community at using the words “State of Israel” when requested by the format of the same article to list the name of the government under which the city of Jerusalem lies, I beg your forgiveness. I should have known that writing such, under my limited topic ban, would elicit a response. At the time, however, I honestly did not think that I was stepping beyond the limitations of my topic ban by mentioning the name of the government over the city, as it is not the same as saying I support that government’s actions. Moreover, I did not even initiate the edit, but the format in the article called for the name of the government, and I felt obliged to fill-in the void. Now that I realize my misstep, given the limited topic ban that I was under, and how that I should have been more sensitive to this issue, I am asking for another chance to help improve this worthy encyclopedia and to renew editing in the ARBPIA area, without limitations. As everyone can see, my limited topic ban created some confusion as to where to draw the line. Altogether, I have been under the ARPBIA area topic ban for 3 years and 3 months, with only this one infraction. Removing this topic ban completely will allow me to:

1) Edit lists, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Palestine/Books, which I have been wont to do in the past.

2) Edit Historical pages, such as City of David (historic), and King's Garden (historical), among many others, which I have been wont to do in the past.

3) Upload images to Historical pages, which I have been wont to do in the past, such as Dayr Aban, Khirbat al-Tannur, Kafr 'Inan, and many others.

4) Help with showing how certain place-names have changed in this country (Israel/Palestine) because of the 1948 and 1967 wars, such as what I did in the article Hebraization of Palestinian place names.

5) Engage with other editors in the ARBPIA area on matters of Wikipedia policy and of maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV).

6) Give Wikipedia the unique experience of research conducted by an Israeli editor that has access to rare books in the Israeli public libraries, books that treat on the Arab-Israeli conflict and its past wars, government decisions taken in those wars, etc., the history of Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as of Muslim institutions in the country, subject matters not otherwise known or readily had by editors who do not live in this country or who do not have access to its libraries

Having the opportunity to edit anew in these important fields will be commensurate with the good judgment and magnanimity of Wikipedia editors, who were kind and considerate with other editors who had made similar mistakes in the ARBPIA area, some blocked and some banned for their offences, and, yet, were permitted to return to edit in this category.

We say in Hebrew: האהבה מקלקלת את השורה‎ = (paraphrased) “He falls into folly who loves [a thing] too heartily.” I guess you can say that my love and enthusiasm for this project sometimes override my better judgment. Still, we all learn from our mistakes.

We all have a certain base of experience which lends itself to certain topics, as well as a certain background which lends itself to our perception of different things. As editors, we can neutrally convey those binary opinions to our readership, without trying to advocate a certain political or ideological cause, in accordance with Wikipedia’s policy that prohibits WP:ADVOCACY, such as by trying to sway public opinion one way or the other. And while the Arab-Israeli conflict has possessed many of our dear friends and fellow co-editors so fully of the subject, perhaps also those who level their harsh criticisms against me, I can assure you that what my opinion is on this subject can have but the least consequence upon any of the living, since I am not interested in aggravating an already bad situation, and because I truly love both peoples.

And while I am an Israeli and I share a common fate with the people of this country, this does not mean I cannot have empathy towards my fellow Arab citizen whenever he is oppressed. I hereby give my reassured commitment to good editing on Wikipedia, and with full compliance to Wikipedia's policies. Asking for another chance. We're here to serve and I've come to miss editing in the fields that I love the most.Davidbena (talk) 03:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. The description of the January 2022 incident makes it sound so innocent, while in reality it was not some forced error but a blatant deliberate one-sided "outline", giving only the Israeli position and not even mentioning Palestine once. An inability or unwillingness to accurately describe what happened then (and which already came hot on the heels of a 9 week block in late 2021) means I can't support lifting this topic ban. Fram (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The January sanction was clearly not for writing the words "State of Israel". How can we trust someone back into a contentious topic when they can't even be fully honest in their unblock request? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'll just add that, having reread the previous ban/unban discussions, I can believe that Devidbena actually didn't see how controversial that Jerusalem outline would be. But, with this subject to close to him, his judgment has been poor on a number of occasions. With no shortage of contributors to the ARBPIA area, we really don't need someone who has shown repeated poor judgment working there. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. It seems to me that the narrowing of the topic ban in August 2020 gives David leeway for quite a bit of editing in the area he loves. And this AE discussion clearly shows that his description of the January 2022 incident is specious. Bishonen | tålk 08:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC).

  There's a word not used often enough -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm doing my best to remedy that. See it three times here. Bishonen | tålk 18:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's like spurious, I guess...? El_C 18:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Specious can be used spuriously. But can spurious be used speciously? GoldenRing (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  If you must know, read the famous book by famous author Chuck Darwin: The Origin of Specious. Dumuzid (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  @GoldenRing: I think you just did. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not seeing much understanding of the problems that led to the sanction here. GoldenRing (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. Clearly does not understand the scope of the issue, and we will be right back here again when he edits tendentiously in the area. Star Mississippi 00:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Administrator changes

DanCherek • DatGuy • Femke • Z1720

Aldux • Graham Beards • Nyttend

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

WMF Board voting closes on September 6

I want to specifically highlight the last bullet in the newletter, that voting for the WMF Board of Trustees closes on September 6. Only 16% of administrators who are eligible to vote have done so, here's the list of admins who haven't voted yet. This seems rather low to me given how many administrators care about or are affected by decisions the WMF makes (everyone, really). I encourage you to:

• Review the list of candidates
• Watch/read answers to community questions
• Vote!

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Odd, I voted prior to this post and I'm on the list as not voted. When I click the link to vote it said I already have. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There are a few different lists on that page; it looks like you're listed in the "Have voted" section. DanCherek (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

...I'll just get my coat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore: indeed, you're all set. Thank you for voting! Legoktm (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Reminder, voting closes in about 21 hours at 23:59 UTC today. The vote-tracker says 24% of eligible admins have voted, which is great improvement! ...but we can do better :-) Legoktm (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

My articles restoration permission

Can any admin restore my deleted articles. During my block most of my created articles were deleted under G5. Jyoti Roy (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello to TTP1233 posting for some reason with the misleading signature Jyoti Roy. Which specific articles are you asking to be restored and why do you believe that these deleted articles are about notable topics and are well referenced? If you were writing acceptable articles, then why were you blocked and why were your articles deleted? Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

See the section above titled "TTP1233 Unblock Request (unarchived)" for further information. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at their deleted contribs, it would seem they were all Draft: space. The relevant reasons are found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NS Dibyojyoti/Archive. The normal process for undeleting articles like this would be Wikipedia:Deletion review as they appear to have been deleted in process and properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown, thank you for the advice. :) Jyoti Roy (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps best if some people keep an eye on this editor's contributions. I noticed e.g this incorrect vandalism reversal + warning, and the moving of an article from draft to mainspace which was created by an earlier incarnation of this editor, but then moved to draft and declined afterwards. To start like this straight of an indef block doesn´t look good. Fram (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a completely wrong addition. I wonder if we aren´t still in the same WP:CIR territory as at the time of the original blocks. Fram (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This edit is really bad. Why did you do that, TTP1233? Cullen328 (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

There were no reliable source, so I added one @Cullen328. How would I know, if Fram reverted it. TTP1233 (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

That is not an answer to Cullen's question. Adding a source to unsourced material is great, but not if it doesn't support the material. In this instance, it was irrelevant to the material. Fram reverted you; he had not reverted beforehand. There had been no edits to the article since 2020. I'm afraid your response only confirms Fram's contention of incompetence.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

TTP1233, you added a source about a 2022 beer festival at a castle to an article about an opera written in 1916. Yes, the opera and the castle share a name but they are otherwise completely unrelated. This was an incompetent edit. Cullen328 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Now that's an explanation from an editor. @Cullen328 Thank you TTP1233 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@TTP1233: You, however, are the editor we're looking for an explanation from. Please explain 1) What led you to make that edit, 2) Why it was an incorrect edit, and 3) How you will avoid making such edits in the future. If you are unable to do so, I will take that as a sign that you are not currently able to edit constructively. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin, please allow me to explain.

1. I saw that the opera was needed additional source. So I decided to add a reliable source and I did it.

2. I later found it from explanation of @Bbb23, that it is not directly linked to the topic but kind of related topic. I didn't know that. So it is not a good edit.

3. As per I stated in my unblocking review appeal, I will edit as what normal editors do. Not extraordinary edits. So for this case I will see to it, that the source must be directly connected to the topic.

If you are satisfied with the reason, you can take actions. Or ask more questions regarding my other edits.

This is odd. I ask that my deleted pages under G5 be undelete. But this is going beyond it. Anyways I do follow instructions. TTP1233 (talk) 17:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• Please note that despite the absence of a clear consensus to unblock TTP, the rationale for doing so was (1) that two admins supported it; (2) no one opposed it; and (3) reblocks are cheap. The third point is not something I personally agree with. Generally, unless there's egregious behavior, e.g., new socking after unblocking a sock, reblocks tend to be hard, especially soon after an unblock.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, these edits are rough and not expecting edits. Please revert if you feel it unsatisfied.

  Strict and committed people like @Bbb23 and @Fram have different thoughts about me. But I don't mind. Neither I have potential to achieve something nor do I have to argue. I don't want to show disrespect to them. They are cool.

  I have nothing to say but one thing, that if some admins have faith on me for unblocking me to become a productive editor, they will do convince as well, but after some time. That's all. TTP1233 (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Keeping in mind Salvio's close in the unblock thread, I have indefinitely reblocked TTP for inability to edit constructively and communicate clearly in English. This isn't about a single bad edit, but what it represents: If someone can't distinguish a beer festival from an opera—not as the kind of sloppy mistake we all make from time to time, but as apparently thinking they're the same thing—that represents an inability to understand sources that I don't think any warning can remedy. Prolonging this further would be a waste of volunteer resources. I would suggest that TTP focus more on contributing in languages they speak more fluently.
  This does not per se moot the original request to reverse the G5s, so I'll leave the thread open in case anyone has anything to say on that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  I endorse this block. Cullen328 (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  No objections at all. Salvio 18:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  It languished for some time with no "oppose" posted. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions draft: community comment

The next phase of the ongoing discretionary sanctions amendment process has opened. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) have posted a draft of the amendments here, together with draft language, and invite community comments. We would like to note that this public consultation includes a draft of the amendments for the purposes of indicating possible areas for amendment; community comments will be instrumental in identifying what reforms are desirable to proceed on, and whether the draft is missing appropriate amendments. The Phase 2 Consultation will end on October 3rd. For the Arbitration Committee, CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Discretionary sanctions draft: community comment

Hazaras

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

---

Hello! Respectful admins, I would like to protect the Hazaras page at the admin level because User: KoizumiBS is trying to make unprincipled and racist changes to it.--Iampharzad (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC) Iampharzad (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Iampharzad. Please make this report at WP:ANI. When doing so, be sure to read the instructions at the top of the page, include details of the offending behavior including specific links to disruptive edits (diffs) and any other relevant information. Then notify KoizumiBS of the discussion along with anyone else involved. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Proposal to widen scope of WP:GS/UYGHUR

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a proposed expansion of the scope of WP:GS/UYGHUR. The thread is Proposal to Expand GS/uyghur to include the Uyghurs more broadly. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional editors to the Checkuser and Oversight teams. The arbitrators overseeing this will be Barkeep49, Cabayi and Primefac. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will assist in the vetting process. This year's timeline is as follows:

• 5 September to 17 September: Candidates may self-nominate by contacting the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.
• 18 September to 22 September: The Arbitration Committee and Functionaries will vet the candidates.
• 23 September to 25 September: The committee will notify candidates going forward for community consultation and create the candidate subpages containing the submitted nomination statements.
• 26 September to 5 October: Nomination statements will be published and the candidates are invited to answer questions publicly. The community is invited and encouraged to participate.
• By 16 October: Appointments will be announced.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cabayi (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: announcement

User:Scabab

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

---

I didn't know where to report it so I reported it here. User:Scabab is indulging in edit war and original research (although yes I did edit war with him at the same time too) on Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero.

The dispute as you can see from Talk:Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero arises from Scabab insisting on mixing and matching numbers from various sources for the movie. Comscore reports a $60.6 global cume without the Japan gross for the movie and $34.8 million in US by Sunday [15].

According to Box Office Mojo the Japan gross is $18.5 million and the US gross is $34.9 million, while the global is $77.1 million [16].

However the BOM gross includes the estimate for US Monday gross which is $394,000 while Comscore only includes an estimate till Sunday. This also means that per BOM the domestic gross was just $39.5 million by Sunday against ComScore's $39.8 million. That said it's nothing unusual as different sources report different grosses.

Scabab has taken it up by himself to combine the highest figures from all sources to make up his own gross and he prefers Comscore as being the correct source. However common Wikipedia practice has been to prefer BOM or The Numbers.

He is edit warring over it and using OR.

He also seems to be using socks. 92.30.64.172 for example also likes to lurk on Dragon Ball articles a lot like Scabab and used the same reasoning to revert me.

Not to mention, that he also made condescending remarks towards User:TropicAces in Talk:Dragon Ball Super: Super Hero telling him he has no clue and when I told to tone it down he derided me by saying he didn't ask for my opinion.

I request a sock puppet investigation, though it might not be needed as it seems obvious, and a block for his behavior regardless. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That IP address does appear suspicious... EvergreenFir (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Didn't start the edit war. Gave sources for the information.

Comscore (and Deadline) listed the global gross as $60.6 million without Japan. With Japan it stands at $79.1 million. Box Office Mojo lists Mondays estimated gross separately from Comscore as that only updates each week. Box Office Mojo also did not include Thursdays gross for the movie which is why there's a difference.

Comscore is the primary source for Box Office information which Box Office Mojo gets its figures from to begin with.

It also was not a sock. It was simply just an edit I made whilst logged out on my phone while I was using my tablet to find the source that I put in (while logged out) which he only removed anyway. Not a sock....I just didn't log in.

Oh and also, the last four movies grosses are all mixed and matched. That's nothing new for anime movies when Box Office Mojo does a poor job of tracking them. Demon Slayer for example is $50 million lower than the actual amount listed on here. Comscore is the one to go by. Scabab (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you're starting it or not. But you did by reverting me [17].

In addition using different figures mixed up from various sources doesn't mean you're actually reporting what the sources say. It's original research. We

Also given that you've been using that IP for months while logged out and haven't once bothered to declare that it was yours, even though it's fixed and not dynamic, until others started catching up to it makes it further clear that you've been using a sock puppet.

In addition the Demon Slayer gross on Wikipedia is 50 million higher than BOM because The Numbers reports it as $506 million [18]. BOM states $453 million [19].

It's worth noting that you refused to consider The Numbers which reports a lower gross of $58 million for Dragon Ball Super [20].

It's clear you just decide which source is correct based on your preference and which has a higher number. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Original research is required when the sources specifically say that the grosses aren't including Japans gross. You obviously require pulling from different sources unless you want an incorrect gross like you kept putting in.

Why would I possibly declare a non logged in account? It's not another user. I've made plenty of edits without bothering to log in.

The Numbers hasn't even updated Super Hero's gross for over a week. Even when it did update, the overseas gross was just all the listed individual grosses added up together, not the actual overall gross.

The only gross that will ever matter is the correct one. If you are going to bother to include a gross there is zero point in doing so unless it is correct. Neither Box Office Mojo or The Numbers are correct. Comscore and Deadline were correct and even then, again, specifically said that the Japan gross was not included. Scabab (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

OR was never required, you decided to do it on your own based on your preference. It's better to avoid incomplete data.

We wouldn't know an IP is yours until you declare it and socks can be used to create a fake consensus. Why have you avoided it mentioning it for so long until people suspected you?

How do you know which gross is correct and which isn't? It's clear you're only using Comscore because it has a higher number than BOM. Also Deadline relies on Comscore as well. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• How about you two step away from the article and let other editors sort it out? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Because I didn't care to declare it? I'm not an active editor, I mainly just edit the gross for the Dragon Ball movies to their most accurate figure. I'm not bothered whether I'm signed in or not.

  I know exactly which gross is correct. What difference does Comscore having a higher number than Box Office Mojo have to do with anything? Last week Box Office Pro said the movie was at $80+ million. That wasn't put in either because again it was a mistake.

  Box Office Mojo is completely missing a days gross, theres no Thursday there where there is for Comscore. So why are you using an incomplete gross from a site that gets most of its figures from Comscore....over Comscore?

  Where is the confusion here? Comscore has a gross for the movie as of Sunday not including Japan. You take that gross and you add Japan's figure and you get the most accurate figure. Why would you not go with that but go with something that's incorrect and missing an entire day? Scabab (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  The confusion here lies in treating this noticeboard as a content dispute resolution venue. If people would discuss this in a civil manner (i.e. not accusing others of being idiots) it should be possible to reach a decision on the content on the talk page without touching the article until things are resolved. Just do things without sockpuppetry and without throwing accusations around. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  I was discussing it just fine on the appropriate talk page. Everything was explained clearly on my end and he still continued to put in an incorrect figure.

  As was mentioned there too, it's not really a matter of opinion. The facts are the facts, if Comscore says that it has made that amount then it has made that amount as they get their figures from the studios themselves. Scabab (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, you were not discussing it fine. You were saying things like someone who hasn't got a clue, he knows nothing at all, You rather obviously have no clue whatsoever about this and I gave up after three examples of your incivility. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes that was true. If he had a clue then he would have put in the correct gross and there would be no issue in the first place. It's because he doesn't know what he's doing is the problem. Scabab (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  Please stop making the disparaging comments about other editors. Continued incivility may result in you being blocked. Donald Albury 17:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to be an active editor to declare something and you're basically making excuses for your attacks on others Scabab.

Yes BOM seems to be missing a day's gross (although it could be possible that it just simply added the gross for many days) but you're still mixing and matching numbers based on what you like. You're also admitting you're aware that you're using an unreliable source. Either stop using BOM or Comscore. Why are you adding BOM and Comscore figures when they don't match? That's OR. The number isn't going to be higher than $500,000 at best given the usual day gross in that week before weekends [21]. It'll be around $77.5-77.6 million at best. It still won't be $79.1 or 79.5 million. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Whether I need to or not, I dont care whether I'm signed in or not.

No BOM did not add a days gross. Comscores gross was used as it was the most accurate and the source of most value (which has now been revised further). The daily grosses displayed on BOM, because they won't do such a thing on Comscore will be added to that gross.

It was at $78.7 million as of Sunday and Deadline is now saying $584,000 for Monday which would make it $79.3 million. Scabab (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This condescending attitude of yours is troubling. You should declare a long-held IP so people can be sure who it is.

And again if you want to consider one source as reliable, go ahead. But please stop using OR and mixing and matching sources. If you think BOM isn't correct then don't use it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Please delete the user status page of a blocked user

Please delete a blocked user's status page see here under the criteria WP:G5. He's a sock of an LTA disrupting Wikipedia for years now. Thanks! 170.80.110.5 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Disinclined to delete, since it's just a user page. I've also converted your elink to a wikilink. Primefac (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Straight Through Processing

Resolved

Please can I be unblocked from editing Straight Through Processing. I invented the system back in 1992 whilst I was working for the London Stock Exchange. I am have been credited with ther invention by the University Of Cardiff and a number of articles in the UK press. https://theeverydaymagazine.co.uk/opinion/james-karat-and-straight-through-processing https://www.belsizevillage.co.uk/new_stories1.htm https://www.ftni.com/blog/the-journey-to-attaining-the-holy-grail-of-ar https://www.aspectenterprise.com/wp-content/uploads/STP-Inforgraphic.pdf https://hyperleap.com/topic/Straight-through_processing https://issuu.com/dartfordliving/docs/dartford_living_april_2022 https://figshare.cardiffmet.ac.uk/articles/thesis/Operational_efficiency_of_industrialised_information_processing_systems/20272275

Many thanks James Jasperk1975 (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Please initiate a new talk page discussion on the proposed content and sources at Talk:Straight Through Processing, as requested by the blocking admin[22]. If consensus forms to add the content, then you can re-request an unblock by placing the following code on your talk page: {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Remember to replace "Your reason here" with why you think you should be unblocked. DrKay (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Jasperk1975: Well, I'd say you need t discuss content and sourcing at Talk:Straight Through Processing

as you have a conflict of interest -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Lightbreather unban appeal

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). Interested editors may give feedback to the committee at here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Lightbreather unban appeal

No decision made. I ask for authorization to restore the status quo...

.. and that is the podium table in the World Cup in the infoboxes of active skiers, before the Marbe166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed its at his unquestionable and incontrovertible decision, with obviously overbearing reverts if someone restored its, not just me incidentally. Here is a summary of the story. A week passed, from August 30, even to the ANI without any decision. Here is the summary of the attempts made.

1. Attempted in user talk: no result;
2. Attempted in the infobox talk: no result;
3. Attempted in the talk of the two related projects: no results;
4. Attempted at the Teahouse: no result;
5. Attempted to dispute resolution: no result;
6. Attempted in the talk of the skier: no result;
7. Attempted ANI: no result --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Kasper2006, administrators do not adjudicate content disputes and neither does the Teahouse. Administrators do not "authorize" things like this. You are at the wrong place. Focus on Dispute resolution, which describes the various options for dealing with content disputes. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Per Cullen. A week is a very short amount of time, Kasper, to get sufficient feedback to break a deadlock between two editors who are in a disagreement. There are LOTS of options listed at WP:DR for you to follow, but many of them need time for other volunteers to find the discussions, contribute, and build a consensus on how to proceed. It takes considerable time to do that, moreso when one or both parties overcontributes to the dispute to where no one else feels like helping out. --Jayron32 19:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Kasper2006 has not done any of the things mentioned above, but instead continued to add the disputed content to a few more skiers (Sofia Goggia, Henrik Kristoffersen, Petra Vlhová, Ragnhild Mowinckel, Michelle Gisin) despite being clearly told not to whilst the discussion is ongoing. Kasper2006 seems to have a problem with realising that what he claims to be the "status quo" is, in fact, not. That is disruptive behaviour. If Kasper2006 wants to add the information, which is interesting and relevant, then it can be added as a separate table in the main body of the articles, but it should not be in the infobox, since it is not medals and it clutters the infobox with too much information. --Marbe166 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not clear to you that the bully is you. Here for months, no administrator has made a decision about your destructive behavior. I repeat and I tell the administrators, the STATUS QUO was the table in the infobox, so it is still in 90% of the articles for years, YOU ARE ONLY YOU to think differently. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to realise that what you claim is the "status quo" is not the status quo. The status quo is that the MEDALtemplate in the infobox is used for MEDALS, i.e. Olympics, World Championships and Junior World Championships. I am only reverting because you are adding information that is the subject of the discussion, and such changes should not be made when the discussion is ongoing. Marbe166 (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

My friend "status quo" is something that has been going on for years tacitly from Stenmark to Odermatt everyone has always had the tables since 2005, only to arrive in the last year and take it away only to some active skiers. It is not clear to you yet that the "medaltemplates" is used but it is explicit in the title "podiums in World Cup". --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it has not been the case for everyone. Like I said in another of our exchanges, it has been the case for many Italian skiers and a few others, like the ones you mention. The vast majority of skiers do not have the WC podium table in the infobox. (Here are 5 examples: Anja Pärson, Pernilla Wiberg, Nicole Hosp, Lindsey Vonn, Wendy Holdener). Marbe166 (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

In any case, you are holding on to a trifle. You want to show that since the template is named "medaltemplate" you only have to put competitions that give medals. But this is not the case, as in the German wiki, if you use the template by changing the title "podiums in world cup" you can give this VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION already in the infobox, thus helping the millions of Wikipedia users in the world (not editors like you and me ), seeking help perhaps while watching a ski race. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

<Don't fool us. If you that you have always taken away see here --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote above the discussion has been stagnant for months, I have made six attempts in six different places and when one intervenes one tells me: try the Teahouse, try the "dispute resolution". Already done! Already done! --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

See in the chronology how many poor users Marbe166 do the revert has done with his: "not medals" ... "not medals" --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Marco Odermatt saved himself from the madness of Marbe166 and with him, as I said, 90% of the skiers who have this table that I have certainly not set over the years. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I ask the administrators if I can warn in their talk of the presence of this discussion the dozens and dozens of users overbearingly reverted by our friend. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Among other things, I find it even crazier that you have quietly edited, for example in Lindsey Vonn, they leave the table for four years from 3 February 2018 to your cancellation on 30 January 2022 --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding updating WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE

WP:VPP#RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE, regarding consideration of off-wiki evidence in blocks for on-wiki misconduct, and relating to ArbCom's statement last month about such blocks, may be of general interest to administrators. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Persistent disruption and harassment by User:Skyring

User:Skyring has persistently followed users edits to revert them, ignored policy, attacked users as ‘political actors’, made inflammatory statements on talk pages, and refused to adhere to dispute resolution processes. If they have any issue with edits they do not make small changes but often revert huge amounts of well sourced content without leaving constructive feedback. This is a longstanding issue so collating every example of this behaviour would be quite difficult, but I’ve tried to include a fair bit.

Their disruption is focused on topics that involve Aboriginal Australians, where they continually revert and dispute content based on their point of view and do not add anything at all. They have not expressed any professional, academic, or personal understanding of First Nations topics – except that they happen to live in Australia. This is a problem because they persistently make inflammatory mistakes and then insist people must prove them wrong. They persistently attack users as not following NPOV, being biased political actors, being ‘woke’, and being single issue editors. This is despite them clearly having a political agenda to their edits – 'clearly' because they frequently express it. They have not stopped using this inflammatory language despite being asked repeatedly not to. This went as far as attacking me directly with a new section on the Australian Wikipedian’s noticeboard. This has been ongoing for I’d say a year or so, including their persistent following and reversion of an Aboriginal Wikipedian’s (User:GadigalGuy) edits.

I have tried repeatedly to find compromise and resolve disputes with Skyring and I have no reason to believe that they are acting in good faith and will accept any edits that are not within their worldview. I have talked to them extremely extensively, and for the most part from a good faith and civil perspective, including on article discussions, talk pages, and their user page (which they reacted with hostility to). I have asked an admin for help rather than going to ANI, and I have created an RFC that took months. They have been persistently disruptive during and after these processes and have not sought to find compromise or consensus that is separate from their POV. I understand I myself have a perspective, but I am looking for ways to resolve disputes because I am willing to compromise so I do not spend years of my life arguing with someone on Wikipedia. Skyring has not shown this good faith himself, a major example being the results of the RFC. A major editing dispute with Skyring is around using Aboriginal names in the lead sentence of articles. They would continue to make the same arguments again and again, so I started an RFC.

This RFC took months and a huge amount of user time, and is only one of the many extremely long discussions Skyring has been involved in or started. They quickly started disputing the legitimacy of the RFC for not being clear enough and having poor formatting. This is despite them praising me for starting the RFC on my own talk page. They then questioned the RFC as illegitimate on the request for closure page, as they said the formatting was poor. This is despite them formatting the RFC themselves shortly after it was posted. They also repeatedly falsely represented that the RFC was about ‘mandatory inclusion of names’, despite it being explained to them several times that this was not the case. After the closure which concluded consensus did not fit their point of view, they immediately started disputing the policy that supports inclusion of Indigenous names in the lead. This is a policy that they have repeatedly ignored in the past, and would not respond to when others had posted it, but they knew enough about it to start disputing it. They also said that the result of the RFC was that there was no consensus, which I said was not true and sought input from the closing editor. The closing editor (User: ScottishFinnishRadish) stated that the RFC did support the inclusion of Aboriginal names when well sourced. Skyring both ignored this, and continued to use every avenue they could think of to challenge these names – avenues that have many, many, times been discussed with them. They are now disputing clearly good sources (as they can do that forever), and questioning the intent of policy. Confusingly, their responses are erratic like when they have sometimes acknowledged the results of the RFC as a good result and then continue arguing against it.

Skyring’s behaviour is an example of the greater problem of systemic bias on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation has been clear they want to diversify views and cut bias on Wikipedia, but it is not a welcoming space for the people it needs to include. While the Wikimedia Foundation has given funding to Australian researchers to promote First Nations content and research systemic bias, the only openly Aboriginal editor on Wikipedia that I know (User:GadigalGuy) has been persistently hounded and had their edits reverted to the point they quit editing until recently.

While I don’t think Skyring is consciously racist, they have said several deeply racist things on talk pages to support their edits and are openly hostile to Aboriginal content on Wikipedia. One example of this is Skyring repeatedly referring to Aboriginal people as people of British descent who are confecting a fake cultural identity. When called out on this behaviour Skyring feigns ignorance and insists they are absolutely happy to have Aboriginal content on Wikipedia, and then continues on with their behaviour.

Due to their persistent disruption and harassment, and their complete lack of compromise or contribution, at the least, Skyring should be banned from editing on topics involving First Nations peoples. Thanks for your time. Users affected by Skyring's behaviour include, among others: User:GadigalGuy User:Randwicked User:HiLo48 User:The Drover's Wife User:The Logical Positivist.

Thanks for your time. Poketama (talk) 09:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• No-one is going to action (or frankly even read) a long wall of text with zero diffs to show the issues you are claiming. Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I was just going to say precisely the same thing. EEng 09:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry the diffs did not copy from my Word doc, I'm trying to fix that now. Poketama (talk) 09:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I thank Poketama for his effort in raising this issue. It is true that his efforts as a single-purpose editor have met some opposition from me but I have always looked to Wikipolicy as a guide for both of us - and indeed all editors.

My position on Indigenous placenames is quite clear as stated here in a draft essay to which I have consistently sought input. This is a topic we need to get right and playing political one-upmanship games is not the way forward. Currently I am seeking to have some wording in WP:PLACE clarified - see my request for help here. Poketama takes it to give broad authority for including Indigenous place names as co-titles in positions of Wikiprominence and I can't see that this is the intention of those who drafted the policy.

I am all in favour of giving Indigenous place names more inclusion, not less, but I think that we need better sources than town council and high school websites and the like, and that this information properly belongs in "History" and "Naming" sections, rather than dropped into the first sentence of the lede like ticking some box. It is a complex and sensitive issue with only a few regular participants and one in which perhaps more editors could usefully contribute. --Pete (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've looked through most of the diffs presented. While it is true that your arguments always refer to policy and I'm not seeing the level of disruption claimed, I do see some issues. For instance, in this diff you say We need reliable sources and I suggest that if we accept a modern source such as a city council or a heritage board or whatever, we need to look at what their sources are rather than say that these groups in themselves are knowledgeable in the relevant Indigenous languages, culture, and history. That's not how sourcing works; if a source is an RS then we accept what it says; if it isn't, we don't. We don't look at a reliable source but critique where they got their information from. If there is contradiction in the sources then we discuss the various points of view in the article and summarise them in the lead. When it comes to personal interactions, calling a culture someone identifies with illiterate and stone-age may well be technically accurate but it's hardly tactful or collegial. On the question of how to understand WP:PLACE, as far as I can tell you're flat out wrong. What else should we understand by the words used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place than people who were indigenous to that place?

Both sides of this need to tone it down a bit. Well-sourced material should be included (without a deep inquiry into the nature of otherwise-reliable sources) and material that can't be well-sourced shouldn't be included. In this particular case, the lack of written records in the indigenous culture does mean that there will be cases where sourcing something is hard; that's unfortunate but just the way it is. Both need to AGF and not see personal attacks where they are at best ambiguous, if not entirely absent (quite a few of the diffs presented seem to me to fall into this category). I can understand that frustration makes it easy to see attacks everywhere, but it's not the way to go about editing. GoldenRing (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I also think that the invocation of PLACE is misplaced, and I think Skyring's application of it means something like "old names still have to be meaningful", with the added notion that "Indigenous Australians have changed so much it doesn't matter anymore" (see [23]), or something like that. I'm paraphrasing, obviously. But if that is the idea, "it doesn't matter anymore", then this baffling edit supports that, and suggests an unseemly bias. And "some crusader [who] has to insert an Indigenous name regardless of wikipolicy", "Those pushing for a different name are pushing some political or cultural agenda", those certainly are personal attacks and violations of AGF--and note that in the latter case, edit warring over Melbourne (article was protected by MelanieN in April 2022), it wasn't "pushing for a different name"--it was adding the indigenous name, so even the very phrasing suggests bias. Yes, it's a long report, too long perhaps, but it's not without merit. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

A couple of points. I'm not sure that some names being put forward as authentic Indigenous names have the merit claimed. As I noted in discussion there, the name of "Naarm" for Melbourne is problematical. One feature of Aboriginal place names across Australia is that repetition is used to indicate importance or size or plurality. Hence Wagga Wagga. So if Port Phillip - a sizeable body of water - is "Naarm Naarm", then how was the random piece of land along the banks of the Yarra that became the village and later city of Melbourne named "Naarm"? The name indicates a more generic application. There is some concern that this is a modern back-formation. Most Indigenous names, I think, are well-founded, but some are problematical, especially names for cities which didn't exist before European settlement. This is why I want solid sourcing rather than something like this which quotes a tertiary source. The danger of persisting error is, I trust, obvious.

The wording in WP:PLACE - "…that is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place…" - is on the face of it referring to Indigenous names. The problem here is that this wording has been discussed extensively there and I can't find any mention of it being used for pre-existing Indigenous names. It's all about European cities occupied by different nations at different times and using different names. When the wording was introduced in mid 2009 there was no discussion of Indigenous, Aboriginal, or native usages. Normally these sorts of naming conventions are prime examples of nit-pickery by nit-pickers who know their topic well; the sort of community elders we all rely upon. If this wording was or wasn't intended to include Indigenous place names in the lede sentence, some clarification would be very useful.

My distrust of WP:SPA using Wikipedia to push a particular ideological or commercial barrow, leveraging our substantial page-rank, is well-known, I think. I'd like to see this topic treated carefully so that we can shine as a beacon of scholarship and integrity rather than using lightweight sources such as this one (diff here). --Pete (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC))

And so there, in your last paragraph, is that violation of AGF. "SPA"? I also have a single purpose: to improve this beautiful project. If including indigenous names is reduced to "pushing an ideological barrow", then you are actively working against our purpose, to make knowledge available for free, and the guise of combating ideology becomes its own ideological slant. I'm setting aside the concerns about sourcing: that is a different matter. You could have just said "they used bad sources", but that's not what you are doing. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You are wrong, Drmies. I have no problem at all with including Indigenous names. I am all for it and doing a good job. I've mentioned my draft essay above; perhaps you haven't read it. Please do so. Apart from a few tweaks as per talk page discussion it is all my work and I stand by it. Indigenous placenames firmly belong in every Australian place article where we can source information about the First Australians before Europeans arrived and screwed them over.

A recent example is my contribution to consensus-building in discussion at Sydney. See my straw poll section here where I'm on record as supporting an expansion of the names and Indigenous territories in the body, summarising that in the lede, but not including a swag of marginally useful information in the first sentence.

If you think I am opposed to including Indigenous place names and information on Indigenous people in Australian articles, you are dead wrong; this is information we need in our articles because it enriches them, gives them a solid grounding in the human story of the land, and - if we do our job properly - helps to give good, reliable information on this important topic.

Where Poketama and I come in conflict is that I don't think we need write every Australian article from an Indigenous perspective. That would be giving WP:UNDUE prominence to a fringe perspective. Measure and balance is what Wikipedia seeks to provide.

Looking at WP:SPA I think you are interpreting the tag more widely than generally accepted, in fact to the point of losing all meaning:

A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account or IP editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles, or whose edits to many articles appear to be for a common purpose. If you are in this situation and some editors directed you to this page, pointing out that you made "few or no other edits outside this topic", they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. This is because while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed.

Thanks. --Pete (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Your analysis of Naarm / Melbourne is a good example of what I'm objecting to. Can the name be reliably sourced? If so, it goes in. If not, it doesn't go in. If the RS disagree, we explain that in the article. I don't care how the name relates to other nearby names. It's that simple. GoldenRing (talk) 09:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I had suggested here, when asked about my close, that disagreements be brought to RSN. If consensus there is that the source is reliable for the statement then it would certainly meet the threshold for inclusion, per the RFC I closed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we can always get more eyes on a question. The example of Sydney is one where there was a lot of discussion before an excellent source was brought forward: Val Attenbrow's book Sydney's Aboriginal Past which is authoritative and well-researched.[24] The problem there was that the land now occupied by the greater city of Sydney - five million or so people now - was the territory of various different Indigenous groups. If you look in the appropriate part we have a table showing who lived where and what their names were, an excellent solution. The discussion on Melbourne is not quite so well-managed but progress is being made with some good sources being brought out. Some of these lightweight sources try to present a simplistic XXX = YYY equivalence, where the actual situation may be more nuanced. Modern Melbourne sits astride an ancient boundary between two different pre-European peoples each with a different language, so of course there are different names for various locations.

Discussion and consensus is always the first objective, with as many points of view as possible being brought in. RSN and RfC processes are available to resolve disagreements in the regular way. More experienced editors understand how these things work whereas someone with fewer edits under their belt puts forward a tertiary source from Google's first page and feels personally challenged when asked for something better, especially if they feel they have the definitive answer already within themselves. WP:RSN is an excellent way to find a definitive wikisolution, if only because it gets some fresh eyes on a question after the discussion starts to go around in circles with no end in sight. --Pete (talk) 12:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice ScottishFinnishRadish and I'll do that in the future, but with Skyring it's just so persistent I don't have time to deal with it. They will use this excuse for anything that they don't like to the point of absurdity. I don't have much time to find examples, but here is one of a solid government source they dismiss as worthless. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_River_(New_South_Wales)

They also as they have said above keep asking for primary sources which is not really how Wikipedia works AFAIK. Poketama (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this other than that this diff is concerning to say the least. Is the implication here that articles should only exist if they are related directly to the English-speaking world, or what? Perhaps I am misinterpreting but that seems to me to go against the core mission of Wikipedia itself, which is to spread free knowledge. An article isn't irrelevant on the English Wikipedia just because it doesn't have to do with English-speakers. Even more confusing is that the article is Australia related, Australia is part of the English-speaking world the last time I checked. TylerBurden (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's the same reason Czar is a redlink. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Point taken, but "Czar" is an English word. It would be hard to find a dictionary that does not contain it. Even pretty basic texts. Not that we're a dictionary, just an encyclopaedia that happens to be written in English. I don't think Arweet is notable enough to need an article by itself; that's my point. --Pete (talk) 07:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

While not attacking, this talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boonwurrung is an example of the kind of disruptive and frustrating behaviour that Skyring brings to the table. What am I supposed to do with this feedback and reverting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketama (talk • contribs)

TBH I don't think either of you come out of that smelling of roses. GoldenRing (talk) 11:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I apologise I was curt, I didn't make any personal attacks. A huge amount of my work had again been deleted without any reason given except 'This article reads like an advert for some alternate system of sovereignty'. Can you look at the diffs and understand where I'm coming from? I feel there's a pretty big difference between me saying "Very helpful, why don't you improve the page" and them saying "It's biased and full of editorialising. We're not in the business of writing propaganda.". Poketama (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

A fresh start

Drmies is a wise guy and he has made some good points with me. I have been regarding Poketama as a SPA - with good reason, I might add - and for that reason it's difficult to AGF and I have been a bit hasty on the revert button. Some of Drmies' criticism is valid and I'll accept it from a person of their experience and jovial wisdom.

Poketama, I see you as pushing a political barrow, one where Australia has some sort of parallel Indigenous administration and everything must be reframed according to that dogma. Indigenous place names have equal authority to those in common usage, ancestral tribal lands still exist and the power struggles in Aboriginal Land Councils are every bit as important as a cabinet reshuffle. Maybe I'm stirring the pot a little there but if you're honest with yourself there's a fair bit of truth in my assessment.

You won't agree with me on every point but I see Wikipedia as reflecting reality not ideals, at least in topics devoted to physical constructs such as geography and human communities. The modern day reality is that we live in a land where British law arrived with Governor Phillip, Aboriginal sovereignty was extinguished by conquest - as William the Bastard demonstrated to the English - and the descendants of those living here in past centuries and new arrivals from all over the world live together in a rich mélange of cultures and ethnicities. Just as we Australians share a land, and all must pay the taxes, obey the road rules, vote in the elections, so two must we as editors work together to build an encyclopaedia.

I have little love for political activists but I do like wikipolicy which enables people of diverse backgrounds, experiences, and desires to work together to build a free encyclopaedia which is perhaps the crowning achievement of the internet.

Is there some fresh start we can make where we coöperate to construct a better Wikipedia instead of throwing rocks at each other? --Pete (talk) 08:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate you trying to reach out. However, the things you've said are another example of what I'm talking about and why it's difficult to work with you. You made a whole bunch of huge reaching assumptions about me, went on a political diatribe of questionable truth, call me a SPA political activist, and then ask for us all to get along. I write about a few different topics, including Aboriginal cultures in Australia. I have not once professed any of the views that you have attributed to me, that I am someone seeking to change the country, the reality of history, or whatever you think I'm doing. The Boonwurrung article is a good example where I've significantly expanded an important article, written well-sourced content on things like how animals are hunted and you've reverted it instinctively because what; you think I want to overthrow the British Crown through Wikipedia? The way you're attributing personalities to editors, and ignoring them when they tell you otherwise, makes it very difficult to work with you. Poketama (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"…you think I want to overthrow the British Crown through Wikipedia…"

No, I don't think that at all. The High Court wasn't able to put an exact date on it but sovereignty passed from the Imperial Parliament into the hands of the Australian people a long time ago. I listened to the arguments in Sue v Hill and studied the judgement with keen interest. The effective point here is that with the passage of the Australia Act, the UK ceded the last vestiges of sovereignty here and cannot take them back. The monarch has no significant power here, despite what one may think on reading the Constitution, a creation of a very different world. We hold our destiny in our own hands, at least insofar as we can control the effects of the wider world on our shores.

But that's by the bye. It is the phrasing, the word choices, the language used which makes me consider you as a political actor, whether you see yourself as one or not. Words choices can be flags, signalling attitudes to those knowing the code. The people arriving unannounced on our shores can be refugees, asylum-seekers, or illegal immigrants, depending on what message the speaker wants to send. You'd be all too familiar with the notion of "dog-whistling" where messages are sent through apparently innocuous phrasing.

I was wrong on Boonwurrung. The language used in this version was of some concern, so I dropped a neutrality tag on it. Other editors made changes - see diff here and then you made a large addition with an edit summary - "Added back in information…" - that I took to be a revert to the previous version. I was wrong in my assumption and I should have examined your changes more carefully. You were wrong in removing the template without gaining consensus; discussion there would have saved a lot of trouble.

I am sorry I reverted your careful work. I feel bad about that, and I am grateful to Drmies who made me take a closer look. I'll take more care in future.

I'm afraid I've had too much contact with politicians and their supporters to take what they say at face value. They sing their tribal songs - as if they are cheering on their football team - and they admit no wrong and every fault belongs to others. Sometimes it seems as if they are talking entirely different languages, as we currently see with the supporters of the former US president and more rational beings.

So of course I view people playing a political game through eyes of doubt. That applies here in Wikipedia where people often do abuse the power given them to edit articles. I'll open my eyes a bit wider in future. --Pete (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

A little aside. Strike my comments as well.

Maybe I'm stirring the pot a little there

A little? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Pete, I think your fresh start needs a fresh start. Just an observation from the outside. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

So...by way of attempting to bury the hatchet and in hopes of future collaboration, you openly accuse them of political bias, make a political statement of your own, make yourself appear the bigger person, and then say that you're willing to work with them, despite the political bias? FrederalBacon (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn FrederalBacon (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That sounds very judgey to me. Like a lot of people here, I'm a reasonable way along the spectrum, and I'm doing the best I can to fix a problem. --Pete (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No judgement, I have no dog in the fight, just an outside observation. A "fresh start" can't start with the assumption of political bias. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Withdrawn FrederalBacon (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Your comment is interesting to me, though probably not for the reasons you imageine. Care to elaborate, if you think that will help? --Pete (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Nope. There is nothing to elaborate on. I don't believe I was unclear. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn FrederalBacon (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

You weren't unclear; I was merely interested in what impelled you to make such an extraordinary statement. Not to worry. --Pete (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not even a statement, it was a question posed to you. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC) Withdrawn FrederalBacon (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I have unarchived this discussion as there wasn't a conclusion and I'm not convinced Skyring will change their behaviour at all given their responses thus far. Poketama (talk) 15:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

they won't. Their block log makes that clear. A topic ban is probably the only solution, although it isn't a longterm one either because much edge case dancing will ensue Star Mississippi 17:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Request to lift some restrictions

I was blocked by admin El_C on 16 February 2022 and was unblocked by Deepfriedokra on 7 March 2022 with conditions All new article creations through AfC and vetted by AfC before main spacing. One edit per day per AfD thread. And please, avoid losing your temper/ being rude/ making personal attacks/not assuming good faith when under stress..
Following the restriction, I have created 94 articles "vetted by AfC" out of which a 32KB+ article Operation Bajrang - and Robin Hibu, Viplav Tripathi, G Bidai, Tapan Deka and Sajid Mir under WP:BIO - 2013 Jhankar Saikia mob lynching, and Lynching of Deben Dutta under WP:CRIMINALPROJ, - Ellora Vigyan Mancha and Ajmal Foundation under WP:WPORG.

About my stubs/starts of WP:NPOL and WP:GEOLAND - I had no other options left to be "an editor as WP:HERE".

I, truly understand that the restrictions imposed on me might not be uplifted. I honor all decisions of the Admins and I am following their advice. Despite my conversations with @Deepfriedokra on their talk page, I have changed my mind to come here for consideration.

To date, I am building Wiki with mostly citations on unsourced articles. I guess my citation work helped Wiki, though I might not be correct.

But restriction for all articles "vetted by AfC" is a bit of an extra hammer for my WP:GEOLAND works.

Hence I appeal to remove some restrictions imposed by admin @Deepfriedokra. For example, WP:GEO and WP:NPOL really don't need much in AfC (where NPP will work). I am appealing to remove my "vetted by AfC" restriction in WP:GEO and WP:NPOL as I have created AfC articles understanding the WP:THREE.

Also creating articles through AfC, I have learned the method of AfC reviewer, which I want to apply. Further, I declare that, whatever the outcome will be here, I shall continue with it. Regards _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral I've received negative feedback from users I trust on removing the AfC requirement in particular, so I sent NT4M here.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  PS> Almost forgot. AfC reviewer is and will be a hard no. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Based on talk page messages, it looks like the last AfC rejection was in June with many accepted since then. I don't know all ^{(actually, I'm not sure I know any of the background that lead to the AfC requirement)} the background here but, assuming I'm not missing something, the AfC requirement seems to be a waste of reviewer time. PhantomTech[talk] 09:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) @PhantomTech whatever AfC draft I failed to complete, I gave up. Every draft is evident of it. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 09:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  If the issue that caused the AfC requirement was creating articles that were effectively drafts in article space then I'd at the very least support allowing NeverTry4Me to self-publish their own drafts once they feel they are ready. Again, I don't know the background, but based on talk page notifications for AfC submissions it seems NeverTry4Me is capable of creating articles that meet Wikipedia's standards and determining when those standards are met. PhantomTech[talk] 09:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  @PhantomTech If you're going to look at their talk page messages you need to check the page history. Nevertry4me keeps the messages where their drafts have been accepted and deletes the declines without archiving. They had a draft declined yesterday [25] but deleted the notice with the edit summary - clean-up, nothing important [26]. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) IP vote? Sometimes AfC reviewers skips WP:NPOL which is you are talking about. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 10:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I checked for declines by searching edit summaries in the last 500 talk page edits, or at least that's what I thought I did. Clearly I did something wrong because not only did I miss the September 7th decline but there was also a decline in July. I have no idea what I did that caused me to miss those but I was under the impression that of the last 500 edits to the talk page, there was only one AfC decline and it was in June. Thank you for pointing this out to me. PhantomTech[talk] 10:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm hesitant to make another claim about accepted/denied AfC drafts, but it looks like the submission decline rate since July has still been low at 2-3%. There seems to be a very sudden drop off in declined drafts around the end of June/beginning of July which could mean that whatever issue was causing the declines has been resolved. That said, I'll reiterate that I don't know the background here, and also note that I've only commented about the AfC restriction so far. Assuming that there's no reason to think that article quality will significantly decline, the AfC requirement question seems to be: is it worth requiring AfC reviewers to review 50-100 draft stubs and frustrating the author to keep one that may not meet WP:GNG out of mainspace? PhantomTech[talk] 11:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Weakly Leaning Oppose. I think that independent review of your articles is probably still a good thing and a worthwhile exercise. I don't think your English language skills are quite at the level required to be writing new articles directly in main space, e.g. the sentence About my stubs/starts of WP:NPOL and WP:GEOLAND - I had no other options left to be "an editor as WP:HERE". from your appeal doesn't make any sense. There's also been some other editing by you that raises WP:CIR questions in my opinion, e.g. your constant attempts at hat collecting and requesting user rights that you don't qualify for and in many cases don't even seem to understand [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35], your attempt to become an AFC reviewer while banned from creating articles [36] and your recent block for violating this topic ban by accepting your own articles at AFC. I certainly don't think you are in a position at the moment where you should be becoming an AFC reviewer. The AFD restriction definitely needs to remain since we have had recent issues with you bludgeoning discussions here even despite the topic ban [37] and likewise And please, avoid losing your temper/ being rude/ making personal attacks/not assuming good faith when under stress... is clearly still necessary given your response to your most recent block. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Is a topic ban on requesting permissions an option? Their apparent obsession with headwear is silly and a waste of time. – ².O.^Boxing 11:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm curious about this. Is NT4M emailing editors to imply they'll be blocked for being on the wrong end of an AFD decision? As for the lifting of restrictions and wanting to review AFC submissions, the declined article is evidence that NT4M needs more experience. They seem to be under the impression GNG can be ignored if NPOL is satisfied. – ².O.^Boxing 11:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding your ref, you should appreciate that I have helped the article The Sporting Age without !vote on the deletion discussion. I have added refs that helped to survive the article. Was that my fault? _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You're avoiding the question. No-one here is asking about whether you added references to the article, you are being asked if you were emailing threats to other editors to try to influence an AFD discussion. @MPGuy2824 as the recipient of the email you should probably be aware of this discussion. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Pinging MPGuy2824 for a clearer consensus. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I shall stop here for a consensus. The AFC reviewers and NPP who reviewed my accepted articles "vetted by AFC" will answer my capability. I am not going to ping any Admin, reviewers, or NPP for it. Let them decide. I shall follow the final decision. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That email is certainly troubling and inappropriate and is a good example of why I should not remove the 1 edit per day AfD restriction unilaterally. Since I'm deferring, I'll let y'all decide what to do with it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose no reason shown for why he can't use AFC despite not wanting to. The backlog claims are weak. There's no reason he has to have live articles (which require cleanup anyway) right now. Unclear communication style present even in this discussion. If this is ultimately accepted, he cannot have NPP. Articles need too many eyeballs. Star Mississippi 15:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  further lack of communication skills. At User_talk:Deepfriedokra#Is_the_partial_removal_request_ok?, NT4M said I have decided to go to WP:AN. Despite your suggestion, I did so. Please pardon me for that. when what @Deepfriedokra actually said was When the admin who placed a restriction declines to remove it, the next step in the process is for the appellant to ask the Community at WP:AN I think NT4M means well, but lacks the English language communication skills to create articles without external review. It's the poor communication skills that have unfortunately led to many of their prior visits to these boards. Star Mississippi 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (Le sigh.) I think I only said to take it here like three times, but who is counting? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Having blocked NT4M last month for violating this sanction, I don't love the idea of repealing a sanction someone violated so recently. That said, sanctions should be preventative rather than punitive, and I don't see a lot of evidence that this AfC requirement is currently necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. That's all somewhat speculative, though, so where I come down is: Support suspension of AfC requirement, with any uninvolved admin allowed to reïmpose for the next 6 months. The suspended sanction would be listed at WP:EDR for those 6 months. If it were not reïmposed by the end of those 6 months, it would be considered fully repealed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II

Given today's announcement about the health of Her Majestey, and the fact that she is 96, we may need to face the fact that she could be coming to the end of her long reign. Extra admin eyes on her article, and those closely connected to her would probably be no bad thing. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I semi-protected Operation London Bridge for 3 days for disruptive editing/vandalism. Of course that can be extended should circumstances dictate it but I think 3 days is a good starting point. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II has been extended-confirmed protected indefinitely by DrKay. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Question Do we need to move protect the Charles, Prince of Wales article? I can forsee the article being move warred over once the Queen passes. Move protecting would allow for time to discover the new King's regnal style, at which time the article need be moved once, and once only. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe it's already move protected (for other reasons). DrKay (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, good. Padlock only showing for semi-protection though. That might be an issue for discussion elsewhere. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not guaranteed that it will need to be moved "once and only once". Assuming he takes the name Charles III, will we move the disambiguation currently at Charles III to allow the new king's article to be there (as is the case with every British monarch from George III onwards, other than Queen Victoria), or will it go at Charles III of the United Kingdom? Whichever answer the mover chooses, it will probably be challenged by someone who thinks the other is correct, and there's no way to know which will win. Animal lover |666| 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I've a feeling that if he sticks with Charles, it will be Charles IX, under Churchill's rule, as there were King Charles's in Scotland before the joining of the English and Scottish Crowns. He could take, for example, George VII as his title. Which is why I suggest waiting for an official announcement. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'd agree with that. Charles can pick any regnal name, and we may not know for a few days what that may be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

My point still stands: assuming that we currently have a disambiguation at his chosen name, do we move the disambiguation page out of the way and place the king's article there, or do we add "of the United Kingdom" to that name? This could go either way. Animal lover |666| 17:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

IMvHO, Charles III should be a disambiguation page. We should use the "of the United Kingdom" disambiguator, whatever regnal name is chosen. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Buckingham Palace has just announced the death. BBC News source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Charles has been king from some time this afternoon. There is no need for an encyclopedia to reflect that until things are clearer. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Liz Truss just gave a statement from Downing Street, named the new King as "King Charles III". Suggest we wait for now on a move to "Charles III of the United Kingdom". Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

A request to admins, could the article stop being made until a verified statement has been released by Buckingham Palace with regards to the regnal name of Charles please? Such an announcement will come, but for now one has not been made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

And of course, seconds after I made this request, an official statement was actually made that the regnal name is Charles III. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Something to keep an eye on: evidently Clarence House is also starting to refer to the former queen as "Elizabeth the Great". Not in an official capacity, it's just something that someone mentioned on the CBC live feed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope that doesn't catch on. Surely the job of monarch and head of state has been, for the last few hundred years, not to be "great", and Elizabeth has performed that part of her job well. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)