Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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


Open tasks[edit]

XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 0 47 116 0 163
TfD 0 0 20 0 20
MfD 0 0 11 0 11
FfD 0 37 10 0 47
AfD 0 0 22 0 22

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (19 out of 3519 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Collier (political activist) 2021-12-04 05:18 2022-02-04 05:18 edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:PIA ToBeFree
Carl Judie 2021-12-03 23:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ponyo
Palestinian Bedouin 2021-12-03 18:07 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter
David Collier (political activist) 2021-12-03 11:45 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter
User talk:Ponyo 2021-12-02 06:52 indefinite move Persistent vandalism Liz
Siddhant ghegadmal 2021-12-02 05:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Vidhya Vinod 2021-12-02 00:15 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Vidhya vinod 2021-12-02 00:13 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Pulock Deb Roy 2021-12-01 20:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article HJ Mitchell
Draft:Miraheze 2021-12-01 19:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Clpo13
Draft:Sohil Jain 2021-12-01 18:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Bio of this individual has been the subject of deceptive editing practices Liz
Bhagchandra Jain 2021-12-01 18:48 indefinite move Persistent vandalism Liz
Sohil Jain 2021-12-01 18:47 indefinite create Page hijacked by paid editor. The next one should go through the AFC process. Liz
Module:Political party/M 2021-12-01 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2642 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Module:Political party/F 2021-12-01 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2817 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Module:Political party/W 2021-11-30 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2523 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Module:Political party/T 2021-11-30 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3172 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Gridiron primary color raw 2021-11-30 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3777 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Monthly clean-up category/to add 2021-11-30 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2512 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II

Failed login attempts[edit]

I've just changed (and upgraded) my password after being automatically notified of 18 50+ failed login attempts over the last few hours. Just thought I'd report this lest anyone else is experiencing a similar attempt to access their admin account. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

It could be someone working through one of the many hacked-password sites that list username/password pairs that have been extracted from hacked websites. Or, it could be a troll. Providing people use a good and unique password (never used anywhere else), there is no need to worry until you get millions of failed login attempts. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment Not sure whether related or not, but it would probably worth to look at this discussion: Jeppiz#Your account. AXONOV (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, both, for those pointers. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, there's #Level 1 desysop of Epbr123 too. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
A checkuser can determine if a particular IP is trying and failing to log into someone's account. But without knowing the IP, and only having the name of the target account it's impossible to make progress. A Mediawiki improvement might be considered that would allow the identity of the IP attacking the account to be found. The WMF might consider implementing T174388. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Welcome to the club. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rank me among the least technologically sophisticated administrators, but it seems clear to me that it is useful and justifiable for more sophisticated administrators to know as much as possible about anybody trying to hack administrator's accounts. Yes, I occasionally get reports of attempts to log into my account. I use a password based on a scrambled version of a unique and very obscure childhood memory that I do not use on any other website, so I am confident. But I would like to know which troll(s) occasionally try to hack my account. Cullen328 (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass killings under communist regimes content resolution[edit]

CLOSING

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, panel close or no?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

User safeguarding controversial web page?[edit]

NOTHING TO DO HERE

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Global ban for 1Goldberg2[edit]

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for 1Goldberg2. – Mrakia 16:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Mrakia - Does this mean that we can offer our opinions here, or that we can offer our !votes in Meta? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
It is best to do it on Meta.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Consensus for a global ban is conducted through GRFC on Meta. Please, leave a comment there. – Mrakia 19:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Horror movie editors, I'm calling on your institutional memory[edit]

A while ago I blocked an editor/sock nest who were making puerile test edits to tons of articles on horror movies, including genre changes, name links, punctuation, mostly in the lead. I just ran into another one, User:Nedorotmyisipi887325086, and blocked them and a few sock accounts--but for the life of me I cannot remember any of the names of earlier accounts. Do these edits ring a bell for any of you? Drmies (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: Don't know who you blocked "a while ago", but there is Penhaot10028.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Bbb23; perhaps NinjaRobotPirate can help out. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The genre changing and the nonsense username look like a Jinnifer sock. MrOllie (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The edits are very Jinnifer-like, although those are not articles that Jinnifer has edited in the past. On the other hand, most of the sock's go-to articles are now protected, so they can't hang out in their favorite playgrounds anymore. Grandpallama (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
YES--thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Vakkachan Chirayath[edit]

[1] User that was indef blocked for advertising continues to promote on their talk page. Requesting WP:TPA revocation. Courtesy ping blocking admin Materialscientist. Curbon7 (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done WaggersTALK 15:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Slow edit war[edit]

(non-admin closure) Page protected for a year by YmblanterGolden call me maybe? 16:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

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


This may not be the best venue for making this request but I would like to request semi-protection (at least a month but suggest 45 days) for Battle of Malplaquet because of a slow edit war by an IP that does not engage in discussion initiated at Talk:Battle of Malplaquet#Result - again.. Pls see examples: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I have protected for a year given that it was protected earlier this year for 3 month, and no recent IP edits seem to be constructive.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion to amend the case Horn of Africa as follows:

The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, are made permanent. The committee declines to open a full case. Any further amendments or requests for clarification should be made following the normal method.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 16:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Horn of Africa

Requested redirect creations for blacklisted music-note titles[edit]

Would it be possible for an admin to create the following redirects? I cannot do it, as the titles are blacklisted.

We already have the redirects for the longer notes and the corresponding rests: see Musical Symbols (Unicode block).

Thanks, Double sharp (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirects created. (For posterity, non-admin page movers and template editors can create blacklisted titles, although I've only ever seen requests for them end up at AN, so there's no particular issue requesting them here. Might be worth making it more explicit somewhere -- the "can only be made by people with X perms" banner mentions all three perms that can do it, but is there an error message for non-admins/PMRs/TPEs that only mentions admins?) Vaticidalprophet 10:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
There is indeed such a message: MediaWiki:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit. (The default text there isn't exactly what one sees in practice. Visit [7] while logged out if you're curious.) Would it be better to just direct people to make a template-edit request on the talkpage? That's what we do with editnotices. (Perhaps there should be a {{title blacklist edit request}} in addition to the standard {{template edit request}}, otherwise there'd be no easy way for a non-TPE pagemover viewing CAT:TPER to know which cases they can action, although with editnotices it's clear enough from the page title.) Or maybe any of that would be more trouble than it's worth, since AN gets 1-2 of these requests per month. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Talk pages usually face the same blacklist problems. Pointing people to this page seems reasonable (WP:RFED might be another option, which I don't think is more favourable). Maybe plant an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist-forbidden-edit to change the wording? I would recommend reading the most recent edit request. It's something I currently have no answer for. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the message I got told me that creation of the page was "currently restricted to administrators", and that I should post a request either here or at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. And this did seem to be a logical place to post the request if only admins could do it. Though Vaticidalprophet (thanks!) has now helpfully noted that actually that's not the case. I really don't have an opinion on where non-admins like me should be directed to when we do need to create something on the title-blacklist, as long as it's clear where to go. :D Double sharp (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Blocked from editing propositional calculus page.[edit]

Hi,

I have been blocked from editing a page based on a false claim of edit warring. I think the person who blocked me is doing so out of prejudice for the ideas I was writing. I discussed my changes in the talk section before making any changes and there were no objections. If the issue was solely that there were not enough sources then that should have been discussed in the report section, not blocked.


You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Your username or IP address is blocked from doing this. You may still be able to do other things on this site, such as editing certain pages. You can view the full block details at account contributions.

The block was made by ‪Favonian‬.

The reason given is:

Edit warring: Resumed as soon as previous block expired

Start of block: 18:58, 29 November 2021 Expiration of block: 18:58, 1 March 2022 Intended blockee: 150.135.165.0/26 Block ID #12162581 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.165.50 (talk) 21:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The page history would indicate that a number of editors have opposed your edits on the grounds of being unsourced or without explanation/consensus. That sounds a lot more likely than...calculus...prejudice. I'd recommend using the WP:EDITREQUEST function, and just generally working with people on the talk page more, while you're blocked. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed! I may harbor prejudices in some areas, but propositional calculus is not one of them. You may mistake your opponents' silence for consent, but I'm afraid that more likely explanations are exhaustion and a feeling relief when you were blocked from the article. Let be therefore use this opportunity to remind Megaman en m and Jochen Burghardt about the open discussion at Talk:propositional calculus#Propositional calculus as branch of modern formal logic as branch of analytic philosophy. Favonian (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
IP editors (presumably one person) have been slow edit warring on this article for about six weeks. This will not be permitted. If you want changes to this article, then gain consensus at Talk: Propositional calculus. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

AfD input requested - discussion impacted by external canvassing[edit]

Hi all,

This is a neutral notice requesting additional input from experienced editors and administrators at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argonne Rebels Drum and Bugle Corps.

I have had to take some drastic action due to off-wiki canvassing, including semi-protection of the discussion page and moving contributions from canvassed IP's to the talk page.

This discussion will benefit from more eyes and input, to determine a clear consensus of established Wikipedians to 'keep' or 'delete' (or any other alternative).

Thanks,
Daniel (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  • @Daniel: my input is that AfD closers are capable of dealing with spam like this and moving things to the talk page was inappropriate. Especially when some sources were provided in those comments. Trust your fellow admins. The semi-protect was okay given the issues, though I'm not thrilled. These are people trying to participate, they just don't know the rules yet. We get new folks through things like this (this type of thing is exactly how I got involved years and years ago) and I'd like to make them feel they will be listened to if they learn our rules. Not that new people don't count. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Daniel, I see why you might have chosen to take those two rather unusual steps, but I remain to be convinced that either was absolutely necessary, or indeed in line with our policies and practice. In my view a lot of IPs showing up and leaving an WP:ILIKEIT vote (yes, vote) with no basis in policy is going to have zero effect on the outcome of the AfD – it's just background noise that will be filtered out by the closer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion was unreadable to the point that it discouraged other experienced editors from contributing. While I agree any closer worth their salt would have discarded, I viewed the potential problem that the gargantuan mess would have likely seen established editors avoid the discussion altogether, to be one of concern. The other option was to group and then 'hat' all the IP !votes, which I will likely use in future. While I agree we want new editors participating, what we don't want is drive-by IP's explicitly instructed from a series of Facebook posts to "go vote to save our article". If the disruption is a net negative, it needs to be stopped. Daniel (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Restored and hatted. Daniel (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Unprotect page Armando_Bukele_Kattán[edit]

Valid content from this page has been removed and the editions are blocked. Please restore the section of Controversies and False Attributions. Review and validate the veracity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.228.82 (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a content issue. Please discuss on the article's talk page and gain consensus for inclusion. Pinging Ohnoitsjamie. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The page (Armando Bukele Kattán) is not protected, but maybe it should, as some editors appears to want to insert WP:OR to a WP:BLP. Isabelle 🔔 15:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I already partial-blocked one IP range for repeatedly adding WP:NOR nonsense into the article; may have to expand that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I made my response before fully reading the diffs, and yeah, it was no good. The book is false <link to amazon reviews>. Good stuff. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Heads up, pointer to a discussion which affects the admin corps to a degree[edit]

Here: Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Adding "AfD closer" status. Admin participation welcome. For those who have time to read it and consider it, of course.

Participation from admins in particular would be welcome because the idea (not a formal proposal yet) effects the admin corps in two ways: it moots relief from one burden the admin corps carries, but on the other hand impinges on what is now a sole prerogative of the admin corps. Go there, if you will; no benefit to writing in this thread here I don't think. Herostratus (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

EugeneZelenko[edit]

Out of scope. The Commons' Administrator Noticeboard is at COM:ANGolden call me maybe? 20:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This user [[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EugeneZelenko#Notification_about_possible_deletion ]] has arbitrarily, and with no reason whatsoever, decided that three photos I had uploaded were "unlikely" to be my own work. He says that "I" have to prove that they're mine. On what basis? I think he should prove that they're not mine. Suspects is free: I don't think I should be the one to spend my time to prove something only because "he" suspects following complicate procedures explained in long technical-detailed service pages half of which I don't understand. I notice that he has spent the whole day today doing similar things, and I find his work disruptive. Thank you for your intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acqueamare (talk • contribs) 20:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Acqueamare Sorry, but this is a Commons issue and not something admins on English Wikipedia can deal with. Nthep (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Acqueamare, this page is for dealing with issues on the English Wikipedia – please resolve this on Commons, either on their user talk page (which I see you've posted to already) or if that fails then on their admin noticeboard for users (COM:AN/U). Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 20:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh my god. Anyone willing to help and say what someone "could" do, instead of replying what "not" to do? This is frustrating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please protect Omicron[edit]

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

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

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

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

Account recovery[edit]

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

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

Hi there!

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

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

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

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

Massive CfD backlog[edit]

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

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

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

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

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

Arbitration



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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SecretName101[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Administrator imposing the sanction
El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
[8]

Statement by SecretName101[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by El C[edit]

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

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

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

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

Statement by involved editor Yngvadottir[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

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

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

Comment by GoodDay[edit]

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

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

Statement by User:力[edit]

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]

Result of the appeal by SecretName101[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Uploads by sockpuppet of WMF-banner user[edit]

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

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

Conduct of David Eppstein[edit]

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

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

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

Topic ban appeal[edit]

I would like to appeal my recently reinstated topic ban for Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 topics. The topic ban was primarily reinstated for my edits on the Lachin article. In the time since I have been banned, there has been a consensus among uninvolved users agreeing with removing most of the content I had been removing for much of the same reasons, such as being original research and excessive details used for POV pushing. I feel that my topic ban was reinstated a little too eagerly. The imposing admin Future Perfect at Sunrise said my edits were "clearly a return to the old pattern of tendentious editing". However, the same claim had been made against me not only once but twice since my original ban had been removed, and was refuted in both cases. This also ignores the attempts I've made to solve content disputes with talk page discussions[9][10], RfCs,[11] and noticeboard reports (this discussion never even got a reply despite the user pushing unsourced material)[12]. What should really be clear, is that my reverts weren't deserving of a topic ban, or at least an indefinite topic ban is excessively harsh. --Steverci (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

For completeness, this is an unsuccessful appeal from two weeks ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

About Pulse Hobart and Draft:Pulse Hobart[edit]

Hi all,

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

I must admit I am puzzled how this happened.

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like the article was moved to draft space without leaving a redirect while you were editing, so when you then saved the article a new version was created. I think the histories need to be merged. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)