View source for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive366

{{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}

==RfC closure review request at [[:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_444#RFC:_The_Telegraph_on_trans_issues]]==
{{atop|[[WP:SNOW]] closing this as '''endorse'''. There is absolutely no chance that a consensus to overturn the close will be reached here, and there is no point to spending even more editor time debating the outcome of that RfC to reach what would certainly be the same conclusion. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 20:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)}}
:{{RfC closure review links|Reliable sources|rfc_close_page=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_444#RFC:_The_Telegraph_on_trans_issues}} ([[User talk:Sandstein#Telegraph RFC|Discussion with closer]])

'''Closer''': {{userlinks|Sandstein}}

'''Notified''': [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandstein&diff=1252095805&oldid=1251865655 1]

'''Reasoning''': The RfC was closed via vote counting instead of an assessment of arguments. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 19:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

===Closer===
I refer to my comments at [[User talk:Sandstein#Telegraph RFC]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sandstein&oldid=1252095805#Telegraph_RFC permalink]). In addition, I note that the editor requesting review does not explain how the RFC should in their view have been closed instead, and why. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

===Non-participants (Telegraph RFC review 2)===
*'''Speedy close this RFC review #2 as no action'''. Too many RFC reviews, RFC review reverts, etc. in too short a period. This is taking up too much community time. Sometimes you just need to take the L and re-RFC the whole issue in a couple months. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 20:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

===Participants (Telegraph RFC review 2)===
*I have stated so above as well as in the closure request: the RfC should be closed by assessment of arguments, no by counting votes. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 19:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' close (involved in original RfC). Given the circumstances of the RfC, the subsequent initial close and closure review and then this reclose. The outcome of this re-close being a no-consensus was the appropriate outcome based on reading the consensus as happened in the initial close, or counting of the results as happened in the reclose. It appeared clear that the community simply has no consensus for either GREL or GUNREL, so a no-consensus close, which is a valid outcome at RSP, was the correct close. I don't think we really need to spend more energy on this yet again than has already spent in the countless (probably hundreds) community hours on this. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 20:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''': Vote counting is a way to assess arguments. The closer's job is not to assess the arguments in the sense of which ones they personally think are stronger, that would be a [[WP:SUPERVOTE]]. They assess the arguments in the sense of which ones achieved consensus in the discussion. In that context, it's basically necessary to count votes. And if all of the arguments are reasonably policy based then counting votes might be enough to assess consensus by itself. In fact the vast majority of closures rely heavily on vote counting. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 20:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' (involved in the first close review, and the discussion of the RFC). The only reasonable close was 'no consensus', the only issue with the first close was it's contentious wording. How the RFC is record at the perennial sources list is a matter for [[WT:RSP]] not an issue with the close. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
* I don't entirely agree with Sandstein's logic about strictly counting votes, but I agree with his general reasoning that source reliability analysis is fairly subjective, leaving a closer with significantly less wiggle room than in a discussion entirely about applying well-established policy. More to the point, if someone wanted to close this RfC with a detailed point-by-point analysis of the arguments raised, they had several <em>months</em> to do so. Let's be done with this. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe]])</small> 20:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
* '''Endorse''' Explain to me how the project benefits from having an experienced closer (who are stretched thin as it is!) spend at least a day reading through that novel-length beast of a discussion ''again'' only to reclose it with the same conclusion the previous two?? three??? (I lost count) closers came to. Actually don't, it's a rethorical question, nobody benefits from that. We all lose. Someone please put us out of our misery and SNOW-close this --[[User:Licks-rocks|Licks-rocks]] ([[User talk:Licks-rocks#top|talk]]) 20:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

===Discussion (Telegraph RFC review 2)===

:Can't we just put this to rest? Is this really that important? (I have avoided this discussion entirely.) <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:CFA|<span style="background-color:#e0f7fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black"><span style=color:#00c>C</span> <span style=color:red>F</span> <span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span></span>]] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">[[User talk:CFA|💬]]</span></span> 19:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

:I've posted a notification of this review at [[WP:RSN#Closure review of Telegraph on trans issues RFC]]. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
* Haven't we all had enough of this? Sandstein's close seems fine enough. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
* Oh noooooooo. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 20:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
* Not this again. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 20:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
* I'm sure that if this RFC gets re-re-reviewed and closed again, then that decision will be contested, too. Can involved editors just let this one go and do another RFC in 12 months if you are not satisfied with the results? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 20:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:*Additionally, the reasoning statement is meager. If you are seriously asking any future discussion closer to wade back into these contentious waters, you have to provide a more compelling and evidence-backed rationale than the one provided here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 20:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
* This is such a tragic moment for Wikipedia. I hope someone has the boldness to speedily close this. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 20:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Assistance Desired ==
{{atop
| result = OP has been indeffed following a thread on ANI. [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
}}

Hi,<br><br>I am a participant in [[List of antisemitic incidents in the United States|this article]], which seems to have been subject to intermittent vandalism – involving unjustified mass deletions of well-sourced content – especially by a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Wikipedious1&target=Wikipedious1&offset=&limit=250 registered user] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikipedious1 113 edits]) who exhibits continuous [[WP:NPA]] and [[WP:HA]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikipedious1 violations] across several pages, to show but a few: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Steven1991&diff=prev&oldid=1250844034 I], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_antisemitic_incidents_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1251785326 II], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pouya&action=history III] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alanscottwalker&diff=prev&oldid=1250299845 IV].<br><br>
In one of those messages, I was dehumanised by the user as an “entity” and “[not being able to talk as] a mature Wikipedian [human being]”.<br><br>
So far, I have been extremely polite and restraint in dealing with all the aggressive correspondence from the user, alongside my willingness to remove a tremendous number of entries undesired by the user – against my will – which [[Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Examples|hasn’t apparently appeased]] the user. Rather, I’ve sensed considerable intimidation from the user’s persistent refusal to be respectful.<br><br>I do not want to deem this an urgent matter, but the user [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia#Clearly_not_being_here_to_build_an_encyclopedia doesn’t seem] to be interested in good-faith participation. May I ask what would be the best course of action?<br><br>I wasn’t active on Wikipedia until recent months and ain’t familiar with the handling of such situations.<br><br>[[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 16:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{reply|Steven1991}} report their vandalism at the ''[[WP:AIV|Administrator intervention against vandalism]]'' noticeboard; that usually gets a pretty swift response (but check [[WP:VAN]] to make sure their edits are "blatant vandalism"). If they attack you or make egregious policy violations in other ways (as they seem to have done here), then that warrants a report to the ''[[WP:ANI|Administrators' noticeboard for incidents]]'' (but note that's for {{tq|urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems}}). If you want to make a career oput of it, get a few weeks decent vandal hunting under your belt and then apply for the [[WP:ROLLBACK]] permission. The [[WP:CVU|Counter-vandalism unit]] is a good training ground. You should probably be [[WP:EC|extended confirmed]] by now? Refresh yourself on [[WP:CT|contentious topics]], designated by the arbitration commitee, and be aware of the restrictions on [[WP:EW|edit warring]]. Hope this helps! ({{nao}}) [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 17:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, I am an extended confirmed user. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 17:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:Those edits aren't vandalism; this is a routine content dispute over inclusion, where [[WP:ONUS]] applies, especially given that there are [[WP:BLP]] concerns. If anything, repeatedly re-adding contested material without consensus is the most problematic behavior here. Anyone reviewing this should also be aware of OP's recent history. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1167#Edit_warring_by_User:Steven1991][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1168#Possible_disruptive_editting_by_User:Steven1991] [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 17:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::Ah, right... That'll teach me to AGF. D'oh! Guess I haven't had the brutal upbringing required to post an ANI  :) 
::{{reply|Steven1991}} On consideration, I suggest that you find other, less controversial topocs to edit. You will find it easier. So will others, I imagine. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 17:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree with your suggestion. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 18:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::I would also like to note that, while trying to mediate between @[[User:Wikipedious1|Wikipedious1]] & @[[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]], Steven had opened a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wellington Bay|sockpuppet investigation]] against Wikipedious & 2 other editors who had disagreed with them in the past. [[User:Butterscotch Beluga|Butterscotch Beluga]] ([[User talk:Butterscotch Beluga|talk]]) 19:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::The CheckUser staff concluded that there’s nothing wrong and closed the case. I feel that it’s not relevant to the current issue. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 19:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, those mistakes were made by me before and I already apologised for them. I don’t see the purpose of casting aspersions on me over here and selectively considering facts when I presented evidence of the user’s repeated aggression which constitutes a totally different case?

Regarding some of the reverts, the primary instance was a result of the user’s vandalism in which the user engaged in '''mass deletions without reason''' (either '''blank''' or '''Lol''' in several editing summaries) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikipedious1#c-HouseBlaster-20241016054900-Blocked for which the user was blocked for 48 hours], so those reversals were justified as per Wikipedia guidelines on vandalism. I don’t see how it can be trivialised as “content dispute” ? [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 17:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC
:In looking at the article talkpage, there are numerous editors expressing concerns about content you are pushing to include. And you are repeatedly personalizing the dispute and casting plenty of aspersions of your own--to an unwise degree given your own recent block history (''three'' in the past month), and made doubly so by your decision to call admin attention to this dispute. My best advice to you is to withdraw this filing, show more [[WP:AGF|good faith]] at the talkpage, and make sure you understand [[WP:ONUS]], [[WP:BLP]], and [[WP:BLPCRIME]]; your hands are far from clean here. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 17:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::I already accepted the highly subjective judgment of certain users including the one repeatedly using charged words, and removed most of the poorly sourced or allegedly irrelevant content from the list within that article as per the Talk page discussion. What am I further expected to do when significant compromise has already been made? Throughout those discussions, I have been extremely '''polite, patient and humble regardless of the tone of that user'''. And as explained, some of the reverts were made pursuant to guidelines concerning '''mass deletions of well-sourced content without reason''', i.e. vandalism. It is nowhere “personalizing” to point out offensive word usage or manner, including being referred to as an “entity” rather than a human with a username. I don’t see how you can paint me as an aggressor, based on some past wrongdoings I have already taken responsibility for or issues I cannot agree with as a matter of principle, when I have been at the receiving end of all those apparent personal attacks as shown by the evidence (if not more)? You appear to have ignored or misinterpreted all the evidence and fixated on my “personality”, which I find unfair. Just because an editor made mistakes in the past, it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve basic respect as a human being or aren’t entitled to raise concern on this noticeboard when necessary. I would appreciate if you can show some basic respect to me.[[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 17:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tq|You appear to have ignored or misinterpreted all the evidence but fixated on your perception of my personality, which I find unfair. Just because an editor made mistakes in the past, it doesn’t mean they don’t deserve basic respect as a human being. I am afraid that your judgment is wrong.}} Casting more aspersions isn't going to end well, but by all means, keep digging; you asked what should be done, and you've gotten the answer--withdraw the filing and drop this. I also note that you didn't inform [[User:Wikipedious1|Wikipedious1]] that you opened a discussion about them, which is ''required'', as explained by the giant yellow banner at the top of the page displayed when you edit. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 18:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It is not “casting aspersions” to express disagreement with wordings that are not an accurate representation of what happened. I would appreciate if you can assume good faith when you expect me to, and stop defending the apparent instances of [[WP:NPA]] violations by the user as discussed in my #1 post. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 18:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Since you ''still'' haven't notified Wikipedious1, I have now done so. At this stage, based upon the responses here that mirror the battleground nature of those that you provided in the previous discussions about your behavior, I suspect a TBAN may be necessary. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 18:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I haven’t added further content to that article for days while complying with other users’ demands to remove content they consider as irrelevant, so I don’t see how I am “uncooperative”. I have been listening, engaging and following when appropriate. I would appreciate if you refrain from classifying someone’s self-defense as “battleground” when they are trying their best to explain to you how they perceive what have happened to them and why they find it difficult coming to terms with it. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 18:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have stated all my points and will return to the article to continue the discussion with relevant users on the content. Have a good day. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 18:46, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{re|Steven1991}} what makes you think that [[WP:ARBECR]] applies to [[Special:Diff/1251969314|this revert]]? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 14:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::You have already asked the same question on an uninvolved admin’s Talk page. Please avoid {{Strikethrough|[[WP:SHOPPING]]}} [[Wikipedia:Forum shopping|forum shopping]]. {{Strikethrough|However}} Nevertheless, for convenience, I’d state my points again:
::{{Blockquote|text=The edit you linked may not be directly related, but the article itself is tangentially related to the A/I conflict given that many of the incidents are associated with events thereof to varying extent. In that article, “Israel” is mentioned 48 times, “Palestine” 6 times and “Gaza” 3 times, almost all in the context of A/I conflict-associated issues, not mentioning over a dozen of edits was made by another non-EC user in which the Gaza War was discussed directly, which shouldn’t have been done in the first place until that user has become an EC member. Just because it hasn’t been noticed by an admin, it doesn’t prevent EC users from making discrete reverts of non-EC users’ entries on the stated ground as per the protection under [[WP:ARBECR]]’s clause C and D.}} [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 14:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Please refrain from casting aspersions. 1) I'm not involved in the dispute. 2) I did ask you for clarification, but you refused to answer and said {{tq|This is the personal Talk page of an uninvolved admin. We need to respect their space.|q=yes}}, so here we are.
:::{{tq|The edit you linked may not be directly related|q=yes}} it's not related at all (unless proven otherwise). Which begs the question, why did you invoke ARBECR as a justification for your revert? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 14:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Two editors reverted that, so it's just edit warring, the ARBECR justification is just wrong because assuming Arbpia restrictions apply on that page, they only apply to related content. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::It was only a single revert within 24 hours. It’s not edit warring. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::With regard to the ECR, an uninvolved admin ruled to another non-EC user that this example (from this page), despite not mentioning the war directly, also constituted an ECR violation. It’s not “my definition” but how they perceive it:<br>
{{Blockquote|text=You [another non-EC user] cannot engage with this topic on the talk page, and '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_antisemitic_incidents_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=1251887847#Reverts_and_edits_recently this] is another ECR violation'''. I suggest you stay well away from anything that is even tangentially related to the Arab/Israel conflict until you are extended-confirmed. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#top|talk]]) 17:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)}}
::::[[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::How is it not related? How do you decide it? How are you so sure? Please see the example I quoted from an uninvolved admin who passed by the thread of the article – the admin considered it as related and asked one of the non-EC users to stay away from it. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It is not “casting aspersion” to describe what you are doing on this thread. It’s rather I am being subject to it throughout the correspondence, including the aggressive ones in violation of the [[WP:NPA]] by the non-EC user concerned for which the user issued me an “Apology” on my Talk page. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::That article is ''not'' covered by ARBECR, and that edit certainly isn't. You edit warred it right back in  over the objection of other editors, despite being told on this noticeboard to review [[WP:ONUS]]. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 14:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It is not “edit warring” to revert a specific edit that hasn’t been asked by other extended confirmed editors to remove. The specific non-EC user, who shouldn’t have been engaging in those activities tangentially associated with the A/I conflict in the first place, is the ONLY person who unilaterally removed it without having received prior input from other participants {{strikethrough|beforehand}}. There has NEVER been a consensus to take that specific case off from the list. It had not apparently been discussed fully. You CANNOT make up one when there is none. That edit reversal was a single edit I made within 24 hours in that article. It has neither hit the 1RR nor 3RR bar, so I don’t see how it’s such a serious matter. Is it only “edit warring” when the reversal involves the removal of something {{strikethrough|not}} aligned with your personal view? I don’t want to guess, but I have the impression that it’s been mischaracterised by you and/or another account who has never participated in that article’s editing activities, i.e. disinterested parties. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The ARBECR doesn’t consider such issues on the basis of an article as a whole but ''related content''. Clause C and D authorise an extended confirmed user to revert an non-EC edit if the ''content'' of that edit is tangentially related to the restricted topic(s). [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Please note that another editor has already pointed that out to them (see [[Special:Diff/1251988415|[1]]][[Special:Diff/1251990264|[2]]]). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 14:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The user’s judgment is not accurate, unfortunately. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Is that some kind of joke? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I am not sure why you are going after me over this? The user you quoted doesn’t appear to be an EC user themself? May I know how is it an issue to you? Have you ever been involved in that article’s editing activities? [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don’t want to argue with you. I will be away once I’ve made my points clear. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{A note}} as if harassing other editors wasn't enough,[[Special:Diff/1251988415|[1]]][[Special:Diff/1251990264|[2]]] the OP decided to [[Special:Diff/1252127113|template me]] (for no reason whatsoever). [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 22:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::It is not “harassing” to give multiple reminders when the non-EC user engaged in personal attacks on me repeatedly. The purpose of the reminders is to save the time from getting specialised admins involved. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I’d like to know how you would perceive if a stranger online repeatedly refers to you as an “entity” and uses insulting language in most of their correspondence associated with a discussion in which you are involved? [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|attack]] other editors. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::My last reply to you. Feel free to have a look at the following quote guideline:
::::::::{{Blockquote|text='''Accusing others of harassment'''<br><br>Making accusations of harassment can be [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|inflammatory]] and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack]] if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment themselves if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of harassment on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle. At the same time, claims of harassment should be taken seriously and not be summarily dismissed unless it becomes clear the accusations are not well-founded.}}
::::::::I’d appreciate if you stop tagging me as well – have a good day. [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|attack]] other editors. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 22:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. There is now ''another'' thread about this at WP:ANI, because Steven1991 decided to [[WP:FORUMSHOP]] their arguments to [[WP:RFPP]]. Their longwinded bludgeoning there resulted in the entire thread being declared unsuited for RFPP (of course) and being moved to ANI. Steven1991 needs either a broadly construed TBAN from the topic of antisemitism, or (in light of their numerous recent blocks), an indef until they are able to demonstrate an understanding about editing collaboratively. Enough is enough. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]])
:And in response for my calling for sanctions, Steven1991 dropped a NPA template on my talkpage. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 01:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

:Perhaps don’t do it if you don’t want one? [[User:Steven1991|Steven1991]] ([[User talk:Steven1991|talk]]) 08:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::I think this thread has (thankfully) subsided as a result of the ANI one, but for the record, I have never leveled a single PA against you. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 14:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

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

{{IPcheck|212.219.59.241}}

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

:I've reverted the content and advised the user to request an account.  If they try to write a hoax, we can deal with it then. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 10:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
::I doubt that this Barry Winston chap exists, but even if he does the achievements (such as "wildly successful") are exaggerated and he is almost certainly not notable. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 12:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:I looked at the history, and it seems to be AI Generated Content as well as completely made up, just in case anyone was wondering about it. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 01:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::Agree, it was ringing my AI alarm too. '''[[User:ClaudineChionh|ClaudineChionh]]''' <small>(''she/her'' · [[User talk:ClaudineChionh|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/ClaudineChionh|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/ClaudineChionh|email]])</small> 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

== [[:File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg]] ==

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

:The uploader, who is an administrator ({{ping|Holly Cheng}}) had labeled that version as non-free. Has that changed? — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 20:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::I don't know, but it is currently labelled as public domain with <nowiki>{{PD-US-not renewed}}</nowiki>. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|talk]]) 20:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{done}} [[WP:REFUND]] is the normal noticeboard for this type of request.  [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 21:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::The public domain notice on the file says it was first published in 1942. But Adams [https://www.artnet.com/magazineus/features/grant/ansel-adams-moonrise-hernandez-8-31-11.asp modified the negative] over the years, in particular making the moon brighter. Our image comes from a [https://web.archive.org/web/20110207111009/http://www.alindergallery.com/ gallery listing] that says in was printed by Adams in the 1970s, so that analysis does not apply. [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma]] ([[User talk:StarryGrandma|talk]]) 22:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Yann|Yann]], @[[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]], our image was printed by Adams in the 1970s so it is not PD-US-not renewed. [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma]] ([[User talk:StarryGrandma|talk]]) 22:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Possibly brightening is not a copyrightable modification. But probably an older image as published with unrenewed copyright should be used instead. [[User:Graeme Bartlett|Graeme Bartlett]] ([[User talk:Graeme Bartlett|talk]]) 22:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::The high res photo we now have gives its source as a MOMA 1964 print, but the source link goes to a lower res image. Whether the 1942 publication was renewed probably doesn't matter. Adams was not satisfied with the image because it didn't reproduce the scene as he thought he saw it. One would have to look at publication of the image in the form we have it now, and see if that copyright was renewed. The [https://collections.artsmia.org/art/100854/moonrise-ansel-adams 1961 print] at the Minneapolis Institute of Art has a prominent copyright notice and says "Because of © restrictions, we can only show you a small image of this artwork." Wikipedia is probably in the same situation. [[User:StarryGrandma|StarryGrandma]] ([[User talk:StarryGrandma|talk]]) 00:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' I have asked on Commons: [[c:COM:VPC#File:Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.jpg]]. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|talk]]) 09:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

== Wipe user edits ==

Is it possible to fully ''delete'' a [[User:Vatican7321|vandal's]] edit history, such that their spammed replies don't show up in my notices (or potentially a way to hide certain notices)? [[User:Tule-hog|Tule-hog]] ([[User talk:Tule-hog|talk]]) 15:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:It looks like that user has been blocked, their ability to edit their talk page has been removed, and the edits/edit summaries have been [[wp:revdel|removed]]. Are you still seeing anything that needs to be taken care of? [[User:Joyous!|Joyous!]] [[User_talk:Joyous%21|Noise!]] 16:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
::Very minor thing (not effecting readers), but the actual content of their reply ([[Special:Diff/1252435452|this one]]) is still shown in my [[Special:Notifications]]; I was wondering if there might be a way to remove/hide that. [[User:Tule-hog|Tule-hog]] ([[User talk:Tule-hog|talk]]) 16:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
:::&#42;poof&#42; [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 16:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

== The situation on the List of Nobel Laureates page ==
{{atop|result = [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country&diff=1251377033&oldid=1251365355 Handled] [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 17:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}


There are numerous disruptive edits going on, anonymous IP accounts en masse revert changes and promote nationalist agenda, the page is unsorted and the users refuse to discuss this issue on the Talk page. I've requested protection, but was refused, yet this keeps going on and on. What should I do? [[User:Athoremmes|Athoremmes]] ([[User talk:Athoremmes|talk]]) 20:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Athoremmes}} I'm not seeing any problems at [[List of Nobel laureates]] (only 24 edits this calendar year...none seem especially controversial or inaccurate). I assume you mean [[List of Nobel laureates by country]]? [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, sorry, I have meant List of Nobel Laureates by country [[User:Athoremmes|Athoremmes]] ([[User talk:Athoremmes|talk]]) 20:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
:::[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase#List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country|RFPP request posted for you]]. Expect it will be handled within about 3-6 hours (if not sooner). Don't fret :-) [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Thank you! [[User:Athoremmes|Athoremmes]] ([[User talk:Athoremmes|talk]]) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

==2000editor==
{{atop|result =User block continued and repeated requests denied/talk page access restricted [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 17:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)}}
*{{userlinks|2000editor}}
 
This editor was indefinitely blocked a little less than 24 hours ago by [[User:Star Mississippi]] for disruptive editing, consisting mostly of [[WP:TE|tendentiously]] trying to move a draft of [[Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18]] from draft space into article space before it is ready.  It appears that other editors want to work in a more deliberate fashion on the season, but that 2000editor was getting in their way with misguided enthusiasm.  My first, unimportant comment is that I think that the block was in order.  This editor has then made four unblock requests which say only that they want to be unblocked.  Three of them have been declined by three administrators, and the fourth is open.  I agree with the declines of the unblock requests that they didn't address the reasons for the block, but we already knew that. 
 
I think that this editor has a [[WP:CIR|competency]] problem, probably linguistic, and it is time to disable their user talk page.  Can someone advise them, in [[Hindi language|Hindi]] that they might be better off editing the [[Hindi Wikipedia]]?  
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 17:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' removing TPA, which I will not do as original blocker. But there's nothing in any of the requests that makes me think 2000 will be a productive editor if unblocked. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
* I’ve left them a couple of sentences about the Hindi Wikipedia. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 19:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::As with the many attempts to previously guide them, it does not seem to have worked. I think removal of TPA at this point would be appropriate. Their unblock requests (six of them) continue to demonstrate the amount of time editors have wasted. --[[User:CNMall41|CNMall41]] ([[User talk:CNMall41|talk]]) 16:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Done. They flat out ignored good advice and kept repeating the same. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 06:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Administrator Elections: Discussion phase ==

<div style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; padding:10px 15px">
<div style="padding: 0 0 0.5em; vertical-align: middle; font-size:130%"> '''[[Wikipedia:Administrator elections|Administrator Elections]] |'''  <span style="font-size:85%">Discussion phase</span>
</div>
<div style="display:flex; align-items:center;">
<div>
The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
*October 22–24 - Discussion phase
*October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
*November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

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

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

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the [[Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024|main election page]]. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no [[WP:Bureaucrat discussion|bureaucrat discussions]] ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the [[Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections|election talk page]]. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
</div>
<div>[[File:Ballot box icon color.svg|80px]]</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;">
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please [[Wikipedia:Administrator elections/Newsletter list|remove yourself from the list]].</div>
</div>
[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/Newsletter_list&oldid=1252510059 -->

== User:Nableezy has a {{rpa}} userbox ==
{{atop
| result = More than enough time has already been spent on this discussion. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
}}

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

:While I am in general agreement with criticism of the userbox, I don't think is going to go anywhere. The userbox itself (by design) doesn't directly express support for Hezbollah, and [[User_talk:Nableezy#Your_userbox|when I discussed this with Nableezy]] they stated the purpose of the UBX was to highlight a hypocrisy in Wikipedia's policies. (I am unconvinced by that, but that's just me.) Nonetheless, I believe this is a debate that has taken place many times in the past and, sadly, goes nowhere. — '''[[User:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i>]]''' <sup>''([[User talk:Czello|<i style="color:#8000FF">music</i>]])''</sup> 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:That stuff about "mean-spirited and extremely biased" is an incredible [[WP:ASPERSION]]. You might want to avoid that in the future to avoid a block. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 08:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Asking the question "could I be wrong?" is a good habit. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 09:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's news to me that any and every act of 'violently resisting' aggression is classifiable as terrorism. If that is so, then we shall have to rewrite the history books from the [[Battle of Thermopylae]] and the [[Jewish–Roman wars]] down through the [[American Indian Wars|Indian resistance during the frontier wars]] to things like the [[Spanish Maquis|Spanish Maquis]], and the [[French Resistance|French]] and [[Italian resistance movement|>Italian]] resiatance movements. The Greeks should have bowed to Xerxes and Darius, the Jews succumbed eirenically to Titus and Vespasian. the Sioux consigned their bowsnarrows to General Custard, the Spanish government should have capitulated ''en bloc'' with the people after Franco's coup d'état, de Gaulle should have chummed up with Pétain, and the leaders of post-war Italy should have been gaoled as terrorists for opposing the [[Italian Social Republic|Republic of salauds]], etc.  [[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 10:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:Not as if core site policy has changed, but it's odd to point to a 2008 discussion the same way one would point to a contemporaneous one. Nableezy's work here seems equal parts political and rhetorical. I am personally unmoved by OP's outrage over it, though. What is unacceptable is calling them pro-terrorist—let's not mince words here, that's the intent of the language you chose. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 10:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:I quite like the immediate sabotage of any point you may have had by throwing in "mean-spirited and extremely biased" as if it was going to make your argument stronger. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nableezy|Think we’ve gone through this already]]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::It's become an annual holiday tradition. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Request  ==

Hello,
I recently moved the Imphal Airport Wikipedia page to [[Bir Tirkendrajit International Airport]], but I accidentally used the incorrect spelling. The correct title should be Bir Tikendrajit International Airport, which reflects the official name of the airport. Unfortunately, I am unable to correct the move myself due to system restrictions. Could you kindly move the page to the correct title: Bir Tikendrajit International Airport?
Thank you very much for your help and time!
Best regards, [[User:AstuteFlicker|AstuteFlicker]] ([[User talk:AstuteFlicker|talk]]) 13:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}, in the future you can go to [[WP:RMTR]] for things like this. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  14:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

== [[Talk:Masada_myth]] Procedural RfC Closure ==

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

:Involved, but as far as I know the ship sails for a procedural close once this many people have responded substantively to the RFC question. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 02:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

:The RfC does not satisfy the requirement of having a clear-cut well-posed question. Since no specific issue is raised in the RfC, nobody knows what things are actually relevant to it and the discussion is wandering all over the place. Basically it says "I don't like the lead, do you agree?" An uninvolved administrator should close this RfC (whether as procedural or "no consensus" doesn't matter), with the understanding that a properly posed replacement can be opened. While I'm at it, someone should examine the behavior of the RfC poser [[User:Herostratus]] who asserts that the editors of the page are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masada_myth&diff=prev&oldid=1249405856 clever antisemites]. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 03:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::I don't find the word antisemites in that diff, did you mean a different one? And as far as the RFC question, "Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes?" Seems clear enough to me, it's not specific about article text changes but it appears to be a question to which you can answer one way or another and then as a result, will determine to either change or not, the lead. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 03:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::The word is not there, but the implication is. {{tq|"Myths like this omit any mention of African-American may demonstrate an African-American resistance to modernization which may have contributed to a culture of backwardness and poverty among African-Americans in the South" and whatnot. Can probably find a historian who said that if we dig enough. Want to go edit that article? Won't get far will you.}} The hypothetical the editor is presenting here implies bigotry in response to the other editor saying {{tq|all the bolded words you mentioned (and all the issues you raise elsewhere) appear basically verbatim in the sources - fully quoted in the citations - in the references section}}. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 03:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, but ''that is different thread.'' We are talking about the RfC. Maybe I'm an asshole. Maybe my motives for starting the RfC were bad. I don't think that that matters enough to close down the RfC if it is otherwise OK. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 04:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

::::I wrote the RfC. It is: 
::::{{talkquote|Is the lede for this article basically '''OK''' (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it '''Not OK''' and needs some major changes?}}
::::In all this, I haven't yet seen any suggestions for what should be written there instead. I have asked.

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

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

::::But still... a number of editors are engaged in the RfC discussion to possible useful effect, so I think a shutdown is too late and would be not excellent. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 04:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|I didn't insist on anything}}
:::::I am unsure how I am supposed to take essentially telling me to shut up or take it to the admin noticeboard in response to proposing a procedural close as '''''anything ''''' but insisting I take it to the admin noticeboard. <b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 04:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::You are not my puppet, colleague. I mean I offered the option to pipe down (I did not say shut up). and of course you always have the option to roll your eyes and mutter "what a jerk" or whatever and move on. God knows I do that often enough. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 07:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Two editors seem to have missed it so I'll quote from the Herostratus' diff to show that the accusation of antisemitism is there explicitly.<br/>{{tq|"The editors we are dealing with here are clever. They are not going to use material that is not well sourced. That would be stupid. So they are clever, so what? Have you not heard of cherry picking. Have you not heard of spin, of propaganda. The Devil can quote scripture.}} [followed a few sentences later by:] {{tq|So, the material is not anti-''Israeli'', itn is anti-''Semetic''."}} So, once the subject has been established as the editors of the article, and they are described as engaging in spin and propaganda, it is said that the material they wrote is antisemitic. In my opinion, a charge of antisemitism against other editors (except on a behavioral noticeboard with strong supporting evidence) should merit an immediate indef. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 04:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

:An accusation of antisemitism combined with comparing editors to {{tq|The Devil}}? Yeah, a pretty clear case of [[WP:NPA#WHATIS|a personal attack in the form of serious accusations lacking evidence]]. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] &#124; [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::[[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] opened an RfC while showing with long and tortuous personal harangues that they have not troubled themselves with reading the sources. It was also clear that the quip about editors being 'clever' was a disingenuous shot at the putative ulterior motives driving those who actually have read the sources and aided in the composition of the article, a point unambiguously underlined later by the crack:' the material is not anti-Israeli, it is anti-Semetic.' That misspelling always puts me on my guard, since it crops up frequently as, for me, an index of quarrelsomeness uninformed by any serious reading. No fuss was made, but I will note that when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masada_myth&diff=prev&oldid=1251077952 I tweaked the lead to remove 'by Jews'], - precisely because of my own sensitivities about generalizing about Jews (a premise of antisemitism that all Jews are involved whenever one or another does this or that) - Herostratus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masada_myth&diff=prev&oldid=1251948920 reverted to restore it], after waiting 5 days, just as this report opened. That is deeply ironical. In context, Herostratus is insinuating those who support the article are motivated by antisemitic feelings, and, with his restoring the usage 'by Jews' I considered potentially coloured by the kind of imprecision that plays to antisemitic feelings, telling me he thinks editors like me are perhaps both anti-'''semetic''' and 'philosemitic'. This is on a par with the vexatious incoherence of most of the things written on that talk page.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 06:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::None. Of. This. Has. Anything. To. Do. With. The. Question. At. Hand. Which quashing the RfC or not. If you want to want to have a conversation at [[WP:ANI]] on grounds that I have made false accusations of anti-semitism, OK, do that. That's a different conversation.. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 07:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
<- So much inane timewasting trolling. The malformed RfC should be shut down regardless of how many patient people participated. The editor should be made to go away. It would be an act of kindness. [[WP:DNFT]] [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 08:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

BUT

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

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

So IMO what happened is this:

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

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

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

== WDBZ ==

[[User:Welcome to Dragon Ball Z]] was made on 24.09. Today 24.10 they made 500 edits to their talk page like this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Welcome_to_Dragon_Ball_Z&diff=prev&oldid=1253080134 this one]. They then got the "extendedconfirmed" user group because they were created 30 days ago and made 500 edits. Could an admin remove this group please? [[User:Fulmard|Fulmard]] ([[User talk:Fulmard|talk]]) 07:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:They are now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Magnolia677&diff=prev&oldid=1253081243 attacking] [[User:Magnolia677]] and it looks like a "MidAtlanticBaby" puppet. They should be blocked. [[User:Fulmard|Fulmard]] ([[User talk:Fulmard|talk]]) 07:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::Blocked. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 07:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::: [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] Could you block [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BossedUpWithACheck BossedUpWithACheck]? This account was created on the same date and is doing the same thing now of ramping up edits. [[User:Fulmard|Fulmard]] ([[User talk:Fulmard|talk]]) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] got there before me. Any CU around who can do a sweep for sleepers? [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 08:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've had a look. Those familiar with the matter will know that that might not portend much. Informed by my magic goggles, I've also preemptively removed TPA from the 2nd account. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 09:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thank you all for your help. [[User:Magnolia677|Magnolia677]] ([[User talk:Magnolia677|talk]]) 10:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German ==

The name of the suspect at [[Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German]] needs to be suppressed once again. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 00:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:Or maybe a new RfC needs to be held on the issue? Taking a quick look at the article, the trial is now underway, so it's going to be attracting fresh attention from casual editors. The circumstances of a year and a half ago regarding the individual are different (beyond just arrested and charged), so it might be worth revisiting, even if just to reaffirm there is no consensus to include. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:This is really a disconnect of [[WP:BLP]] that I haven't known how to even begin addressing until now. For this case, we have the following in the article: {{tq|and on October 31, was charged with two counts of murder.}} - properly sourced to [https://fox59.com/indiana-news/delphi-murders-investigators-announce-arrest-details/ a reliable source] that names the suspect. It is absolutely absurd that we must avoid naming the suspect on Wikipedia even when it's named in a source that we link to in the same sentence. BLP is a '''very''' necessary policy. However, it should not prevent naming someone as a suspect when they are named in reliable sources. Currently, BLP states the following: {{tq|editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.}} This should be changed to "not including material - in any article - that suggests the person ''has committed'' a crime". Reporting on accusations should not be subject to BLP so long as those accusations are sourced. The fact someone was charged with a crime is almost always due, even if they were not convicted of that crime. Being charged with a crime does not imply guilt.{{pb}}In other words, I agree with Grandpallama above - if there is a prior consensus that the name of the suspect is inappropriate... there needs ot be serious reconsideration of that issue and of whether it's a BLP issue to begin with. This is a high profile crime and the suspect's name is linked to from the citation at the end of the sentence. Surpressing it here does fuck all for preventing it when it's literally one link click away (or are we claiming we don't encourage readers to use our citations to verify the information we present?). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; [[User:berchanhimez|me]] &#124; [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 01:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::The rationale behind BLPCRIME is that we shouldn't name [[WP:NPF|non-public figures]], particularly criminal defendants, who did not choose their status. Reliable sources naming someone is one thing, but I believe that we have an ethical duty to avoid creating a permanent record—one that affects how search engines, AI chatbots, etc. present information—for someone who might be innocent. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::That's a perfectly reasonable take, and I don't know that I have a position on inclusion vs. exclusion. But I ''do'' question relying on RfC results for a situation that is different now than it was in April 2023. Separately, I see the RfC resulted in no consensus for inclusion, but I'm not sure how that leapt to "edits must be suppressed". [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::See, I'd support that... but the problem is that no other source has this sort of policy. When charges are first announced, sure, they will wait for an actual indictment before they report a name. But I cannot think of a source that has a similar policy.{{pb}}The concern over presenting an indicted/charged person as a criminal is real. That is solved through requiring the prose be accurate. It is not our problem if an AI chat bot uses Wikipedia to hallucinate that someone was a criminal. It's not the fault of the news organization for reporting that someone was charged with a crime and that information is misused. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez &#124; [[User:berchanhimez|me]] &#124; [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 04:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
::::If editors want a wider RfC on BLP policy perhaps at [[WT:BLP]] there could be merit for that I guess. I don't see what purpose an RfC on naming the suspect will serve at this time. The trial is set to end by November 15th. With an existing RfC even if it was no consensus, and considering the BLP importance it seems to me ending any RfC early with a new consensus is questionable no matter how clear any initial consensus seems to be. Meaning the RfC should run for at least a full 30 days before we can name the suspect. And this is a jury trial meaning that barring very very long jury deliberations we should have a result within 1-2 weeks of the trial ending. So at best starting an RfC now, we might be naming the person 1 week before the situation is likely to change significantly with either an acquittal or conviction. While it's always possible there will be a hung jury or some other kind of mistrial, I think better to just wait those 6 weeks or so and see what the situation is then and then do an RfC. Further if things have significantly changed, there will be much more reason why it might be reasonable to end the RfC early if consensus seems clear. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 15:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::For now, we should suppress the edits, then repost the name only if there is a conviction. --[[User:Jax 0677|Jax 0677]] ([[User talk:Jax 0677|talk]]) 19:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree that an RfC would be worthless at this point due to the time constraints and with the majority of the points above (aside from the need to supress a name that is covered in the majority of reliable sources and citations in the article. Seems rather drastic to leap to the need to supress when the name is widely published).
:::::And at this point, is the guy even a 'low profile person' anymore, where BLPCRIME is concerned? Looking over the old edits of some of the people who had a hand in actually making that policy, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_131#c-Bbb23-2013-04-20T19:07:00.000Z-Ken_Arromdee-2013-04-20T18:51:00.000Z Bbb23], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_34#c-SlimVirgin-2012-04-14T16:12:00.000Z-Collect-2012-04-14T14:23:00.000Z SlimVirgin], and even though he didn't have a hand in making the policy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_131#c-Jimbo_Wales-2013-04-19T20:01:00.000Z-Wnt-2013-04-19T19:47:00.000Z Jimmy] all seemed to think that a high profile crime could make someone a high profile person.
:::::There is also the fact that the subjects attorneys pushed for his name to be released a while back 'in the hopes it would bring tips [https://www.wrtv.com/news/delphi/rick-is-innocent-allens-attorneys-release-statement-questioning-evidence]' or similar. A [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9O6GrserpQ press conference] followed by a [https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/12/PRESS-RELEASE-for-Richard-Allen-002.pdf press release], and later a [https://www.payit2.com/f/richardallenexper fundraiser] to get his name out there. 
:::::Are we not supposed to take into account what a subject wants in terms of inclusion/exclusion? Jimmy said yes years ago  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#c-Jimbo_Wales-2014-04-08T14:28:00.000Z-Anthonyhcole-2014-04-08T13:24:00.000Z] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#c-Jimbo_Wales-2014-04-07T22:46:00.000Z-Obiwankenobi-2014-04-07T19:39:00.000Z], ARBCOM said to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff consider the legal and ethical implications] of our edits for BLPs, WMF stated we should be [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information], especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest. 
:::::I could understand waiting for a resolution to the trial to follow a strict following of the [[WP:NOTBURO|letter]] of BLPCRIME, but if the subject/his attorneys wanted his name out prior to the trial to help him, it seems like waiting for a conviction before considering what they want goes against the above paragraph. It is essentially saying a policy put in place to protect someones reputation from false accusations holds more power than what the subject wants, which seems wrong on so many levels.
:::::[[User:Awshort|Awshort]] ([[User talk:Awshort|talk]]) 17:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{outdent|3}} While I agree that there may be cases where defendants who have not been convicted yet may want to publicize their names—such as in cases of civil disobedience, public ransoms, or acts of terror—I do not believe that this is one of those cases. The comments at the pressers were pretty bare bones and the press release expressly states: "We do not want to try this case in the media and we intend to adhere to the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct that provide guidance on pretrial publicity." The spirit of BLP is that we shouldn't publicize the name of a a person who hasn't inserted themselves into the press, and a limited press conference, press release telling journalists to buzz off, and a fundraiser page do not, in my view, meet that threshold. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
:::The original edit that sparked this discussion I believe was by me; I added the name to the 'trial' infobox parameter and added the name of the trial further down with just the last name of the defendant since I thought MOS/LAW was the guideline to follow when legal things were being discussed. It was pointed out to me later that this is incorrect, and it's only relevant for legal articles. That is what Jax ran across and I believe wants supressed for whatever reason. 
:::My intention was to try to update the article a bit and add a subsection later about the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that involved the suspect in this case, which is under a different case name and ended with the Judges issuing a new ruling about when a suspects court appointed counsel can be removed, since it was notable and widely covered at the time (and essentially set a new case law for them, I think [https://fox59.com/news/indycrime/indiana-supreme-court-releases-opinions-on-richard-allen-ruling/]). Are we not allowed to list trial names now because it can be seen as a BLPCRIME violation? 
:::[[User:Awshort|Awshort]] ([[User talk:Awshort|talk]]) 19:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::::These decisions are very fact-specific. This case is in the States but we write policy for the globe; I don't think we ought to publish the names of the accused in cases that geolocate to Russia or China, for example. I think we have the right rules and wouldn't encourage an attempt to change them. We have a presumption against publishing the names of unconvicted people. Talk page consensus could overrule that presumption in individual cases and I wouldn't object if that happened here. Even though the name is published in reliable sources, this is at heart an ethical judgement we're making, so a reliable source is a minimum threshold to start a discussion, but not a mandate to publish the name.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 10:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike ==

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

:{{done}}, closed as no consensus. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 20:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Fake news websites ==

*{{LinkSummary|zaobaodaily.com}}
*{{LinkSummary|singaporeinfomap.com}}
*{{LinkSummary|Singaporeera.com}}
*{{LinkSummary|Singdaotimes.com}}
*{{LinkSummary|Todayinsg.com}}
*{{LinkSummary|Lioncitylife.com}}
*{{LinkSummary|Singapuranow.com}}
*{{LinkSummary|Voasg.com}}
*{{LinkSummary|Singdaopr.com}}
*{{LinkSummary|Alamak.io}}
Singapore government just had this ten websites blocked for "potential hostile information campaign", stating that these websites are using domains either resembles legitimate news websites (i.e. zaobao.sg vs zaobaodaily.com) or gives an appearance that they have a connection to Singapore; content are AI-generated; gives an appearance that certain sentiments are an reflection of Singapore's public and/or government.

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

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

* We generally only put websites onto the spam blacklist if they are actually being used for spamming.  If the issue is unreliability (and frankly I wouldn't trust the Singaporean government on "internet reliability"), then you probably want [[WP:RSN]]. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq| I wouldn't trust the Singaporean government on "internet reliability"}} heh. indeed. RSN does seem to be the right direction. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 10:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Concur that the spam blacklist is not the right place -- but don't we have a hoax noticeboard or something like that? Or had at one point? [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't think there is a hoax noticeboard (but I could be wrong about that!) – RSN does discuss hoax websites of various kinds, though. Discussions there sometimes lead to blacklisting (though usually only if a site has already been used as a source), but more importantly, a lot of editors experienced in evaluating hoaxes frequent that board. --''[[User:Bonadea|bonadea]]'' <small>[[Special:Contributions/Bonadea|contributions]] [[User talk:Bonadea|talk]]</small> 09:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::[[WP:FTN]] is probably the closest we have to a hoax noticeboard, but it's more for dealing with content from pseudoscience/crank sources. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 22:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

== Administrator Elections: Voting phase ==

<div style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; padding:10px 15px">
<div style="padding: 0 0 0.5em; vertical-align: middle; font-size:130%"> '''[[Wikipedia:Administrator elections|Administrator Elections]] | <span style="font-size:85%">Voting phase</span>'''
</div>
<div style="display:flex; align-items:center;">
<div>
The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at [[Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase|'''Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase''']].

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
*October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
*November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

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

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the [[Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024|main election page]]. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no [[WP:Bureaucrat discussion|bureaucrat discussions]] ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the [[Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections|election talk page]]. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
</div>
<div>[[File:Ballot box icon color.svg|80px]]</div>
</div>
<div style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;">
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please [[Wikipedia:Administrator elections/Newsletter list|remove yourself from the list]].</div>
</div>
[[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Robertsky@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/Newsletter_list&oldid=1253182481 -->

== Arbitration committee 2024 election: nominations to start on November 3 ==

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

== 24.43.82.89 ==

This user has made many unconstructive edits, which seem very immature. I'm going to presume that they're a school IP, but either way, they should get hit with a ban hammer [[User:Maximalistic Editor|Maximalistic Editor]] ([[User talk:Maximalistic Editor|talk]]) 09:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:See also the edit filter. Blocked for a week. Thank you for reporting, [[User:Maximalistic Editor|Maximalistic Editor]], but for another time, it's better to take such cases to [[WP:AIV]]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 12:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC).

== Internal Error when opening [[Special:Notifications]] ==

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

<code>2024-10-25 05:06:40: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException"</code>

when I try to go to [[Special:Notifications]] and if I open the top notification window it just shows "no notifications"? [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 05:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:Try [[WP:VPT]] if nobody here has an answer maybe :3 <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- [[User:Maddy from Celeste|Maddy from Celeste]] ([[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|WAVEDASH]])</b> 06:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::Seems to have resolved itself overnight. Thanks. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 14:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST==
{{atop|Appeal overwhelmingly declined. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 22:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>

<small>''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below.  Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see [[WP:UNINVOLVED]]).''</small>

; Appealing user : {{userlinks|IdanST}}

; Sanction being appealed : One month block by {{user|ScottishFinnishRadish}} for repeated ECR violations

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}

; Notification of that administrator : I'm aware. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by IdanST===

''I believe my ban is unjustified for the following reasons: 1.''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1249375612 This] one is clearly an edit request under [[WP:ECR]] Section A.1. - pointing out that [[Maariv (newspaper)]] "source" is a LIE. Maariv '''NEVER''' reported on this lie, the source is in fact Al Jazeera which has been proven to have lied in this instance, as shown [[Talk:October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel#c-PrimaPrime-20241004165000-Stephan rostie-20241004082400|HERE]]. 2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrimaPrime&diff=prev&oldid=1249404927 This] is not an incivility nor breaking the rules, it's allowed under [[:simple:Wikipedia:Barnstars|WP:BARN]]. 3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephan_rostie&diff=prev&oldid=1249408577 This] is a warning before taking actions, like reporting, for blatant violations of [[Wikipedia:POINT|WP:POINTy]] and [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|WP:WAR]]. I understand now that I should have reported the user instead of leaving a notice on their talk page, as it seems that discussing and warning is discouraged, and direct reporting and banning are preferred.
:[[User:IdanST|IdanST]] ([[User talk:IdanST#top|talk]]) 10:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::I want to clarify that I appealed the first block.
::I didn't appeal the second block yet because I am not aware of the alleged violations for which I was banned for one month. [[User:IdanST|IdanST]] ([[User talk:IdanST#top|talk]]) 15:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC) {{small|copied over from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IdanST&diff=prev&oldid=1252693454 here]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC))}}

===Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish (IdanST appeal)===
First block for a week was based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1249375612], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrimaPrime&diff=prev&oldid=1249404927], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephan_rostie&diff=prev&oldid=1249408577] which are all clear ECR violations. Their talk page access was pulled by {{u|Doug Weller}}. When the block expired their first edits were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1250993919], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1250995911], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrimaPrime&diff=prev&oldid=1250998684], which are also clear ECR violations. They continued with personal attacks on their talk page and again had their talk page access removed. Oh, and the Simple English Wikipedia page on barnstars doesn't have much weight on en.wiki. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by Doug Weller (IdanST appeal)===
IdanST says that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1249375612] was an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1.  which it clearly is not, just a statement that something is a lie. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IdanST#WP:ECR this] is a personal attack on ScottishFinnishRadish. Yet more attacks [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:IdanST#October_2024 here] [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

===Statement by (involved editor 1)===

===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST ===

<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
*I may be a simple Wikipedian farmer of minor corrections and !votes, but a few things confuse me.
*#Why aren't these pages under ECR protection? It seems that this is a simple solution to the problem
*#Some of these cited by SFR and Doug seem to fall under [[WP:NPA]], not "clear ECR violations". We need to be a little more precise if we're going to ban/block people. Those alone are worthy of a block given previous interactions.
:[[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Non-EC editors are allowed to make edit requests on the talk pages. Generally, article talk pages aren't ECP unless there is enough disruption to necessitate it. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::These do not appear to be edit requests, but personal attacks. That they were on an ARBPIA talk page seems immaterial. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
::A personal attack explicitly and particularly related to an ECR topic area, such as {{tq|Your Constant Lies ...regarding Israel and Arab–Israeli conflict}},[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stephan_rostie&diff=prev&oldid=1249408577] is surely a clear two-fer. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 18:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:::YMMV, I suppose. NPA seems to be reason enough for a block without additional justification. If anything, such behavior there should be grounds for ADDITIONAL measures [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 17:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
*Nothing about this appeal gives me confidence that this editor will be a net positive with respect to ARBPIA content. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 15:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
* This edit[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1249375612] is clearly note an edit request and the editor had been previously warned, I would oppose the appeal. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*IdanST chooses to defend only three of their edits, and their very first defence demonstrates the appropriateness of the current block. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:October_2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1249375612 This disruptive post] was clearly not a request, let alone an [[WP:EDITXY|edit request]] under WP:ECR Section A.1, and that IdanST claims that it was, and makes no attempt to suggest their editing will improve, shows that this block and maybe more will be needed until they understand and accept the various limitations and restrictions on their editing. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 19:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*The appeal should be declined for the reasons set out by ScottishFinnishRadish. Additionally, the polemical style of the appeal and the appellant's personal attacks and their mischaracterization of their edits indicate that the appellant should be topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict as unsuited to collaborative work. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't think a topic ban would be effective as the existing extended-confirmed restriction is being ignored. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 19:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== ThecentreCZ unblock request ==
{{atop|There is a (weak) consensus here to unblock, but nearly every editor has noted that there is a short amount of [[WP:ROPE|rope]] and any future issues will lead to a re-imposition of the block by any administrator. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|ThecentreCZ}}

Copied from their user talk page:

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



[[Special:Diff/1214257906|Final comment from ANI thread prior to block]]. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 17:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

*That is a pretty messed up discussion, and past.  Still, I'm inclined to accept this with the understanding that there will be a short WP:rope for future incivility, and a low threshold for refusing to source content. For me, the saving grace is you also have a history of creating worthwhile articles.  I don't care if your mind is "politically incorrect", however, I do mind when it comes out in your interactions with others here, which is disruptive.  Honestly, that is why you got the indef block; not the sourcing; it was the comments re: autism/retard, and by community standards, it was a perfectly valid block.  Editors here have a very low tolerance for that stuff, even when it is said in jest/hyperbole/as slang.  '''If''' you can restrain yourself, then I'm fine with an unblock.  My guess is that not everyone would agree, but we aren't here to punish "wrongthink" (as a lot of people use terms in RL that wouldn't be acceptable in this public forum).  We do need to enforce a reasonable level of civility which this clearly breached, in order to build an encyclopedia.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 07:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*It's fine to unblock TCCZ, but certain restrictions might apply. Insulting other editors is a huge mistake, TCCZ. I consider '''weak support''' for the unblocking. I hope TCCZ will not repeat the same mistake he did before. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 08:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support unblocking''' as editor seems to understand why they were blocked and that what they did  was wrong. It must be understood that such unblock is on pain of swift redoing should further offences occur, but let's at least give a chance here. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 15:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'll leave an opinion on this soon but just want to point out the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1151#ThecentreCZ_-_Personal_Attacks_and_Sourcing|AN/I thread]] that got them indeffed. It's important to understand what this user had actually done that resulted in them getting blocked. [[User:Vacant0|<span style="color:#5E9A4A;font-weight:bold">Vacant</span><span style="color:#A24B4B;font-weight:bold">0</span>]] <span style="font-size:small">([[User talk:Vacant0|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Vacant0|contribs]])</span> 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
**I'm unsure why the user is mentioning the amount of uncivil comments they've left over the years. They certainly deserved an indefinite block for their actions but considering that they seemed to have apologised for that and have promised to not do it anymore, I agree with Dennis Brown on giving them [[WP:ROPE|another chance]] to see if they have improved their behavior. [[User:Vacant0|<span style="color:#5E9A4A;font-weight:bold">Vacant</span><span style="color:#A24B4B;font-weight:bold">0</span>]] <span style="font-size:small">([[User talk:Vacant0|talk]] &bull; [[Special:Contributions/Vacant0|contribs]])</span> 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::Rosguill had already posted this above, so I'm assuming everyone opining had already read through.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 02:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Weak Support:''' If this is admins-only, then delete this and notify me on my talk page. If not, then I'll input my opinion.
:The user seems like he's apologized for what he's done, and I think WP:ROPE applies. I say that we give him a second chance, but if he makes any edits in bad faith, he gets hit with a block. [[User:Maximalistic Editor|Maximalistic Editor]] ([[User talk:Maximalistic Editor|talk]]) 09:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak support''' I'm fine with the arguments per Dennis Brown. Short rope...make the best of it. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 20:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT consultations, October 2024 ==

The Arbitration Committee has received applications for [[Wikipedia:CheckUser|CheckUser]] and [[WP:COIVRT|conflict of interest VRT queue]] access and has reviewed them in consultation with the [[Wikipedia:Functionaries|functionaries team]]. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/Rolling appointments/October 2024|the CheckUser]] and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports/October 2024 appointments|COI VRT consultations]] until the end of 1 November 2024 (UTC).

On behalf of the Committee, [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT consultations, October 2024}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

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

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

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

thank you



[[User:I&#38;I22|I&#38;I22]] ([[User talk:I&#38;I22|talk]]) 17:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:I created [[Nigger Rock]]. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 17:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

== Problem moving a page  ==

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

:[[WP:RM/TR]] would be the right venue for this. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 06:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::I moved it. Seems like there is a history of it moving from Danapur to Dinapur, though. Might warrant a full RM? '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 10:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

== Vile racism allowed to remain for 12 hours ==

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race_traitor&diff=prev&oldid=1253632520 Really awful] racism allowed to remain in place for 12 hours. Suggest revdel. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 13:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}} - any future instances can be requested via [[WP:REVDELREQUEST]], to avoid links of offensive material being inadvertently seen more widely. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 13:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks, yes I did want to make the point though how concerning it is that such material remained in place for 12 hours. Surprised as well it wasn't picked up by an edit filter or tagged as potential vandalism. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 13:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::It's always going to be difficult for an automated tool to pick up stuff like that when the article already contains racism, slurs and other fruity language. That is, it's easy to pick up but hard to distinguish everything else. That's why we have humans. Thanks for your vigilance. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 14:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

== IBAN appeal ==
{{atop|status=iban lifted.|result=While it is a valid concern that one of the parties subject to the interaction ban does not want it lifted, there is a rough consensus here to do so anyway. It bears repeating that any further issues in this area can lead to the rapid, probab;y permanent re-instatement of the interaction ban and/or other sanctions such as blocking. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 19:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)}}
I would like to request an appeal of the two-way involuntary interaction ban between myself and {{u|MaranoFan}}. It was imposed by the community a year ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1179373394#User:MaranoFan_chronic_incivility,_conspiracy_theories in October 2023]. The conflict originated in the context of nomination pages like FAC. I wouldn't interact with them at those types of venues in the future anyways, and I don't see why replying to one another in a WikiProject discussion or something similarly low-stakes would lead to further conflict. To my knowledge there have been no violations of the IBAN in the year since it was active. I genuinely believe it has served its purpose; let's move on. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 04:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

*'''Weak support''' - As long as those two people are moving on for a long, it is not useful to let IBAN in place. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 07:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - The IBAN discussion was reopened and reinstated after being closed once, because some thought it was also necessary to prevent drama on noticeboards and stop the wastage of community time. The fact that this has not been acknowledged in the opening statement looks to me like dodging blame and does not instill me with confidence that that behavior would be avoided. I would have appreciated <s>being reached out to through email or</s> something else but, alas, ANI has been taken as the venue directly without reaching out to <s>me or</s> any individual admin to waste less community time. IBAN remains necessary.--''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 07:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
:Since my participation on the Carey article has been brought up, it is related to efforts to save it from losing FA status (I stumbled upon the FARC since [https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/mariah-carey-attends-olivia-rodrigo-concert-kids-obsessed-1235742861/ Carey came up] while I was doing research for [[Obsessed (Olivia Rodrigo song)|another article]]). I started helping there because the comments there were not being engaged with. Authorship is looked at to determine major contributors, and Heartfox's shows up as 2.8% which doesn't really qualify (even I have 1.1%). Anyways, on the topic of the IBAN itself, since there is no admission of wrongdoing and they feel the necessity to assert that their original escalation to ANI was "valid", it is absolutely still necessary.--''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 01:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
::MaranoFan, I said above that "I genuinely believe it has served its purpose". This was me saying I am acknowledging my responsibility; ie the IBAN had a purpose. The second ANI was unquestionably valid as it led to the exact thing I suggested and this was later affirmed at AN, so it was not a waste of time even though I understand your point of view. MaranoFan, you are one of the rare people on Wikipedia who actually improve the project by writing quality articles. I respect you more than 99% of other editors and wish we could move past this era. Sincerely, [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 02:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|I would have appreciated being reached out to through email or something else but, alas, ANI has been taken as the venue directly without reaching out to me}} I don't think this is a reasonable expectation (without comment on the merits of your other thoughts), because it would be a ''de facto'' breach of the IBAN. We don't expect IBAN appeals to be preceded by an IBAN violation. [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 14:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''.  I don't know all the history of this, but it doesn't seem wise to lift an IBAN if one of the parties objects.  We've got 6,898,024 articles; surely there's enough room for both parties to find stuff they're interested in without having to be editing the same pages. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Well right now anytime I edit [[Mariah Carey]] in the future, which is an article to which I am one of the top-ten authors and is one of my top-ten most-edited articles, I have to go back to the 30 edits MaranoFan made yesterday every time and ensure I don't change anything that they happened to add or get potentially blocked for IBAN violations. This is very discouraging to my activity on Wikipedia. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 19:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*::So it seems like the solution there is to [[WP:Partial block|p-block]] both of you from that article. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 20:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::There's no history of edit warring or content disputes so that seems completely excessive. Both users are members at [[WP:MIMI]], so "We've got 6,898,024 articles" doesn't apply here. The IBAN is preventing improvements to articles when both editors have to tread over eggshells when editing even though the IBAN had nothing to do with content. MaranoFan should be able to fix a typo or a misplaced link in an article I wrote so articles can be improved, and vice versa. To continue an IBAN in part because I opened a valid ANI thread over a year ago and because I am appealing the IBAN to the community instead of an individual admin (which is not even the process?) is unjustified. [[User:Heartfox|Heartfox]] ([[User talk:Heartfox|talk]]) 22:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::What would that accomplish? [[User:McYeee|McYeee]] ([[User talk:McYeee|talk]]) 02:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Let's give such interactions a chance. It's been a year and he seems to have learned his lesson. We can always re-enable the iban. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

:*I would like to see recent evidence where either of the two users have violated the IBAN, otherwise I '''support''' this request. <span style="font-family:Monospace;color:black">>>>&nbsp;[[User:Extorc|<span style="color:purple">Extorc</span>]].[[User_talk:Extorc|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</span> 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
::*Come on, guys. Heartfox said he would [[Special:Diff/1120783744|"be certain to avoid [me] in the future"]] in November 2022 and ended up starting two ANI threads about me after that. They also [[Special:Diff/1120783744|called me]] "someone so insecure in real life or online, it is low-key scary. Due to their insecurity they see everything I do as a form of competition against them and go to FAC coordinator and Did You Know talk pages to spew nonsense about how I am trying to 'take them out'", which they were just allowed to get away with even though I had been blocked at the time. After the IBAN had formally been enacted, they [[Special:Diff/1208224123|joined an RfC I had started]], a mere 15 minutes after I was having a heated argument there and took the opposite side. They have also gone to [[Special:Diff/1174713368|an FAC]] a mere few days after I reviewed it, to "agree" with two of my comments ("I would agree that ''People's Daily'' does not seem to be a high-quality source", "I would agree that claiming "crisper and warmer" to be a paraphrase when it also happens to be verbatim from one of the citations attributed to the consensus is problematic") but making sure to indicate that they did not agree the work had to be done outside the FAC process. Anyways, this is my last comment here. All I am saying is, they have some trouble staying away from me and it is well documented.--''[[User:MaranoFan|<b style="color:purple">N</b>]][[User talk:MaranoFan|<b style="color:teal">Ø</b>]]'' 18:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per MaranoFan's diffs.  When the person on the other side of the ban opposes it because of violations, and the best evidence is (1) several diffs before the ban was imposed, and (2) one diff afterward, which doesn't show signs of "interaction", then (3) I suspect that there's no violation, or otherwise actual diffs probably would have been found.  After a year without violations, [[WP:ROPE]] I suppose; as Buffs says, we can always reimpose it if needed.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 10:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I can understand from where these concerns of MaranoFan are coming from. Unfortunately, MaranoFan has faced a lot of harrassment and it was really difficult for Wikipedia community to provide her with a pleasant environment where she could edit productively. However, this appeal is sincere and should be accepted. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' accepting appeal request, with the additional statement that it can be reimposed with a quick consensus should issues reoccur. I second Nyttend's comments immediately above me. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== An accusation that I'm not quite sure what to do about ==

{{userlinks|2001:B07:6461:80A1:E15F:7BB3:50B5:FA8}}

Hello. This is my first time posting to these boards, so I hope I'm doing it properly. I considered putting this at [[WP:ANI|ANI]], but it didn't seem like it fit the descriptor of {{tq|'''urgent''' incident or '''chronic, intractable''' behavioral problem}}.

So, about a week ago, [[Special:Diff/1251900584|I posted]] a lengthy comment at [[Talk:Elsagate]], questioning how the information specifically concerning post-2017 events was being presented. I would then [[Special:Diff/1252496118|go on to edit the article per my analysis.]]

Some time later, the IP linked above left [[Special:Diff/1251986531|this reply]]. Now I'm not quite sure of the context they're referring to, and so I'm not sure exactly who they lobbed this accusation at, but I originally interpreted it, as I don't think is unreasonable to do, as directed towards me. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and so asked them, both [[Special:Diff/1252020187|on the article's talk page]] as well as [[Special:Diff/1252244344|on theirs]], to clarify.

Given they ''didn't'' clarify, I think it's a very inappropriate comment to leave. However, since it's technically not necessarily directed towards me, I'm not sure if I can cite NPA or the like. So that's why I'd like to ask administrators' opinions on this, and whether their comment should be struck (since, after a full week, they have not done so themselves). I wouldn't normally care this much about personal attacks, real or hypothetical, but an implication such as the one they left there is a serious one, and I will not tolerate it when it is baselessly targeted at me.

Thank you. [[User:LaughingManiac|LaughingManiac]] ([[User talk:LaughingManiac|talk]]) 16:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:Welcome to the admin noticeboards. I've proper-removed it from the history. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 16:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you, much appreciated! [[User:LaughingManiac|LaughingManiac]] ([[User talk:LaughingManiac|talk]]) 17:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

== Deletion of my user account AKS.9955 ==

Dear Admin, I have been an active user of Wikipedia since past several years. I do not wish to continue being on this site, and owing to personal attacks and privacy concerns, I request that my user account be deleted / made indivisible (you decide best way). I wish you all the very best. Thanks and have a good day.'''[[User:AKS.9955|<span style="color:#000080"> Arun Kumar SINGH </span>]][[User talk: AKS.9955|<span style="color:#01BFFF"> (Talk) </span>]]''' 05:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

:Courtesy link to [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:AKS.9955 and regional airline articles in India and Kyrgyzstan]]. Sincerely, <s>James Bond</s> [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|GreenLipstickLesbian]] ([[User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|talk]]) 05:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::Also, if any administrators reading this wish to read the thread and make a decision concerning ARK.9955's autopatrolled and NPR rights, that would be most appreciated. But for a TL;DR version - AKS.9955 has had a financial stake in the airlines [[TezJet]] and [[IndiaOne Air]], created those articles, and failed to disclose that they had a COI regarding them during creation/deletion discussions. The sourcing in the TezJet article is likely poor enough for autopatrolled to be pulled on that basis alone (the article is cited almost entirely to Planespotter's and the company(AKS.9955)'s own website.) Glancing through their [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/AKS.9955 Xtools] reveals a host of similarly-sourced articles, such as [[Sky FRU]], [[Taftan Airlines]], [[Hongkong Jet]]. Which isn't the end of the world- and AKS.9955, this doesn't need to be the end of your time on Wikipedia. You're clearly passionate about the project - you just need to be whole lot more forthcoming when it comes to declaring when you have a connection to an article subject, and you can't [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1253280503 personally attack editors] when they bring that up. 
::For the sake of anybody watching, the some of the personal attacks I'm referring to can be read below:
:::{{tq|All these '''James Bonds''' getting a high after pointing out a ''COI'' [...] I think Wikipedia has reached a point where it is no longer possible to contribute constructively without some sore losers sitting in their basements and preaching the world how things work.}} (emphasis original)
:: [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|GreenLipstickLesbian]] ([[User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|talk]]) 19:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:See [[WP:VANISH]]. It is not possible to have an account deleted and ''vanish'' is only partially effective. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 05:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
::Also, courtesy vanishing would be clearly rejected in this case because this user is being scrutinized for sanctions. <span style="font-family:'forte'">[[User:Ratnahastin|<span style="color:#A52A2A;">Ratnahastin</span>]] <b>([[User talk:Ratnahastin|talk]])</b></span> 07:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
*I've removed all advanced rights/tools.  See log for details.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 00:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::I have no issue if they want to [[WP:Vanish]], although they need to point to the two discussions when doing so, so the Steward may make a determination as to the fitness.  I don't see any other sanction that is likely.  My removal of rights wasn't a sanction as much as it was because he wants to vanish, combined with the fact that they don't seem to have the skills to use the tools properly.  As for avoiding scrutiny, that would be more of an issue if they come back.  Some may see it differently, but ultimately, it is up to the Steward (or Global Renamer, per policy) to decide.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 07:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

== CheckUser access for administrator election scrutineers ==

The Arbitration Committee has been informed that, following a request from an English Wikipedia editor, Stewards {{user|Johannnes89}}, {{user|EPIC}}, and {{user|Yahya}} have [[m:Special:Permalink/27663550#Scrutineering_of_enwiki_admin_election_in_late_October|volunteered]] to serve as scrutineers for the [[Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024|administrator elections]] being held this month using SecurePoll. The Committee notes that SecurePoll election scrutineers often use local CheckUser permissions in order to fully perform their functions. 

The Arbitration Committee has been unable to locate community discussions that establish consensus for appointing Stewards from outside the English Wikipedia to serve as CheckUsers for this purpose, which would bypass the Committee's [[WP:CUOS|established procedures]] for functionary appointments in ordinary circumstances. 

Nonetheless, the Committee has decided to appoint the three Steward volunteers as English Wikipedia CheckUsers for the duration of the election in order to facilitate the election process. In future cases, the Committee will request a showing of affirmative community consensus for selecting scrutineers from among Stewards outside the English Wikipedia before granting such access outside of the ordinary procedure. 

Accordingly, the Arbitration Committee grants temporary English Wikipedia CheckUser permissions to Stewards Johannnes89, EPIC, and Yahya, solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the ongoing administrator elections.

For the Arbitration Committee, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|CheckUser access for administrator election scrutineers}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== (possible, but not assured) Hoaxes ==
{{atop
| result = Resolved to satisfaction of the reporting editor. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 17:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
}}

At the risk of getting recalled, I've raised attention of this matter at [[WP:AFC]] (see: [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Battles_in_the_Pontic–Caspian_steppe|Battles in the Pontic-Caspian steppe]]), however, this may benefit from someone with more experience addressing [[WP:HOAX]]s than me. (I'm not even entirely certain these are hoaxes and want to tread carefully out of concern for making a new editor's first experience at WP an extremely negative one. However, I just get the gut sense this is one of those occasional attempts to make a demonstration about WP. More likely than not, I'm mistaken and have done a shoddy job at source verification.) Thanks, in advance. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 03:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:Sorry, disregard the above. I've gone ahead [[User_talk:Enver_Ottoman|and blocked this editor]]. On further examination, I'm satisfied this is an extremely elaborate hoax. [[User:Chetsford|Chetsford]] ([[User talk:Chetsford|talk]]) 05:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Disruptive editor via multiple ip addresses (I think) ==

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

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

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

:The chances that this is the same user are very high. All IPs come from a small town in Poland. Block them. Full support from me [[User:Maximalistic Editor|Maximalistic Editor]] ([[User talk:Maximalistic Editor|talk]]) 21:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
:The anonymous user, under the ip address [[Special:Contributions/77.65.93.205]], is still making disruptive edits. [[User:Dipper Dalmatian|Dipper Dalmatian]] ([[User talk:Dipper Dalmatian|talk]]) 19:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::The anonymous user, under the ip address [[Special:Contributions/77.65.93.205]], is still making disruptive edits despite having a huge warning against them. [[User:Dipper Dalmatian|Dipper Dalmatian]] ([[User talk:Dipper Dalmatian|talk]]) 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:Diffs of their being a pest, please. Not everyone is going to dig through the entire contribs history of multiple IPs. The easier you make a mop’s job, the more likely one swings the banhammer. [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 12:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

== Disruptive IP ==

Can an administrator please block the IP address [[User contributions for 71.172.48.193|71.172.48.193]]; has been repeatedly adding false information to the articles of different animated series, seems to be mostly targeting ''[[Monsters at Work]]'', adding a fake season 3 and characters and guest stars who have not appeared at all. [[User:HotDogsforDays|HotDogsforDays]] ([[User talk:HotDogsforDays|talk]]) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:That's {{user|71.172.48.193}}. I don't see any discussion on the issue. Please try to engage with the IP (and see "you must leave a notice on their talk page" above). An admin such as myself has no knowledge of the topic and the IP has to have an opportunity to explain their edits. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 02:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

:{{nacmt}} Well, technically it wouldn't be a clean start because those don't apply to people who have active sanctions (including blocks), but this is a fairly normal place for an unblock request, and if they were literally only blocked because of one day of vandalism 14 years ago I wouldn't expect there would be any issue with one. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 00:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::[[WP:QUIETRETURN]]. If he returns and start editing in new areas, there's no need for a helpme request. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 01:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::: That would be sock puppetry. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 01:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:I can only speak as one member of the community, but I have no issue whatsoever with this user participating with the new account, and I certainly don't think TheAmazingCoffeeMan should be forced to jump through too many hoops simply for trying to do this properly instead of quietly editing. If we have to [[WP:BURO]] this, then I suppose they can just post a quick unblock request wherever an admin sees fit? [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 01:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::I tend to agree, although it would've been better if they'd just not said anything about the old account, it looks a fairly ruitine block and would likely merit a [[WP:ROPE]] unblock, which I will just go aherad and do so as to put the matter to rest. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 02:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I will, as I do every time one of these threads pops up, plug my user essay [[User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock]]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe]])</small> 02:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Nice.I appreciate an essay that is blunt and honest about the sausage factory. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 03:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Just thinking out loud, Taz, is it worth linking [[WP:LTA]] in second bullet point {{tq|If there is a history of sockpuppetry, it is not particularly extensive or disruptive}}? Excessive SPIs on the same menace tend to equal LTAs, in my experience, but hey, you’ve been Wikipedia-ing a lot more than I have, so I can be wrong. [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 12:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think that would narrow my meaning more than I intend. There's lots of socking that falls short of LTA but would definitely disqualify someone from the benefits of this unwritten rule. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe]])</small> 16:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
===More input?===
*It was brought up on [[User talk:Just Step Sideways#Heads up: your unblock of GageCSayre|my talk page]] that when this user filed an unblock request, they admitted to a few other socks, and one of them was blocked as a sock of a long-gone vandal with a large sockfarm. It's a fair concern and I asked TheAmazingCoffeeMan to address it. Here is their response:
{{tq|I looked through the sock puppet investigations archive for Alexcas11, and I read some about the editing patterns of the sock puppet accounts alongside the IP addresses used, and I can say those accounts (besides RoyalRumble24) don't belong to me. I also looked at the IP addresses used, and I can safely say none of them track to my location (I live in the United States, but that's as specific as I'll get). Moreover, the account Alexcas11 and its sock puppets appear to have been active and subsequently blocked before I even started vandalizing Wikipedia and got blocked for it. Additionally, the way I went about vandalizing articles mostly involved falsifying dates, and the only article about a made-up topic I ever created was an imagined 2011 remake of Home Alone. All the other articles deemed inappropriate for inclusion I wrote as RoyalRumble24 were about people deemed ineligible for Wikipedia's notability criteria.}}
:I would take this as a "no" to the question of if they were the person operating the account, and it is still my inclination to just [[WP:ROPE|hand out some rope]] and see what happens, but thought I'd run it by this board in case others feel differently. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 05:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:: If there are no other issues, I'd go for it. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 12:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

== Unmerge my enwiki account from global ==

Please switch all of my rights (extended confirmed, reviewer, comfirmed user) into the account {{u|TienMinh-mun6xnChing}}, I'm no longer use this main account for contributing, thanks. [[User:DefenderTienMinh07|<span style="background:#808080;color:#FFFF00;border-radius:3px;"> '''☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽'''</span>]] ([[User talk:DefenderTienMinh07|<span style="font-family:Simhei;color:#808080;">talk</span>]]) 11:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:This will not "unmerge" anything (we don't do that), but sure I've moved your account flags. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

==An administrator recall petition for [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] has been initiated==
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a petition at [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87]] for Graham87 to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from [[WP:EC|extended confirmed]] users, an RRfA is required for {{pronoun|Graham87|obj}} to maintain {{pronoun|Graham87|pos}} toolkit. For further information, please consult the [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall|administrator recall policy]].
<!--Template: Admin recall notice/AN-->
 
I request that anyone wanting to comment keeps discussion on the petition and its talk. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:Noting that this petition has been withdrawn/closed. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 16:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
::I've reopened, since there were more signatures than the OP. Besides, we need to let the procedure run, so we know if we need to fix it.--[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::As much as I dislike the ugliness going on there, and totally apreciate the OP trying to acknowledge the obvious, the close was out of process. 
:::There's clearly some issues with this process that need fixing, or at least clarification, I think we can all see that. The thirty-days-to-certify aspect in particular needs adressing, but also the fact that a petition to open a recall process was being treated like the process itself, and there's really nobody with any clear authority to address issues as they arise. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:I do wonder if we should even have Discussion sections in these petitions. Since it just causes a lot of fighting and arguing. When the whole point of the petition is are there 25 established editors that indicate lack of confidence in the person as an admin. It's basically just a binary question in that regard. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:After about a day, I have several takeaways about the recall process in general based on the discussion so far:
:* There should be a process to snow close petitions. It's clear that barring some major bombshell, nothing will come of this one. Withdrawal was likely the correct response, but it's [[WP:BURO]]'d back into existence.
:* Several people didn't comment on the actual issue at hand. Graham87 spent years blocking newbie accounts that had made only minor mistakes and frequently told them some variation of "you are not welcome here". This was written off as being kind of mean every once in a while. It seems several participants didn't bother to read the ANI discussions.
:* A huge swelling of admins immediately came out to oppose. Almost all of the early opposition that built up inertia against the petition was from admins. I can't help but think there's a perverse incentive here from several admins who expect to see themselves at the other end of this.
:* Some people used the petition as a place to express general displeasure with the process. Several people failed to participate in multiple widely advertised discussions and then took out their frustration with [[WP:POINT]] behavior.
:* It would help if there were a baseline "arguments to avoid". A few examples:
:** Appealing to due process implies that being an administrator is a right or an entitlement. Someone should only be an admin if they maintain the trust of the community, so arguments about whether it's fair to the admin aren't helpful. The admin serves the community, not the other way around.
:** Since the point of recall is for long-term patterns where no individual problem rises to Arbcom, it's not reasonable to argue that "if this was serious it would be taken to Arbcom".
:** Similarly, "this was discussed at ANI" should be a ''prerequisite'' to recall, not an argument against it.
:[[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
* I was under the impression that RFA2024 was meant to make the admin process less toxic.  It seems odd, then, that we've introduced a process that makes de-adminship ''more'' toxic.  Some people don't seem to understand there's a human being on the other end of this shambles. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
* I'm completely confused on the whole process. What is it? People just have a place to voice support for the petition and others can provide feedback. What's the result supposed to be? A !vote if enough people sign on (like many petitions)? Are they de-admined immediately? Who decides? What's the threshold? Seems pretty vague to me. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 21:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:[[Wikipedia:Administrator recall]] holds the answers to all of your questions. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- [[User:Maddy from Celeste|Maddy from Celeste]] ([[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|WAVEDASH]])</b> 21:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Actually, it doesn't.
*::{{tq|A petition is closed after thirty days. If it gains at least twenty-five valid signatures within that period, the administrator is required to make a re-request for adminship or be a candidate in an administrator election.}}
*::It doesn't state that the WPian is desysoped, it just says that they are required to make a re-request for adminship. If it fails, are they desysoped? While it's ongoing, do they retain the tools. It also doesn't define what the options are for an outcome. Can they just be suspended for a while? Etc. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 04:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::The page says that if they do not start the re-request for adminship within a reasonable timeframe, {{tq|[a bureaucrat] may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion}}. Implicitly, then, the recalled admin retains the bit until either they choose not to RRfA or have their RRfA rejected.   It also says that if the admin passes the RRfA they retain the bit; therefore if they do not pass they do not retain the bit.
*:::Given the page says nothing about suspensions then no, this process does not allow for a suspension of the rights. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 12:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
* Anyone interested in this process more generally should probably watchlist [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current]]. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 14:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

== unblock request ==

I made an edit request that conformed to the WP template and guidelines. Multiple users vandalized my edit request by deleting it. I was blocked for reverting that vandalism.

I know the rules of edit requests and I understand and respect why they are what they are. [[User:Mikewem|Mikewem]] ([[User talk:Mikewem|talk]]) 18:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:This matter is being dealt with at the editor's talk page. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

== A question from a very active editor ==

What should I do if I just-so-happen to be someone who is mildly-to-very famous, and/or is siblings with someone like that? Like, ultra-famous?

I've helped with plenty of stuff on [[WP:COIN]] before, but I have no idea how to proceed in this scenario. I trust that people will know that I am telling the truth about this, as I have over 15,000 edits on this site.

Can my publicist make disclosed COI edits on my behalf (using their own account- not mine)?

How do I verify to administrators that I am who I say I am? I don't really want this username to become publicly tied to me, for the sole and only reason that legions of fans might descend upon my talk page, wreaking havok.

Again, I'm not going to say who I am.

Not asking on anyone else's behalf, by the way.

Live long and prosper. <span style="font-family:Courier;background-color:#000000">[[User:TheAwesomeHwyh|<span style="color:#FFA352;">TheAwesome</span>]][[User_Talk:TheAwesomeHwyh|<span style="color:#12ECFF;">Hwyh</span>]]</span> 22:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:Your editing and the editing of someone you hire relating to you as a person outside of Wikipedia are two separate things, in my view. As long as the two never cross paths, there's no reason you need to dox yourself to anyone. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:(edit conflict) The easiest approach is for you to simply not perform any edits in your conflict of interest. Then, there's no need for you to disclose. Your publicist, on their own account, could disclose ([[WP:DISCLOSE]]) their own conflict and simply not mention your account. For example, let's say you are [[Liv Tyler]] (for example, you obviously aren't). Don't edit [[Liv Tyler]], don't edit about your family or your movies or anything else for which you have a conflict. Your publicist discloses that they are Liv Tyler's publicist, without mentioning TheAwesomeHwyh at all. They are then free to edit within the normal bounds (which, frankly, means they probably should only be ''suggesting'' edits on article talk pages, making clear it's a COI edit request). If you want to be extra careful, ensure you and your publicist don't communicate over Wikipedia (and... why on earth would you) and don't connect from the same IP address ([[WP:CHECKUSER]]). You may wish to '''privately''' disclose your own conflict to [[WP:ARBCOM]] (others will correct me if I'm pointing you in the wrong direction there), noting your publicist's account too and indicating you'll avoid COI edits. Now, you can validate that you are Liv Tyler (for example). We sometimes require that when people pick a username of a famous person. But, I don't think that's something you want or need to do here. Far better to keep this account anonymous and simply avoid the whole mess, yes? --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 22:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
::Those are precisely my thoughts, stated much more thoroughly. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I won't even mention this account to my publicist. <span style="font-family:Courier;background-color:#000000">[[User:TheAwesomeHwyh|<span style="color:#FFA352;">TheAwesome</span>]][[User_Talk:TheAwesomeHwyh|<span style="color:#12ECFF;">Hwyh</span>]]</span> 22:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Liv, can you get me tickets to the Captain America:Brave New World premiere? [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 23:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|TheAwesomeHwyh}}, a potential pitfall of your plan is [[WP:MEAT|Meatpuppetry]]. You can orient your publicist to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and let them know that you would like the Wikipedia article about you to be improved. You need to emphasize to the publicist that they must make the [[WP:PAID|Paid contributionsdisclosure]]. But if you give them a specific list of things you want added, removed or changed, then that would be a policy violation, so be cautious. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{outdent|2}} {{tq|if you give them a specific list of things you want added, removed or changed, then that would be a policy violation, so be cautious.}} Meatpuppetry is defined as having another editor make the same arguments as you in a content debate; it is unrelated to hiring a paid editor. Generally, when you hire someone to write for you, you tell them what you want and they try to do it. For example, [[MrBeast]] could decide to hire a paid editor and instruct that editor to propose a much shorter version of the controversies section that downplays all allegations. That paid editor could then draft a new section and attempt to argue that it's actually more [[WP:due|due]] and [[WP:BALASP|balanced]] than the current article version. Meatpuppetry would be if MrBeast proposes those changes himself and then secretly persuades 100 established editors to support him in an RfC. The former follows our COI policy, the latter does not. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I'd agree. If there's no deceptive or disruptive use, I don't think it should be considered an issue. To be honest, as long as their main account avoids the same topic area or any projectspace discussions (except those that directly affect the account), my reading of the socking policy (not that I have any particular expertise in this regard) is that they are even permitted (even if it's not necessarily recommended) to create a separate account under their real name (though, the policy comes at it from the opposite direction, where the main account is under the real name and the alternate is a pseudonym). The security of said alternate accounts of course, is the editor's individual responsibility. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 06:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::"{{tq|don't connect from the same IP address}}" -- I thought checkusers can only access data from actual edits made through an account? Not from just logging in. [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|🍀]]) 00:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|Nythar}} [[phab:T253802|Not any more]]. For better or worse, this whole situation will remind too many people of the [[Special:Permalink/1183169230#Lourdes|Lourdes saga]]. At least, compared to that account's first edit, we know for a fact that the OP is not a [[blue-and-yellow macaw]]. :-) [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 03:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::::There's nothing at all similar to Lourdes and any comparisons should be dismissed out of hand. Hwyh did the right thing asking and there's literally no policy that prohibits an existing editor from hiring a paid editor to do things that they can't because they have a COI. That's the whole point of the COI policy. If a famous person wants to edit Wikipedia unrelated to their own life, they should be allowed to do so without creating a real name alt and making their own COI edits. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 11:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, all! Due to the fact that there seems to be a bit of controversy as to how to proceed with this, I decided that I will disclose that this is my account, eventually. I'm waiting for something important to happen in real life (which still might not happen) before I disclose this.
:::::I also have a separate, slight conflict of interest with basically everything to do with the LISP programming language. I actually recently acquired one of the companies that used to make [[Common Lisp]] software so I felt like I should disclose that. That's a separate [[WP:COI]], though.
:::::I will also disclose that I used to edit under [[User:TraderCharlotte]] as I had briefly forgotten the password to TheAwesomeHwyh. I no longer go by "Charlotte", though.
:::::Second star to the right, and straight on 'till morning! <span style="font-family:Courier;background-color:#000000">[[User:TheAwesomeHwyh|<span style="color:#FFA352;">TheAwesome</span>]][[User_Talk:TheAwesomeHwyh|<span style="color:#12ECFF;">Hwyh</span>]]</span> 18:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I probably won't post any more comments on this thread as I actually haven't asked my publicist if they're okay with me posting this stuff on this public noticeboard. Whoops...
::::::Ad astra per aspera. <span style="font-family:Courier;background-color:#000000">[[User:TheAwesomeHwyh|<span style="color:#FFA352;">TheAwesome</span>]][[User_Talk:TheAwesomeHwyh|<span style="color:#12ECFF;">Hwyh</span>]]</span> 18:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, there is an established system of verification of famous people mentioned under the [[WP:IMPERSONATE|real names section of the username policy]]. Verification in this case is done by sending an email to the [[Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team|volunteer response team]] (VRT) and quoting the resulting ticket number if needed. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 03:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

== AIV backlog ==

Hi. There's a heavy backlog at [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism]]. [[User:Abminor|A<sup>♭</sup>m]] <sup>([[User talk:Abminor|Ring!]])</sup> <sub>([[Special:Contributions/Abminor|Notes]])</sub> 07:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

== Authenticity regarding citation needed spam. ==

Hello there.

I've discovered [[User talk:50.102.149.14|IP User 50.102.149.14]] seems to have a knack for contributing on many articles ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amber_alert&diff=prev&oldid=1254236640 such as this]) where instead of contributing constructively or providing sources, the user finds any paragraph that contains a statement without a source, and marks it as {cn}. That'd be constructive and helpful, were it not done to the extent the user is doing it. There's a balanced argument of 'is this constructive editing' that, judging on their talk page, I am not the only one questioning.

This is a sticky situation that peaks my interest. Does this classify as disruptive editing, or is {cn} working as intended to bother people into providing sources for their statements? <span style="color: #4169E1">'''Synorem'''</span> ([[User talk:Synorem|talk]]) 01:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:In this case talking to the IP editor appears to be working. In the general case, I believe indiscriminately adding cn's can easily be disruptive, even for completely unreferenced material. The tag is only helpful if applied sparingly to indicate an absolute requirement for an inline source to comply with referencing policy, ie "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations". [[User:Espresso Addict|Espresso Addict]] <small>([[User talk:Espresso Addict|talk]])</small> 01:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:Conversely, the most constructive way to object to a {{tl|cn}} tag is to add a source. That way everybody wins. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 08:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Counter-conversely, it's far better to add a source than a cn tag. Cn is for where the contested statement is doubtful or controversial and the disputing editor has made a good faith effort to source it, can't, but also can't justify removing the contested statement. Those should be rare circumstances. Adding cn tags indiscriminately is a low-effort way to contribute and it's a smash-and-grab raid on our volunteer time because it fills already-unmanageably-large queues with low-priority tasks.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 11:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Synorem|Synorem]], thanks so much for bringing this up and asking, rather than just dumping some warning templates on their talk page and leaving! It looks like you've found a motivated new editor who loves Wikipedia and wanted to do whatever they could to help. The best kind! Now we just need to do what we can to keep them. :) -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 15:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

== RFPP backlog ==

There's a major backlog over at [[WP:RFPP|RFPP]]. Could someone look into that? <span style="color:Purple">''' - '''</span>[[User:Sumanuil|<span style="color:Purple">'''''Sumanuil'''''</span>]]<span style="color:Purple">'''. '''</span><sub>[[User_talk:Sumanuil|<span style="color:Purple">(talk to me)</span>]]</sub> 06:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

== Article name change request ==

Recently the name of [[:Abdul Malek Ukil Medical College]] has been changed to '''''Noakhali Medical College'''''. So transfer it to the new name. 09:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC) <b>[[User:Nahian|<span style="text-shadow:#ccc 3px 3px 2px; color:#3b639a"> ~ Nahian</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Nahian|<span style="text-shadow:#ccc 3px 3px 2px; color:#d99906">Talk</span>]]</sup></b> 09:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:See [[WP:COMMONNAME]].  If you think that is the most commonly used name to refer to this college, please go to [[WP:RM|requested moves]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

== Request for a general look-in on [[Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe]] ==

Posting here to suggest an admin take a look at [[Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe]]. Looks to be spiralling into various policy infractions and misuse of the page as a forum. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 19:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:I collapsed an unconstructive thread. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 19:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] any particular things you want to highlight? There's a lot to read there [[User:EvergreenFir|'''<span style="color:#8b00ff;">Eve</span><span style="color:#6528c2;">rgr</span><span style="color:#3f5184;">een</span><span style="color:#197947;">Fir</span>''']] [[User talk:EvergreenFir|(talk)]] 19:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]] to me skimming through it I got a general sense it was devolving into Not A Forum discussions more about their views on the comedian and cancel culture rather than actually discussing the article proper. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 19:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:EvergreenFir|EvergreenFir]] if asked to be more specific I'd say the dispute over the neutrality of the lead seems to have in particular descended into people's views on the comedian and their brand of humour rather than the actual neutrality of the lead. [[User:Rambling Rambler|Rambling Rambler]] ([[User talk:Rambling Rambler|talk]]) 20:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::::This is what we've experienced on the talk pages of Trump and RFK Jr. for long beyond my recollection. It will likely continue for Hinchcliffe until his 15 minutes from the MSG rally are up. We can observe and interject when things get too far FORUM-y. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden]] has also come close to [[WP:TRAINWRECK|derailing]] with a number of editors who definitely have never participated in AfD, but this seems to be status quo for '''any''' American politics article or discussion lately (those of you moderating and closing these discussions right now; you're doing good work). <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 23:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::The AFD is now closed with keep. Frankly, even the talk pages aren't quite as bad as they were before and the activity level isn't that high on them although it does also seem there are some inexperienced editors and few experienced ones. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 10:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

== Reporting [[Special:Contributions/Dhwani221|Dhwani221]] ==

The user uploaded a bulk of copyright violations on Commons yesterday which I deleted there in two batches. Others, I filed a DR at  [[:c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Dhwani221]]. They have returned to en-wiki, and re-uploaded some of the copy-vios here such as [[:File:Sunayanafozdar.jpg]] despite their claims like "[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dhwani221&diff=prev&oldid=951396319 Can uunblock me? I was unaware of the copyright claim]" and "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aafi&diff=prev&oldid=1254689394 I can't chat with you over there (Commons). I can txt here only. As said earlier, was unaware of the copyright issue]." This message of their came a several minutes before their recent two copyvio uploads. It doesn't appear they are here to build. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>[[User:Aafi|<span style="font-family:sans-serif; color:#4682B4; text-shadow:.2em .2em .4em #AfAfB1;">'''Aafi'''</span>]]  [[User talk:Aafi|<sup> '' (talk)''</sup>]]  06:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|JJMC89}}: This might interest you. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>[[User:Aafi|<span style="font-family:sans-serif; color:#4682B4; text-shadow:.2em .2em .4em #AfAfB1;">'''Aafi'''</span>]]  [[User talk:Aafi|<sup> '' (talk)''</sup>]]  06:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have p-blocked the editor from the file space.  It's quite clear they do not understand copyright policy. -- [[User:Whpq|Whpq]] ([[User talk:Whpq|talk]]) 13:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you @[[User:Whpq|Whpq]]! <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>[[User:Aafi|<span style="font-family:sans-serif; color:#4682B4; text-shadow:.2em .2em .4em #AfAfB1;">'''Aafi'''</span>]]  [[User talk:Aafi|<sup> '' (talk)''</sup>]]  14:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Whpq|Whpq]]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arfa_Khanum_Sherwani&diff=prev&oldid=1254777994 Edits like this] suggest that the user is seriously obsessed with their behavior and not in a mood to rectify. <small><sub><span style="color:SteelBlue;">Regards, </span></sub></small>[[User:Aafi|<span style="font-family:sans-serif; color:#4682B4; text-shadow:.2em .2em .4em #AfAfB1;">'''Aafi'''</span>]]  [[User talk:Aafi|<sup> '' (talk)''</sup>]]  17:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

== User:NormalTADC ==

They are working towards making a long list of articles on non-notable topics to do with characters from mini-games in Roblox They have already moved their first rejected draft into the main space at [[Looky (Rainbow Friends)]] and have another rejected draft draft at [[Draft:Talking Shark]] where they are currently warring over the rejection notice. I think they may just need a 24 block until they have some time to read the policies and guidelines. I would have tagged the first article as A7 but unfortunately I don't think it actually fits into that criteria and felt an AFD is a waste of time on such a obvious throw away. [[User:Mcmatter|McMatter]] <sup>([[User talk:Mcmatter|talk]])</sup>/<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Mcmatter|contrib]])</sub> 02:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

:I just ran across this a few minutes ago. I would support the words of McMatter above, as both these articles are problematic to say the least. [[User:LizardJr8|LizardJr8]] ([[User talk:LizardJr8|talk]]) 02:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Mcmatter|Mcmatter]], I've given them a 24-hour timeout, but please note that you were also edit-warring. It is inappropriate to put a [[WP:PROD]] tag back on after it has been removed, even if it was the article creator who removed it. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::Yea I did over step a bit, I apologize I was more undoing it to also restore the maintenance templates they kept removing I should have just restored them but we would still be at the same place as we are now. [[User:Mcmatter|McMatter]] <sup>([[User talk:Mcmatter|talk]])</sup>/<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Mcmatter|contrib]])</sub> 02:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:::No worries, and sorry, my message came out a little colder than I intended it to. Next time this happens to you (and it will, that's AfC for you), you can go to [[WP:ANEW]] with it. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 02:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:FYI once a PROD tag is removed – for any (or no) reason – it has to go through AfD. Repeatedly readding it isn't helping. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:CFA|<span style="background-color:#e0f7fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black"><span style=color:#00c>C</span> <span style=color:red>F</span> <span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span></span>]] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">[[User talk:CFA|💬]]</span></span> 02:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:They just submitted [[Draft:Jax_(The_Amazing_Digital_Circus)]] which is an unsourced character article. <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">Qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 12:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::I [[Special:Contributions/NormalTADC|have no idea what they're doing now.]].. 
::@[[User:NormalTADC|NormalTADC]] please explain? <span style="background-color: RoyalBlue; border-radius: 1em; padding: 3px 3px 3px 3px;">'''[[User:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">Qcne</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Qcne|<span style="color: GhostWhite">(talk)</span>]]</small></span> 12:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::They have been blocked. Suggest extension if the poor behavior continues when unblocked. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 18:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

== RfC regarding recall ==

I have started an RfC about how long a recall petition should take [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Shorten the recall petition period?|here]]. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 19:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[WP:RMTR]] backlog ==

At [[WP:RMTR]] there are unresolved requests from two days ago. The oldest uncontested request is for [[RSM-56 Bulava]], for which a new user attempted a unilateral [[WP:cut-and-paste move|cut-and-paste move]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 06:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

== AI generated "Proposal For Greater Vellore City Municipal Corporation" ==

Noticed this on the page [[Melvisharam]], pasted in from a 50 edit user [[User:Venki12sta|Venki12sta]].Today, an IP attempted to copy paste this on to multiple other pages such as here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Walajapet&diff=prev&oldid=1254929600]. Is there any shred of truth to this? A quick search provides nothing about such a project .
<br>
Posting it here because I'm not exactly sure where this belongs. [[User:Fantastic Mr. Fox|Fantastic Mr. Fox]] ([[User talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox|talk]]) 11:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:I would say [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AI Cleanup]] is a good place if you encounter future situations like this one. Whether there is a shred of truth behind this addition, the [[WP:ONUS]] is on the person copy-pasting the text to provide (non-hallucinated) sources, and, in the meantime, it can be safely removed (and a {{t|uw-ai2}} given to the user). [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 18:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

== Disruption, edit warring, OR ==

I'd like for an admin to have a look at the work of an IP editor, {{ip|77.44.48.159}}, who is edit warring and righting wrongs, it seems to me, in [[Masoretic Text]] and other articles. I'm particularly bothered by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports&diff=prev&oldid=1254095127 this], "I firmly suspect that the administration of Wikipedia has been infiltrated by bad actors at a very high level, who are able to surreptitiously block IP addresses from editing articles and talk pages, editing articles under the guise of supposed "bots", and manipulating the timestamping of such edits." I reverted the editor once or twice, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confession_of_Peter&diff=prev&oldid=1254546650 here] but particularly [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masoretic_Text&diff=prev&oldid=1254545235 here], and so perhaps someone from outside my cabal of "bad actors at a very high level" ([[User:Ohnoitsjamie]], I don't know if you're in that cabal--haven't updated the membership list) can assess their understanding of Wikipedia. Thanks. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 14:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I also reverted at Masoretic Text. This IP insists on describing this primary source of Judaism as "unreliable" in wikivoice in the first sentence, and shows no sign of giving up this quest. This shows ignorance or disdain for the need to attribute opinions, ignorance of the purpose of the lead, and profound ignorance of the subject. If this was the only problem, semi-protection would solve it, but as Drmies says a poke around its other contributions might indicate a different solution. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 15:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:Any editor who insists that Wikipedia denounce any specific ancient biblical text such as the [[Masoretic text]] as "unreliable" (or endorse it as  reliable) in Wikipedia's voice has a deeply ingrained point of view incompatible with editing a neutrally written encyclopedia. Wikipedia must be rigorously neutral in all such disputes among serious scholars of comparative religion, while rejecting the multitude of fringe and crank sources that are based on original research which is simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Our articles reflect and summarize the range of mainstream reliable sources and we do not apologize for that. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 06:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{Re|Cullen328}} [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] blocked for 24 hours and semi-protected for a week but whether this will stop someone who has now added the same unacceptable material 6 times over 10 days remains to be seen. Can you please at least remove that material from the article? It is embarrassing as it is now but I'm reluctant to revert again. After the semi-prot expires, I'll monitor the article to see if the IP gives up. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 00:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Restored the version without the description in question. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 00:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== Unblock Request ==

Sorry guys i did a horrible mistake in Wikipedia for misuse my power as an editor and I truly regret what happened , I know my mistake and i sincerely feel sorry for my wrongdoing , hope you all may give me a second chance in Wikipedia. Thanks a lot. [[User:Mat Rempit|Mat Rempit]] ([[User talk:Mat Rempit|talk]]) 07:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

:You should follow the advice that Yamla gave you in the unblock request on your talk page as that is the approach that may give you another chance at editing. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 07:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
::You have the luck of only being blocked from the article space. This allows you to actually prove yourself to know what's an appropriate edit by making edit requests on articles' talk pages, and allowing the community to see what percentage are actually approved and how bad the rejected edits actually are. This should make it easier than users who get fully blocked from the site. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666|&#124;666&#124;]] 04:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== Request for attention regarding Disruptive Editor ==

This entry is to request for administrative attention regarding {{User:WaterMirror17}}.

They have been observed making edits to several pages such as: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Malvar-class_frigate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_Navy_HDP-2200_Future_Offshore_Patrol_Vessel

...which I believe qualify under the disruptive editing criteria. 

Specifically they keep adding 'original research' and commentary that is unverifiable and uncited. 

Furthermore, they constantly add these in the form of extensive notes in info boxes which break the rule of conciseness and put pages out of line with common formatting practice as seen in other similar pages.

I have tried to talk them out of this on both their user page and the talk pages on the articles, citing the way in which their edits have been in violation of Wikipedia rules and practices, but they just seem to either not understand or are intentionally not acknowledging the issues with their edits. It is like talking to a brick wall. 

They had already previously been warned by other users against edit warring in other pages, but they persist in trying to get their way with regard to putting their edits on pages. It is getting tiring trying to clean up after them.
[[User:Girder2139|Girder2139]] ([[User talk:Girder2139|talk]]) 07:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== Administrators' newsletter – November 2024 ==

[[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter|News and updates for administrators]] from the past month (October 2024).

[[File:ANEWSicon.png|right|150px]]

[[File:Wikipedia Administrator.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Administrator changes'''
:[[File:Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg|20px|alt=readded|Readded]] {{hlist|class=inline
|[[Special:Permalink/1248966496#Resysop request (Crisco 1492)|Crisco 1492]]
}}
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] {{hlist|class=inline
|[[Special:Permalink/1248791416#Inactive admins for October 2024|Babajobu]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1254200257#Desysop request (Daniel)|Daniel]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1248791416#Inactive admins for October 2024|Elf]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1248791416#Inactive admins for October 2024|Jayron32]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1249813284#De-adminship request for Thue|Thue]]
|[[Special:Permalink/1248753311#Desysop request (Wugapodes)|Wugapodes]]
}}

[[File:Checkuser Logo.svg|20px|alt=]] '''CheckUser changes'''
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[meta:Special:Permalink/27564949#Maxim@en.wikipedia|Maxim]]

[[File:Oversight logo.png|20px|alt=]] '''Oversighter changes'''
:[[File:Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg|20px|alt=removed|Removed]] [[meta:Special:Permalink/27564949#Maxim@en.wikipedia|Maxim]]

[[File:Green check.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Guideline and policy news'''
* Following a [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period#Structured discussion|discussion]], the [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period|discussion-only period]] proposal that went for a trial to refine the [[WP:RFA|requests for adminship]] (RfA) process has been discontinued.
* Following a [[Special:Permalink/1254983370#Administrator Recall|request for comment]], [[WP:RECALL|Administrator recall]] is adopted as a policy.

[[File:Octicons-tools.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Technical news'''
* Mass deletions done with the [[ Special:Nuke|Nuke]] tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. {{phab|T366068}}

[[File:Scale of justice 2.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Arbitration'''
* {{noping|RoySmith}}, {{noping|Barkeep49}} and {{noping|Cyberpower678}} have been appointed to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Electoral Commission|Electoral Commission]] for the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024|2024 Arbitration Committee Elections]]. {{noping|ThadeusOfNazereth}} and {{noping|Dr vulpes}} are reserve commissioners.
* Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024|2024 Arbitration Committee elections]].
* The Arbitration Committee is [[Special:Permalink/1249961616#Call for applications: clerks, COI queue, checkuser, and oversight|seeking volunteers]] for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.
[[File:Info Simple bw.svg|20px|alt=]] '''Miscellaneous'''
* An [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2024|unreferenced articles backlog drive]] is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{tl|Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles/Backlog drives/November 2024/Participants|'''Sign up to participate!''']]

----
{{center|{{flatlist|
* [[Wikipedia talk:Administrators' newsletter|Discuss this newsletter]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Subscribe|Subscribe]]
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive|Archive]]
}}}}
<!--
-->{{center|1=<small>Sent by [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 10:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)</small>}}
<!-- Message sent by User:DreamRimmer@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1254686817 -->

== Provision of Rev-Deleted content ==

I cant find a policy that addresses it so figured would come here to gather consensus.

There's a set of edits that Ive been contacted through email from the Wikipedia email function requesting that a copy of an edit to a user talk page that was deleted be provided to the user.
I cant find anything in the policies regarding revision deletion about provision of deleted content. If the content had been deleted under a page deletion then there's probably flexibility in the policy for deletion to provide a copy of it but this is a single edit rather than a page so its not clear enough for me to be making that decision on my own. 

Thoughts, suggestions, precedent that I've overlooked. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{Nacc}} The closest thing my naive search finds is {{Slink|Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion|Process for requesting revision undeletion}} (April 2024), which seems to indicate that the RD criterion is an important factor, but admin discretion heavily applies. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 16:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:I think you can apply the same good judgement as you'd apply to regular 'email-a-copy' undeletion, but context is everything. Rather than consider the criterion I'd be looking at the content. So here I'm going to speculate.. Being user talk it's probably RD2/3 (offensive or abusive). If it's too harmful or too offensive then I might be tempted to provide a summary or excerpts instead, as an initial response, depending on both the user and the content. Sometimes however, we remove content not to protect the target users, but to clean up the general editing atmosphere for others, where an email copy of the content will not cause any problems. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 18:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== Lifting my limited topic ban and my mentorship ==
{{atop green|result=Clear consensus to '''lift the topic ban'''. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 22:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)}}
I, {{IP|Davidbena}}, after successfully appealing my [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|AE]] Topic ban on 16 May 2023, was appointed a mentor to counsel and assist me in my edits in the ARBPIA area (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive318#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Davidbena here]). After editing under this capacity for more than a year, I wish now to appeal my long-standing limited topic ban that was made some years earlier (which you can see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=973734960#Appeal_to_rescind_Topic_Ban here]). Having the liimited ban lifted will enable me to return to editing in the ARBPIA area without limitations. 

For a record of my past offenses, here is a list of former discussions which ended in either a block or a topic-ban:
#[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive988#User:Huldra_and_her_deletion_of_reliable_sources,_without_referring_the_matter_to_the_RS_Noticeboard 2 August 2018] "frivolous ANI report"
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Davidbena 13 August 2018] (topic ban) 
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive306#Request_to_lift_my_topic_ban_issued_against_me_in_August_2018 23 February 2019]: topic ban lifted 
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive308#Hounding_and_Deliberate_Disruptive_Editing 6 May 2019] (new topic ban). 
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive315#Request_to_lift_topic_ban  21 November 2019]: appeal to rescind the ban was unsuccessful
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive315#Request_to_lift_topic_ban 18 August 2020] (placed under narrow topic ban)
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1042080205#Davidbena 2 September 2021] (one-month block for canvassing)
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive300#Davidbena 29 January 2022] (broad topic ban), which ban was lifted on 16 May 2023 (as shown [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive318#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Davidbena here]) when I was assigned a mentor in the ARBPIA area, but leaving in place my narrow topic ban.

I am fully aware that my history of punitive measures taken against me by the community was started by my own short-sightedness in being quick to jump to judgment against my fellow co-editors in the ARBPIA area, whom I accused at first of "stalking". These accusations, as they later came to show, were proven inaccurate. I have since worked with the same editors on improving a number of articles in the ARBPIA area. Moreover, I am now fully aware that ''all edits'' made by the general consensus of ''all editors'', especially of those holding different political views and who belong to different political spectrums, contribute to the overall uncensored preservation of history and of general knowledge. This is my honest view. I have worked in the past year with Wikipedia editor [[User:Nableezy|Nableezy]] who has opened my eyes to this realization, even though we hold different political views. I assure my fellow Wikipedia editors and those here arbitrating this case that I will continue to consult the views of others before posting a controversial edit in the ARBPIA area.

For the record, my statement to the Wikipedia editor, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nableezy&diff=prev&oldid=1254413143 diff]), who has borne with me patiently throughout all my shortcomings and my personal attacks has been this: "I have since learned that every person who contributes anything in this world, especially on Wikipedia, is on a special mission sent by God. It doesn't matter who we are, or what religion or ethnicity we belong to. In Israeli/Palestinian issues, it is all one continuous history, interlocked. That is my honest view. I appreciate your work in the Palestinian issues, just as I appreciate my own work in Israeli history, both old and new. Everything has its place. I have learnt on Wikipedia to appreciate other views and to be more open to them, even when I disagree. I will not force my own view upon others. That much I can assure you" (End Quote). The same assurances I give to those who arbitrate my case. Be well.[[User:Davidbena|Davidbena]] ([[User talk:Davidbena|talk]]) 01:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' per David and [[Special:PermanentLink/1254448718#My draft for a AN appeal|this discussion]] on Nableezy's talk. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 02:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' [[User:Abminor|A<sup>♭</sup>m]] <sup>([[User talk:Abminor|Ring!]])</sup> <sub>([[Special:Contributions/Abminor|Notes]])</sub> 08:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''': Nableezy’s cool with it, as per the linked from Voorts. {{tq| was started by my own short-sightedness in being quick to jump to judgment against my fellow co-editors in the ARBPIA area}} gives me a ''“is he a hothead?”'' pause for thought. (Not saying I think he is. I haven’t run into Bena outside of this ANI Report), but that’s all it gave. Pause. No actual concern that can be pieced together. If Aspersions are the worst worry, but not even a worry, then that’s easy for the Arbs to reinstate if my pause turns out justified. [[WP:ROPE]] should be given. [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 09:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' - per my talk page. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  10:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' if Nableezy is good with this, then I don't see why not. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 11:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' -- as one of the admins who applied a topic ban, no concerns at all in it being lifted. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 12:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' per RickinBaltimore. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|cont]])''' 14:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' OK following mentorship. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' appears to be an example of how a productive return to editing should go. Nableezy's support as an involved (real world, not wiki sense) party makes it a firmer yes for me. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 17:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' This the right thing to do for the right reasons at the right point in time. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 05:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== My involvement with ARBPIA ==

{{u|Nableezy}} recently [[Special:Permalink/1253744901#ARBPIA|requested]] that I not close any more discussions relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, citing my engagement with the content. The only example he provided was my starting [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Israel claims Gaza reporters are terrorists; reporters and their employer say no|this discussion]], although I'm sure we can both think of a handful of others. (I know I've participated in one other discussion involving Al-Jazeera's reliability, made [[Special:Diff/1246756013|this edit]] to [[2024 Lebanon pager explosions]], and made a handful of prose edits to [[Israel-Hamas war]]; I've probably made a few other edits in the area, but I don't remember any.) I don't think this constitutes a reasonable basis to assert involvement with the whole topic area and said as much; Nableezy responded simply that he would raise the issue here (or somewhere similar) when I next close a discussion in the area. I'd rather not have that threat hanging over my head, so I'll ask for wider community input now. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 17:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

:Have to say I am not impressed about that thread at RSN. Nor was I terribly enthused about your deciding to open yourself, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:7_October_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel#Requested_move_11_October_2024 this follow up RM].
:There are plenty of discussions elsewhere, perhaps best to pass on the AI related ones. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:I'm not generally a big fan of broadly construing involvement across entire topic areas, at least for RfC closers. [[WP:INVOLVED]] itself speaks of disputes and not of topic areas. I'm also generally of the opinion that closures should be evaluated on their merits and not factors concerning the closer's person. As long as you don't close discussions on <em>questions</em> on which you have commented before, I don't think there is a problem. Otherwise, we'd be disqualifying closers for some unreasonably vague feeling they may be biased more than anything else. Speaking from experience, I've closed a few PIA RfCs with no complaints so far, even though looking at my user page it should not be difficult to infer what general opinions I hold on that topic. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- [[User:Maddy from Celeste|Maddy from Celeste]] ([[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|WAVEDASH]])</b> 17:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:It’s not a threat, but until it’s an issue I don’t plan on engaging in this here. But if there are future closes by an involved editor I’ll try to demonstrate that their closes have historically shown a propensity for taking a certain consistent position in favor of one bias that aligns with the arguments they’ve made in content related discussions. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  18:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::{{tq|taking a certain consistent position in favor of one bias that aligns with the arguments they’ve made in content related discussions}} – Is there any way to determine whether this applies that isn't just casting aspersions? [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 18:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::By going through the closes and the content related edits? That is a general statement about any involved editor, so I don’t know how that could possibly be "casting aspersions". '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::This sounds like you're withholding evidence against Compassionate727 until such time that it suits you, while simultaneously attempting to pressure them into behaving how you'd like them to. Please just lay it out now like they've asked; how is Compassionate727 [[WP:INVOLVED]]? &#8213;<span style="background:#368ec9;border:solid 2px;border-radius:5px">&nbsp;'''''[[User_talk:GhostOfDanGurney|<span style="color:white">"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)</span>]]'''''&nbsp;</span> 19:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Nableezy has indicated that they do not presently think there is an issue, and that they therefore prefer not to engage with this question.  So why are you actively trying to stir up conflict?  If you have input on Compassionate's query, by all means give it, but don't stir shit for the sake of shit-stirring. --[[User:JayBeeEll|JBL]] ([[User_talk:JayBeeEll|talk]]) 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I saw what I felt like to be the latest example of Compassionate727 showing that they have both contributed to content, and have a position in that content, and to closing discussions in the topic. I have previously asked editors that I have varying feelings about, including ones I think highly of, to not close discussions in the topic area when I feel they have crossed the threshold into "editor". So I politely asked that they no longer close discussions. They declined. As there presently isn’t an issue, and I didn’t intend to spend my Sunday afternoon digging up the diffs from past closes and positions that I think disqualifies them from playing the closer role, that’s the end of it as far as I’m concerned. If and when there is an issue then I’ll spend that time. But right now I’m going back to the game I’d rather focus on. [[Bear Down, Chicago Bears|Bear Down]]. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  21:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:Editors closing discussions they haven't been involved in should be fine, it's difficult enough finding editors who will close RFCs. If an editor has made, or makes, bad closes that ''show'' their bias then it should be brought up here. But I'm against discouraging editors from making closes simply because they may have a bias, as there is no editor without bias. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 20:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:agree with maddy and activelydisinterested that until more evidence shows up, we should not consider every editor automatically involved because they had some prior engagement with the topic.
:also think we have ways to deal with bad closures anyways. [[User:Bluethricecreamman|Bluethricecreamman]] ([[User talk:Bluethricecreamman|talk]]) 22:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:: "Editors closing discussions they haven't been involved in should be fine" is much too weak and allows for easy abuse. At a minimum, it should be "Editors closing discussions unrelated to topics they have been involved in should be fine". [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 02:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::This presupposes that the close will be bad or biased, and that an editor with bias can never make a neutral close. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 10:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::: Correct, it presupposes that some things might happen that for sure will actually happen. Under your proposal, someone with a strong POV about an RfC could just refrain from participating and instead close it to their preference. This would subvert the whole idea of an RfC. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::It supposes that editors with a bias (all of them) would only ever make closes in favour of their biases. Past events do not back this up. There have absolutely been ''instances'' were editors sat out RFC and then closed them as per their preference, they were overturned using the pre-existing procedures for doing so. Acting in that way isn't just a bias or POV but deliberate and malicious. So you point is correct if you expect editors with a bias or POV to behave maliciously. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Most bad closes are not overturned. In [[WP:CT|contentious topics]] there are always lots of socks, off-wiki coordination, and other stuff going on. We can't stop it, but we can try to mitigate the damage by adopting policies that reduce it. One example is to have a strict policy on involvement, for both administrators and ordinary editors. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 12:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If closes are not overturned how are you judging that they are bad closes? [[WP:SPI]] is one way and [[WP:ARB]] is another. Assuming good faith, even from those we disagree with, is generally the best way. The idea that INVOLVED is as broad as you interpret it isn't universally accepted. If you have a proposal for definitely making it that broad you should make it. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: Most socks are not detected and hardly any off-wiki coordination is suppressed. It's nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. If everybody behaved properly all the time, we wouldn't need rules. But they don't. You are also incorrect that editors with bias would only apply that bias to a close if they were being deliberately malicious. Bias doesn't work that way. People with bias believe they are being even-handed when they aren't. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 13:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::And the rules are what they are, if you have a proposal to change them you should make it. Separately as I said all editors have bias, the believe that bias alone would always make a close bad would therefore mean that no editor could make a close. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 17:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::::FWIW, my view is that AGF is not generally the best way, it is generally the worst way, maybe one of Wikipedia's most counterproductive policies when applied to the PIA topic area. And the notion that "universally accepted" things will be optimal solutions for PIA is going to be wrong in most cases. I think starting [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Israel claims Gaza reporters are terrorists; reporters and their employer say no|this discussion]] should constitute a reasonable basis to assert involvement with the whole topic area. I think this is probably the kind of simple strictness that a test for 'involvement' in the topic area should have. In my view, efforts should be made to minimize or eliminate faith-based assumptions about anything or anyone in the topic area. Good or bad faith-based assumptions about any account that does anything in the topic are equally bad, especially when it comes to things that people are very bad at doing in an environment like PIA like modeling intent or trying to predict future behavior. Regardless, any system used in PIA, even a very strict involvement test, will be gamed by someone at some point. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::You can decide to not follow [[WP:AGF]] it is only a guideline, I think that is a mistake that only adds to mistrust of Wikipedia. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 17:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Can't disagree more with this anti-wiki sentiment. AGF is a key pillar. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 20:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Come on man, it's not an anti-wiki sentiment. It is a pro-wiki sentiment. It is an anti-overconfidence, pro-rationality sentiment. I already use an assume nothing approach because the error rate is lower than an assume something approach when interacting with actors in the topic area. It works fine, it reduces the chance of conflict with both familiar and unfamiliar accounts. It means I don't have to think about intent, pro-this or anti-that categorization or pay any attention to the biased voice in my brain feeding me disinformation and pattern matching nonsense. It keeps my eye on the ball, what people actually say and do, not what the stack of unreliable heuristics in my dopey primate brain make up to model a person. The fact is that there is already mistrust. Denying that is just silly and will result in errors. AGF is largely inauthentic theater in PIA, one more thing that is exploited and weaponized by partisan actors. I think AGF can work well and be useful when editors already have a lot of information about each other and become overconfident about their theory of mind abilities, after they have had many, many interactions, as a reminder that while you may think you know this person, and you think they are up to no good, you should think about the counterfactuals and consider that there is a decent chance that you are wrong because you are not as smart as you think. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 03:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)    
::::::::::::That's not what AGF is. AGF is the idea that when you meet an unknown editor you should try to charitably interpret their actions to put them in the best light. It doesn't mean discard rationality or ignore evidence. It means that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, you should not jump to negative conclusions. I really shouldn't have to explain AGF to an editor with over 30k edits since 2007. {{Tq|AGF is largely inauthentic theater in PIA}} If true, explains a lot of the problem. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 04:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This might be an example of overconfidence and the errors we make when modeling other people. Of course, I know what AGF says, including that its scope is not limited to unknown actors. And obviously as an editor with over 30k edits since 2007, I've had the opportunity to observe thousands of instances of the actual features and effects of rule as it is deployed in the field by editors and admins in a very diverse set of contexts. There is misalignment, as usual. I prefer an empirical approach when it comes to understanding what Wikipedia's rules mean to people and how they work in practice. The inauthentic theater feature is just one of several inauthenticity related features of the PIA system. Inauthentic civility is another (something I support by the way, not because I care about civility, but because it increases the signal to noise ratio of discussions). [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 04:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC) 
::::::::::::::Signal to noise ratio of discussions is a good heuristic. But AGF is more than inauthentic theater. And yes, it's not limited to unknown actors, but there are limits of good faith. Ironically, the example you gave of modelling a person you know well is when I think it's hardest to AGF. If you already understand where someone is coming from it will heavily color your expectations because you do have a model of that person. You do also need to AGF someone you know, but there will necessarily be a conflict in situations of dispute with someone you already know or, especially, when you have people who have made mistakes known to you or disagreements that are on a low burn. Regardless, though, the purpose of AGF as a ceremonial aspect of communication is related to the concept of [[steelmanning]] and there is a rational reason for this. Now, we don't have thoughtcrimes. You can privately suspect that every new motivated account that seems somewhat good at doing stuff is a sock even though you might rationally know that Wikipedia is a website used by thousands of people and is frequently visited by entirely new users. Just don't say it in public when you're forming that suspicion because it's a violation of good faith and once that cracks and we allow bad faith in, it poisons the discourse. You can still collect evidence and find a sock and maybe be right a lot of the time, or maybe the system isn't giving you good feedback about whether you are right or wrong. Still, AGF means you should default to assuming good faith at least in public because to do otherwise is insulting due to its insinuation of low expectation and making a negative conclusion about someone based on where they seem to be coming from before they've even done anything wrong. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 04:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*If small edits make an editor involved, we should follow that. If they don't, they don't. This standard has been unevenly applied. I previously accused someone of being involved based on small edits, and there was not a consensus that they were involved. I'm not sure what the precedent should be, but we should apply it consistently and not haphazardly. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 20:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

:No, I don't think these sorts of edits have made you broadly [[WP:INVOLVED]] in the area. Your closures seem fine. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 01:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

==An administrator recall petition has been initiated for [[User:Fastily|Fastily]]==
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a petition at [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Fastily]] for Fastily to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from [[WP:EC|extended confirmed]] users, an RRfA is required for {{pronoun|Fastily|obj}} to maintain {{pronoun|Fastily|pos}} toolkit. For further information, please consult the [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall|administrator recall policy]].
<!--Template: Admin recall notice/AN-->
[[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|GreenLipstickLesbian]] ([[User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|talk]]) 12:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

== Odd behaviour at AfD ==

Not sure what exactly is going on at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYXX-TV (3rd nomination)]] but I think it could use an admins attention. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 17:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:The close on the AFD has been undone by @[[User:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]]. [[DYXX-TV]] has been deleted several times and, to me, this latest AFD looks like an attempt by two newish accounts to ensure the latest incarnation is not deleted. The opening statement is a rationale to keep, not to delete.  I've haven't had time to look at previous versions to see if this is a [[WP:G4|G4]] case or not, but I think that is what they are trying to sidestep by starting (and closing) an AFD. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|talk]]) 18:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:Any time Smileyface143 and Smileyface143 II take part in the same discussion, and Smikelyface 143 says {{tq|Like DZBB-TV, this article has been restoring as per Smileyface143 II's summary.}} it probably needs a quick gander by a CU. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:See also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DYSS-TV (3rd nomination)]]. They either have no clue how WP works, or they are trying to prevent their new articles from going to AfD. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 18:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::Well, I was in the process of adding [[User:One at Heart 2002]] to the list, but I see they all have been blocked. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 18:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{ec}} It's nice to have a refreshingly simple CU case for a change. I've indeffed three accounts and closed the AfD; I considered deleting it but I didn't know if that would mess the bots up in the future. There's still some CU due diligence to be done, which I'll complete when I have a moment. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 18:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

== Request to create draft article ==

Hi, still quite new to creating articles and hope this isn't the wrong page but was told to come here. I'm trying to create a draft page for a [[Boards of Canada]] 12" single that was released in 2013, titled "------ / ------ / ------ / XXXXXX / ------ / ------". It was blocked because the title blacklist "Disallows six consecutive characters that are not letters (in any script), numbers, or spaces". While the title of the 12" ''is'' long, that's it's name. Would an administrator be able to create a draft of this article for me to start editing? Thanks. [[User:beachweak|<span style="color: #E50160; font-family: Courier; font-weight: bold;">Beachweak</span>]] [[User_talk:beachweak|<span style="color: #E50160; font-family: Courier;">(talk)</span>]] 20:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:[[[[Draft:------ / ------ / ------ / XXXXXX / ------ / ------]]]] created. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 20:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::I spent a couple hours writing the draft, would it be possible for you or another admin to move it to mainspace as well? I'm unable to do so because of the title once again. [[User:beachweak|<span style="color: #E50160; font-family: Courier; font-weight: bold;">Beachweak</span>]] [[User_talk:beachweak|<span style="color: #E50160; font-family: Courier;">(talk)</span>]] 22:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{done}}, moved to mainspace. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:CFA|<span style="background-color:#e0f7fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black"><span style=color:#00c>C</span> <span style=color:red>F</span> <span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span></span>]] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">[[User talk:CFA|💬]]</span></span> 23:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

==Request for Attention to [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Pokémon test]]==
There is a deletion discussion in progress at [[WP:MFD|MFD]] that is becoming unpleasant, and I am asking for an admin to come and issue a caution, warning, or admonition.  The essay [[Wikipedia:Pokémon test]], which is already marked as historical, has been nominated for deletion.  On the one hand, the nominator, [[User: Zxcvbnm]], is [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] the discussion.  That isn't uncommon (although it should be).  On the other hand, the nominator is being subjected to personal attacks, including allegations of bad faith.  Can someone please remind the editors that [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] is [[WP:5P4|the fourth pillar of Wikipedia]]?  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:Saying there is bludgeoning occurring from my end is simply not true at all in the slightest. I was accused of bludgeoning without merit by an opposing !voter, but was backed up by multiple other editors that I never did such a thing. I only responded to about half of the participants in the discussion, most of the responses were a couple of sentences, a couple of which was to ''agree'' with them and support a potential alternate solution like userfication or moving to a historical archive.
:I cannot fathom why an ANI thread is needed in this case, when the admins who are literally participating in the discussion did not see cause for alarm.  [[User:Zxcvbnm|ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ]] ([[User talk:Zxcvbnm|ᴛ]]) 18:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::Admins who are particpating in a discussion cannot at the same time act as admins, they are just people commenting. I, however, have nothing to do with this and as an uninvlved admin have dropped an admin note reminding everyone that the discussion is supposed to be about the essay and not about the participants. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 19:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I've now closed it early as it was obvious it was not going to be deleted. Discussion of other options as put forth in the MFD can continue on the essay's talk page. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 23:50, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

== Administrator recall policy adopted ==

After [[Special:PermanentLink/1253547916#Administrator Recall|a request for comments]], [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall]] is now a policy. The procedure is as adopted by the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Administrator_recall|2024 RfA review]]. Some questions remain, which may be discussed at the policy's talk page. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- [[User:Maddy from Celeste|Maddy from Celeste]] ([[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|WAVEDASH]])</b> 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

:Thank you for your well-reasoned and diplomatic close of this discussion. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::This is a surprise to me. How many attempts to do this over the years have failed? This will take some mental readjustment. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I had no idea this was going on either, as I don't remember seeing any notices.  On paper, it looks interesting, but I haven't examined it close enough to have an opinion yet.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq| I had no idea this was going on either,}} Ditto. Where was this promoted? [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 10:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::It was borne out of one of many proposals at [[WP:RFA2024]]. I don't think there was any mention of "recall" on [[Template:Centralized discussion]] until after the conclusion of RFA2024 Phase I, by which point it had ''already been decided'' that the community wanted a recall process. The Phase II discussion (to hash out specifics) treated the Phase I consensus as immutable – wrongly, in my view, given my point about T:CD. The drive to create WP:AR should have been spun out of RFA2024 at the first stage and linked separately to get broader input, given the far-reaching potential of this process. Had that happened, the Phase I and II consensuses might have been very different. That RFA2024 has succeeded in producing a desysopping-style policy where other attempts failed is due to the fact that the Phase I recall proposal was a [[Rider (legislation)|rider]] and inadequately publicised. [[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<b style="color: #FF0F00;">Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b>]] ([[User talk:SuperMarioMan|Talk]]) 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I echo the sentiments above - this should have been ''much'' more widely advertised. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 11:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::The whole RfA 2024 review process, including this aspect of it, was notified to virtually all noticeboards, T:CENT, watchpage notices, discussed in ''The Signpost'', etc. If you missed that there was a discussion about reforming the RfA process and adopting recall, it's not because there was a lack of notice. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 13:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::The above would suggest otherwise. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 13:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::Copying @[[User:isaacl|isaacl]]'s list [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#c-Isaacl-20241003164700-Snow_Rise-20241003103300|from the RfC]] that was just closed:{{pb}}{{tq2|1=Regarding notifications about the second phase of discussion: a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3AWatchlist-messages&diff=1222352734&oldid=1222014404 watchlist message] was posted, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Centralized_discussion&diff=prev&oldid=1223234528 centralized discussion notice box was updated], and a [[Special:GoToComment/c-Tryptofish-20240509210200-Discussion of potential interest|link was posted to the Administrators' noticeboard]] (there was also a link present in the [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361#Phase I of RFA2024 has concluded|announcement of the closure of phase 1]]). A [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=massmessage&user=&page=&wpdate=2024-05-05&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist mass message] was sent to what I believe is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1218650058 list of participants in phase 1].}}{{pb}}Unless by lack of notice you mean that a courier didn't personally deliver a letter to you informing you of these discussions, I'm not sure how much more notice was needed. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 13:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{outdent|1}} Also, this very RfC that was just closed was at the very least [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Archive#October 2024|advertised at T:CENT]]. So it's frankly flat-out untrue that none of these discussions were advertised. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 13:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't see anyone claiming that "none of these discussions were advertised". What I see, based on the links, is that there was no centralized notification ''specifically about'' the new AR process until Phase I of WP:RFA2024 was over and it had already been decided there would be such a process. It seems no one realised its implications during Phase I and acted to make them clear to the wider community. AR is ''big'' – right next door to a [[WP:RFDA]] process, and arguably the biggest change to administrator policy since [[WP:INACTIVITY]] was introduced. The proposal for a whole new policy shouldn't have been packaged in a round of RFA reform ideas, because that will have limited the Phase I discussion to regular RFA reformers and WT:RFA commentators. So in terms of procedure and notifications, there were mistakes. [[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<b style="color: #FF0F00;">Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b>]] ([[User talk:SuperMarioMan|Talk]]) 16:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, that's tricky. The RFA 2024 review process was sprawling, with many discussions over many months. People have a limited amount of time to follow all of that. I was aware that such discussions were taking place. I was not aware that there was a specific policy proposal to adopt recall, though in general I'm not opposed to the idea. Whether the policy actually enjoys [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] will be determined the first time it's used. [[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] [[User_talk:Mackensen|(talk)]] 15:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::It does have consensus, with the phase 2 RFC and then this recent RFC confirmed it. Both pretty well advertised and attended. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 15:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I came across this very messy RfC by accident when it was almost over. Only 25 EC names on a petition are needed to force an admin to jump through hoops and they don't have to give reasons. There is no provision for anyone to object to the petition (even if the admin did none of things they are charged with). In particular, the admin cannot formally respond to the petition. So: write some polemic about an admin you don't like and advertise it in a few places. Some of the 25 names will come from people who have been sanctioned by the admin and didn't like it, and the rest from people who never heard of the admin before but are disturbed by the allegations. Then the admin has to go through an onerous re-admission process. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zero0000|Zero0000]] ([[User talk:Zero0000#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zero0000|contribs]]) 13:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::::There is nothing prohibiting an admin from responding. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 13:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've been aware of this proposal from the beginning, but chose not to participate in the second phase. While I am a bit uneasy about some of the details, I think we need to see how it goes. If the process is used abusively, or turns out to be disruptive for the community, we can take steps to fix it. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 14:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Donald. We might learn from early uses of the procedure that changes are required, and that's fine. Being a policy does not mean it's set in stone. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 15:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::This is more or less my thinking as well, if it does turn out to be a vector for abuse I am confident that the community will address that. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 18:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I'm for the process, even as I expect it to fail ''in it's current form''. It is open for abuse and I expect that we see petitions for all the usual suspects so disliked by sockpuppets, LTAs, and POV pushers. But what they will show is how to reform the process.
:::::::Some form of admin recall has been asked for for years, and each attempt to try and implement something has failed to even make it this far. There comes a point where you just implement something, anything, and see how to make it work as you go. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 19:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
::::: The very limited number of responses to the RfC does appear to suggest it was poorly advertised.  Unless I'm missing something, one place it doesn't appear to have been properly advertised is, ironically, here (it does appear as a single line in the Admin Newsletter, but that's easy to miss) which one would have expected to be the ''first'' place for notification. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 15:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Zero0000, I agree. Also, if the first attempt at a petition fails, not to worry – the filer just needs to wait six months, then try again. And all it takes to start a petition, leaving Admin X or Y in limbo for the next 30-40 days, is one person deciding that Admin X or Y "has lost the trust of the community". [[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<b style="color: #FF0F00;">Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b>]] ([[User talk:SuperMarioMan|Talk]]) 17:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

:Will be interesting to see how it pans out. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*I continue to be surprised 1) that this RFDA-in-all-but-name process originated from attempts to reform '''''RFA''''', the exact opposite; and 2) why a lot people seem to regard this new process as no big deal. It's a well of negativity that makes Wikipedia as a whole an even more negative place. I pity whichever sysop has to run the gauntlet first, because the specifics at WP:AR look pretty shaky to me. [[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<b style="color: #FF0F00;">Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b>]] ([[User talk:SuperMarioMan|Talk]]) 16:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
::Well, that didn't take long... [[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<b style="color: #FF0F00;">Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b>]] ([[User talk:SuperMarioMan|Talk]]) 20:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
*I would like to humbly advise any editors with concerns about the suitability of the process through which this policy was adopted to refer to the RfC linked in my first post, which was dedicated to that matter. It resulted in a consensus that the process was sufficient and no further ratification step is required. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- [[User:Maddy from Celeste|Maddy from Celeste]] ([[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|WAVEDASH]])</b> 17:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

:A petition has been started (see [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#A_recall_petition_for_Graham87_has_been_initiated]]). Any minor issues that arise  will hopefully be resolved through the course of the next month. To those claiming it didn't have enough advertisement, I'll reiterate what's been said above: the third RFC was posted on CENT and sought to address that question. [[User talk:Dilettante|Sincerely, Dilettante]] 18:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
* How did this policy sneak into effect with something like 25 votes?  That's ridiculous. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 03:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

A look at the example [[WP:Administrator recall/Graham87]] shows how we are doing so far. There are 5 "signatures" in favor of recall, some accompanied by to-and-fro with other editors. There are also 15–16 editors (hard to count) who oppose the recall. However, under this policy '''opposition to the recall doesn't count at all''', so those 15–16 editors are wasting their finger muscles. I'm wondering what other formal decision processes we have on Wikipedia for which only opinions in one direction are considered significant. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 04:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
* I think it would have been better to do administrator recall as a trial period, with an expiration date of some kind. This is how some of the other big changes in WP:RFA2024 were handled, such as administrator elections and 2 days of no voting at RFA. {{pb}} Also, wasn't the goal of RFA2024 to make everything related to adminship less toxic so we could attract more admins? Making admins go through 30 days of drama for incidents that are too minor for arbcom doesn't seem like a great way to reduce toxicity... –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:<p>IMO it's complicated. I think it's well recognised especially by non-admins is that one reason why RfA is such a problem is because adminship is generally a wikilife-long thing with it very very hard for admins to lose the tools. And it's also historically been basically impossible to even sanction an admin the way an ordinary editor would be. While there's some aspect of [[WP:unblockables]] involved, the nature of adminship has generally meant admins are protected from any real sanction until and unless they lose their tools. </p><p>So while admins are supposed to demonstrate a higher level of commitment to our policies and guidelines and be less likely to make personal attacks, edit war etc; and many do, there's been a feeling that some don't and yet have never really been properly challenged over it in part because they are admins. I.E. they're getting away with stuff it's really unlikely a regular editor would get away with. And when it comes to questionable use of the tools, it has to be extremely egregious for anything to happen although an ordinary editor similar misusing something (whether tools or just general editing) would long ago have been stopped from doing that. </p><p>Things have changed a bit in recent years with arbcom seeming to be more willing to take cases and perhaps more willing to remove the tools, and even just more willing to take cases has meant some it's been easier to lose the tools since admins have either formally resigned them or effectively done so by leaving Wikipedia rather than participate in the case. Also there's at least one high profile case where an admin was cbanned without regard for the tools. </p><p>Still I think many of us plebs still regard admins as having a special level of protection that normal editors don't and therefore we treat RfAs as a much bigger deal than they arguably need to be. I.E. Yes adminship might just be a few tools, but you pretty much get to get keep those tools unless you misuse them very very badly, and you also get to do stuff few other editors would even putting aside the tools. </p><p>So while making it easier to remove admins does have the unfortunate effect of "increasing toxicity" when we have these recalls, there's a hope it will make adminship less of a big deal and make RfAs less toxic since we don't have to be so worried about the consequences of making a wrong decision. Whether it will be better or worse in the long run with recalls, I don't know. Note I say this as someone who can I think count on one hand or at least two hands the number of RfAs they've participated in but who did support recalls in the first RfC. </p><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)</p>
*::P.S. In fairness, I will also acknowledge that admins generally also have to put up with abuse that isn't so accepted when directed at us plebs. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*<p>As someone who IIRC supported recalls in the first RfC and didn't participate in the second or drafting of the rules and didn't really participate in the final one I do feel that this has been way messier than it should have been. In particular, whatever was said in the first and second, I'm unconvinced it was ever wise to treat this as a policy that could go into effect without a final confirmation RfC especially without a formal trial period. I always expected there would be a final confirmation RfC with a specific developed policy in place. </p><p>And I don't feel the final RfC was really that since at least at the beginning the details still weren't quite sorted and it wasn't even really worded as "This is our policy on recalls, should we go ahead with recalls with this specific policy? As always on Wikipedia changes are always possible, but this should be considered the policy which will be implemented if you support it." or something along those lines. Instead it was IMO fairly unclear that the final RfC was even going to be a final RfC or IMO even what the third RfC was hoping to establish. </p><p>For further clarity, I was aware of that final RfC but I didn't participate in part because I felt it a mess. I expected even with that RfC we'd still have to end up with yet another confirmation RfC once the tinkering finished, and I expressed concern that it was therefore a waste of time early on (to the editor who started it). I did watch it slightly and was aware it seemed to be developing into a final RfC before it closed but I still didn't participate in part because I didn't care but also because I was still unsure if it would really be the final RfC given the messy start and low participation. I can't help thinking there were others who read about it and saw how messy it was at the start and thought, we'll we're never going to get a consensus for recalls from this so not worth my time. I'll wait until the final RfC when everything is clear. </p><p>I'm not saying the closer was wrong, but I do think the whole process was way messier than it should have been and this is probably part of why we're we are now without editors surprised we actually have a policy for recalls now in place. </p><p>And I have to say, it's unclear to me if this is even definitely resolved. The first recall, the admin doesn't seem to be challenging the process. But what happens if an admin does especially when the first recall petition succeeds? Have the bureaucrats even said they will remove adminship since they accept that there has been clear consensus for this? <small>I do think those supporting the first recall have done the process no favours either but that's more of an aside.</small> </p><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)</p>
*:In my opinion, there's just a lot of hiccups coming from way too many sources that have made this process messy. In an ideal world, I'd like the third RFC on Village Pump amended to my wording choice too. But unlike the ideal world, Wikipedia often has "Everyone wants this discussion but nobody wants to start it" happening. While it was not my preferred 3rd RFC, I respect Barkeep for starting the RFC when he did. And for better or worse, nobody else amended it or tried to establish a need for 4th RFC after that. 
*:A running theme I am noticing in a lot of this thread is people were personally not aware of this process. I don't think consensus can wait for everyone like that. That way, we keep relitigating things over and over in the name of [[WP:CCC]].
*:I completely agree that Recall should not be considered unchangably set in stone, and there's been more messiness during the process than any of us would like. I just also believe that the central idea still has value (even if many details differed from my preference). And I hope community members attempt to fix the process in whatever direction they prefer, instead of shuttering the entire process prematurely. [[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]])  12:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I think many people (myself included) were waiting for the talk page discussions to reach a settled proposed text before starting a clear and final "do you want this?" RfC, but this was cut off by BK's RfC. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 19:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*So as the person who closed the phase I discussion (that found consensus to develop ''some form'' of recall procedure) and followed everything since with increasing exasperation, I will just say that this is a shining example of how '''not''' to build consensus for a new process. The discussions were convoluted, bureaucratic and under-advertised at every step of the way. At no point was the community clearly asked "do you want to adopt <specific proposal> as a policy?" and yet, now we apparently have a new policy with a specific procedure. I hope we can draw a line under it and move forward with normal, open, consensus-based improvements to the new process. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Under advertised? They were on CENT, in the admin newsletter, at the pump, and on a watchlist notice. And the third RFC was the point at which the community was asked "so you want this as a policy." That third RFC was at the pump, on CENT, and in the admin newsletter. Can we not spread misinformation about "under-advertised"? What more advertisement could we possibly have done? Come on. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 14:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::{{tq|And the third RFC was the point at which the community was asked "so you want this as a policy"}} – it should have been, but the question actually posed was not "do you want this as a policy?" but the utterly bizarre "is there already a consensus for this?". This is to my knowledge the first time we've ever used an RfC to (re)close another RfC and the result was predictably chaotic. Most people did not really understand what was being asked and those that did understandably didn't take time to read the sprawling preceding discussions to understand why the consensus was under question. And now somehow we have a "policy" out of this mess. That by the way is what I mean by under-advertised (not unadvertised): these discussions were mentioned, but the questions were posed in such a weird, orthogonal way that many people did not understand that the result would be a new administrator recall policy. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I don't think it's possible to make ''any'' major change to Wikipedia without people complaining that it was underadvertised. Fair enough to call the discussions convoluted and bureaucratic, but they certainly weren't ''hidden''. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::{{tq|the third RFC was the point at which the community was asked "so you want this as a policy."}} Wasn't the third RFC a close challenge type RFC rather than a fresh polling of consensus? I thought it was a close challenge type RFC, so I did not participate in it. I feel like in a close challenge type RFC I am supposed to read the old RFC and make a judgment about whether the closer got it right or not, and there is no opportunity to inject my own opinion about the issues at hand. The exact third RFC question was {{tq|Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review?}} –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Closer here. The way I viewed it was neither as a "do we want this" RfC or a close challenge RfC, but a "do we need another RfC" RfC. Personally, I would not be surprised if, after choosing to not participate in a "do we need another RfC" RfC in favour of waiting for the next RfC, the noes prevail and we don't have another RfC. RfC RfC RfC RfC RfC. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- [[User:Maddy from Celeste|Maddy from Celeste]] ([[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|WAVEDASH]])</b> 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::<p>FWIW as someone who views the third/final RfC in a, I think, similar way to Novem Linguae I can accept that by not participating in the RfC I risked the outcome being what it was and so it's not something I can really complain about although I do feel it's fine to comment on how I feel the process has been a mess. </p><p>My view is undoubtedly affected by the fact I did and do support a recall process so that was also part of the reason I didn't care. Also I had read it again perhaps a week or two before closing so I did recognise that despite my misgivings, it was looking like this could be interpreted as a final RfC resulting in implementation. (I did see the suggestion by the Barkeep it could be closed, but I felt it had been too long for it to be a good idea especially with the level of support.) So I can understand why those for which neither of these apply might be much more unsettled by what happened with the third/final RfC. </p><p>One thing I didn't maybe make clear in my lengthy above statement. My initial and main concern was that we'd actually get a non consensus or even consensus against and then opponents will say well that's it let's end this no point going further, and supporters would say that's not fair the RfC was partly based on an incomplete still be worked on draft. </p><p>While this wasn't what happened part of my concerns IMO still plays out but in a different way. Given how messy this has been, there is a risky it's all going to just fall through and recall will be destined to be something that became 'tried that, never again'. Or alternatively as a I highlighted above, when an admin recalled actually opposes the process it's all going to break apart and either end up at arbcom or with some nasty mess if they aren't de-admined due to uncertainty by bureaucrats. </p><p>However you can also say I'm part of the problem, I supported recalls in the first RfC but didn't care enough to actual helped draft a procedure or anything like that. And while part of the reason is because I don't care that much, I recognise that if we don't have a good procedure it's more likely to fall apart because others especially potentially affected admins will care. </p><p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 11:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)</p>
* I'm thinking about proposing some changes in light of what's going down at Graham's petition. First of all, 30 days is just way too long. Should be shortened to 10, maybe 7 or 14 days. Second, maybe there should be some 'crat ability to implement a SNOW close for especially spurious petitions. Anyone have thoughts on that? Probably going to propose those at the village pump later today. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 15:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
**There is a related thread at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Avoiding_a_long_month_of_drama]]. ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 15:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
**:If it's going to be retained - and at this early stage I see no benefit to it at all - then it needs to work significantly better. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*It passed because of the structure of the discussion – which was "do you want a recall policy" rather than "do you want this recall policy". Discussion of the particulars was then dragged out for months so that only the few most dedicated people stuck the course.<br />I predict it'll be revoked in 6-12 months. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 09:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

== Odder behavior at AfD ==

For those not following AfD closely, a look at the participants the AfD for [[Peanut (squirrel)]] would be instructive. [[User:Qwirkle|Qwirkle]] ([[User talk:Qwirkle|talk]]) 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

:Firstly, this is your third attempt at posting this topic here - in none of them do you link to the AFD in question. I'll do that for you - [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peanut (squirrel)]].
:Secondly, you're going to have to help us out her buddy - who is 'odd' and why? What action needs to be taken?
:Please answer carefully, lest this topic gets closed down ''again''. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::Are we seeing a lot of people using ChatGPT in AfD lately or something? [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I will admit that "a single squirrel getting killed in upstate New York becomes a last minute campaign issue for Trumpers" was not on my utter batshit bingo card, but without specifics as to what admin action is needed, I doubt this will go anywhere, I'm not gonna read all that to try and parse it out. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 20:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::::If I'm understanding the... all that... sufficiently it kind of looks like ChatGPT may be being deployed by a bunch of sock / meat puppets or canvassed editors in order to flood AfD and create the artificial perspective of a snow close on what is, honestly, an article of very marginal notability per [[WP:10YT]] but a lot of short-term utility for mobilizing weirdos in the upcoming US election. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 20:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:The AfD has been closed as Keep. {{u|Colbmizer}}, a four-year old account who posted there (in a way I have no complaint about) is definitely altogether behaving in an... hmmm... unusual way. All their 15 edits except two from 2022 concern Peanut the squirrel. I have reverted their additions to  [[Pine City, New York]] (all about Peanut) and warned them about (twice) adding, wait for it, [[:Category:People from Chemung County, New York]] to [[Peanut (squirrel)]]. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 21:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC).
:*It shouldn't have been a snow close, the keep arguments are just ridiculous. If we claim AfD is not a vote, how can any weight be given to keep arguments consisting solely of comments such as "Justice for peanut. #SquirrelLivesMatter" and "May well get more write-in votes for president at this point than some third-party candidates." [[WP:NOTNEWS]] and [[WP:10YT]] are apparently meaningless now. [[User:AusLondonder|AusLondonder]] ([[User talk:AusLondonder|talk]]) 21:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:*:The ten-year test doesn't apply to standard notability. [[WP:NOTTEMPORARY|Notability is explicitly not temporary]]. There is certainly significant coverage. I suppose one could argue in the spirit of BIO1E, though a squirrel wouldn't usually be considered a "person". A lot of !votes on both sides were very weak. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:CFA|<span style="background-color:#e0f7fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black"><span style=color:#00c>C</span> <span style=color:red>F</span> <span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span></span>]] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">[[User talk:CFA|💬]]</span></span> 23:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::*The point is that primary sources are irrelevant to notability, and all the news reports are necessarily primary sources: they date from the time of the event that they are reporting.  (See [https://www.library.unsw.edu.au/using-the-library/information-resources/primary-and-secondary-sources] for a good explanation.)  We need secondary sources, which are written later and rely on the primary sources.  This isn't some extraordinary event, such as the [[September 11 attacks]], nor a routine event of a sort that always gets covered in secondary sources, such as today's election.  Will this make it into secondary sources?  [[WP:BALL]] says we mustn't speculate.  BIO1E succeeds in deleting articles about individuals who aren't notable because they don't get any secondary-source coverage, since everything dates from a single point in time when the person was active; it wouldn't apply to someone, say, who was the focus of secondary coverage long after his death.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 03:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::*:Right. A subject has to be either supported directly by good secondary sources, or so blindingly, obviously momentous that we can safely bet it will be, barring the sun exploding or such. 
:::*:Dead squirrel, not so much.
:::*:More importantly here we have an AfD which was almost completely populated by people who literally aren’t here to build an encyclopedia. One can argue the merits of cryptocurrency, and some people argue the merits of Trump, but Wiki isn’t supposed to be a megaphone for fans of either, and that is exactly the point of that AfD. (Well, I suppose there were some squirrophiles and squirrerasts, too, but let’s leave that well enough alone.) If you take out the socks, meat puppets, and canvased newbies, that bloated AfD mess could be buried in a shoebox.
:::*:Instead, we have the damned squirrel up on the Dead o’ the Day, where Quincy Jones should be. [[User:Qwirkle|Qwirkle]] ([[User talk:Qwirkle|talk]]) 05:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::[[User:CFA|CFA]], I'm a little confused at your linking of § Notability is not temporary, given that the next section goes over how {{tq|Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.}} 10YT is in an essay, so who knows how many people care about what's written in there, but [[WP:NOTNEWS]] explicitly applies to all content on Wikipedia (it notes that [[WP:ROUTINE]] details its application wrt. events, but {{tq|routine news coverage}} is clearly indicated as also applying to {{tq|announcements, [...] sports, or celebrities}}. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 15:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

== Vandalism prevention of major political candidate BLPs ==

Kicking off this thread as a question of whether we have policies in place to try to prevent vandalism of major political candidates ahead of a major election?

There was some major vandalism at [[Tim Walz]], the vice presidential candidate for the Democratic party, over the past 4 days and the page is just semi-protected, which wasn't enough to prevent the vandalism that happened, which included page blanking and moving around of the page.

I feel like given the magnitude of some elections, a policy of preventative ECP under [[WP:AMPOL]] or the likes for the major candidates BLPs feels warranted to prevent random accounts from being able to disrupt pages like these, especially a day before an election. I feel like this is the kind of vandalism that could make national news.

Might be something for an RfC maybe? [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 03:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:I feel like major candidates should've been ECP'd ages ago. Also, trust me, that won't prevent vandalism, just slow it down. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 03:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::Move protection seems to be a lot less contentious than edit protection, probably since very prominent people almost never need to have their articles moved.  I've just move-protected Walz and his opponent Vance; Harris and Trump were already move-protected, or I would have done the same with them.  Vance, Harris, and Trump were already at ECP, and apparently ECP requires a demonstration that semiprotection is ineffective (I've literally never imposed ECP before, so I'm not sure), so this incident tells me that it's warranted.  I've imposed ECP on this article, but if I shouldn't have, anyone's free to revert to semiprotection.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 04:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{nacmt}} My reading of the ECP section of the protection policy (specifically the [[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Contentious topics|§ Contentious topics]] subsection) is that for CTOPs, even those without a ECR, ECP may be applied at an admin's individual discretion even without semi having being proven ineffective. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 15:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I thought maybe that was the case, but arbitration enforcement is always a really tricky matter, and I don't want anyone claiming that I've made a huge mistake and starting one of these new admin-recall things against me, just because I was trying to help.  Better to claim it as a normal protection and say "anyone can revert this".  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 18:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::As far as "major political candidate" and "major candidate", I don't see how an RFC could nail down a definition.  It's easy to define "major" for any given country, but how are you going to decide which kinds of positions are "major", or which countries are "major"?  Presidential elections in Germany or Ireland probably aren't "major" because the president doesn't have much power, but presidential elections in Brazil probably are.  Even if we limit our scope to anglophone countries, I really don't think we ought to impose the same standard on candidates for President of Liberia or Prime Minister of Fiji, simply because the countries aren't large, and their leaders' articles don't get a lot of vandalism because the countries are poorer (and thus have fewer people with Internet access) and have larger percentages of residents who don't speak English.  Better to go without a worldwide standard and instead go with case-by-case protection, unless we're in an AMPOL situation, where a single country is so contentious that it gets its own standards for protection.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 04:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
== Resignation of Firefly; effective Dec 31, 2024 ==

I am resigning from the Arbitration Committee, effective December 31, 2024. I am announcing my resignation now in order to allow the election of someone to complete the second year of my term through [[WP:ACE2024|the upcoming election process]].

It's painfully obvious to anyone with eyes and a brain that I've not had anywhere near the time I need to be an effective contributor (or even an ineffective one...!) in the latter half of this year. Long story short I picked up new responsibilities at work in the middle of the year, and while I thought it wouldn't have much of an impact on free time, it absolutely did on free ''energy''.

I considered standing down before this point, but (a) we were close enough to ACE that I thought it best to align things, and (b) I always had just enough hope that next couple of weeks it'll be better and yet it never was. I apologise unreservedly for not being able to contribute effectively recently, and therefore live up to the expectations the community places on Arbitrators.

As I have said on-list, for the avoidance of doubt when the time comes I shall relinquish both CU and OS as I am unlikely to have the time to meet the activity requirements and don't want to waste ArbCom's time prodding me. I can always pick up CU again if (hopefully when!) I return to meaningful activity. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 21:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Resignation of Firefly; effective Dec 31, 2024}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 21:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Stop @MrOllie ==

Hello. Previously, I had a discussion with @[[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] regarding adding the word "analysis" to the accounting article, but it was inconclusive. Recently, in a new and different effort, I added content about non-financial reports in accounting to the article. However, the mentioned user reverted my edit, claiming that we had already discussed this topic. This is despite the fact that our prior discussion was about the analytical aspect of accounting, which is unrelated to non-financial reports in accounting. It appears that this user, without paying any attention to the depth of the edits, immediately reverts them without considering the substance of the content and seems solely focused on undoing edits. Please take the necessary administrative actions to stop this behavior. It’s worth mentioning that ihat s added to the article of accounting about non-financial side of accounting i supported by Wikipedia, and there are articles on Wikipedia such as "Non-Financial Reporting" or "Social Accounting" that confirm this. Thank you.

[[User:Wikinegarr|Wikinegarr]] ([[User talk:Wikinegarr|talk]]) 22:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

:Hi {{u|Wikinegarr}}, this noticeboard is not for content disputes and MrOllie's behaviour isn't really anything worth acting on in an administrative capacity. [[WP:30|Asking for a third opinion]] or seeking other forms of [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]] may be helpful as alternative options. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 22:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::The issue is not merely based on content disagreement; it concerns the erratic and improper behavior of this user. This user claims that the topic has been discussed before, whereas it has not. This indicates that they are reverting edits without reviewing them properly. [[User:Wikinegarr|Wikinegarr]] ([[User talk:Wikinegarr|talk]]) 22:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Well, technically the noticeboard you'd want is [[WP:ANI]] instead of [[WP:AN]], because this one is for matters of general interest to admins. Secondly, please don't call people "erratic" and [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Thirdly, use [[Help:Diffs|diffs]] to support your accusations. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 22:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::You said that this issue has already been discussed.  Send the discussion link. [[User:Wikinegarr|Wikinegarr]] ([[User talk:Wikinegarr|talk]]) 22:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Wikinegarr}} Was that comment directed at me? If so, I'm confused about what you meant. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 22:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::No [[User:Wikinegarr|Wikinegarr]] ([[User talk:Wikinegarr|talk]]) 22:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Are you talking about the consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Accounting/Archive_2#c-HandThatFeeds-20241005190800-Lead_sentence here]? -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:See the last go-round at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive365#Deletion without reason]], as well as [[Talk:Accounting/Archive_2#Lead_sentence]]. Despite the summary above, I was not the only user involved that time (nor was the discussion "inconclusive"), nor am I the only person who has taken issue with their edit this time.
:Last time around the discussion featured [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accounting&diff=prev&oldid=1248959239 obvious use of LLMs] and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accounting&diff=prev&oldid=1248982245 very difficult to believe denials of that fact], as well as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accounting&diff=prev&oldid=1249042546 false claims that I actually supported their edits]. When I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accounting&diff=prev&oldid=1249082394 denied that I did support them], Wikinegarr [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Accounting&diff=next&oldid=1249137861 doubled down and claimed I had changed the talk page], which obviously never happened. No diffs were provided.
:Wikinegarr was formerly blocked, but was subsequently unblocked. Their sock account {{user|Wikijournalistt}} remains blocked for disruption - other edits on that account may be of interest.
:I think a [[WP:BOOMERANG]] / [[WP:CIR]] block is in order here. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 22:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::That discussion is completely unrelated to this topi that we are talking about. [[User:Wikinegarr|Wikinegarr]] ([[User talk:Wikinegarr|talk]]) 22:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::You said that this issue has already been discussed. Send the discussion link [[User:Wikinegarr|Wikinegarr]] ([[User talk:Wikinegarr|talk]]) 22:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Is [[Special:Contributions/Wikijournalistt|this]] your old account? [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 23:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Don't change the topic of discussion. If you want to talk about a new topic, talk about it somewhere else. Awnser what i asked. [[User:Wikinegarr|Wikinegarr]] ([[User talk:Wikinegarr|talk]]) 23:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Due to the concerns about the other account and the history of disruptive editing from reading those previous threads, I have decided to block. Please note that indefinite does not mean infinite, you just have to write an unblock request and convince an uninvolved administrator that will you will not repeat such behaviour. But at this point in time, your behaviour is causing a massive time sink. A certain level of [[WP:CIR|competence is required]]. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 23:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::If anyone thinks I was too harsh here, feel free to unblock without asking me. I'm going to head out for a bit. [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 23:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Nah, it's perfectly reasonable considering this is [[WP:DUCK|an extremely obvious sock]]. '''''[[User:LilianaUwU|<span style="font-family:default;color:#246BCE;">Liliana</span><span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#FF1493;">UwU</span>]]''''' <sup>([[User talk:LilianaUwU|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/LilianaUwU|contributions]])</sup> 23:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

== Creation of redirect ==

Hello, please make a redirect for the following Unicode characters:

Redirect [[🔴🧦]] to [[Boston Red Sox]]

This would be a useful redirect, which can include, in its category shell:
<syntaxhighlight lang=wikitext>
#REDIRECT [[Boston Red Sox]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from other dab}}
}}</syntaxhighlight> [[User:Yovt|𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝]] ([[User talk:Yovt|𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝]]) 01:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:Hi Yovt. I'm not an admin, but I do not think that this would be a useful redirect and R from other disambiguation would not be the correct Rcat. Best, [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Who's going to enter this character combination?  A single character is always useful — as a redirect to its [[Unicode block]], if nothing else — but most combinations are highly implausible.  See [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 25]] for a discussion of the [[🎈 release]] redirect.  This seems even less plausible, since it's two separate emoji characters, not just one.  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 05:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:If I saw this request at [[WP:AFC/R]], I would decline it as implausible and unhelpful. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 14:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

== Temporary checkuser privileges for 2024 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers ==

On recommendation of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination#Electoral_Commission|Electoral Commission]], temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to [[Meta:stewards|stewards]] {{user|EPIC}}, {{user|Mykola7}}, and {{user|Johannnes89}}, solely for the purpose of their acting as [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination#Scrutineers|scrutineers]] in the 2024 Arbitration Committee election. For the Arbitration Committee, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 17:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Temporary checkuser privileges for 2024 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 17:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Forthcoming WMF disclosure of users' private information ==

I'm surprised this hasn't been brought here yet, but there is a situation at the WMF Village Pump that is very close to boiling over. For those who haven't been following the story, [[Asian News International]] in India is suing the WikiMedia Foundation and three anonymous editors in a defamation suit over the content of its article. In at least one case, an editor is being sued for reverting the unexplained removal of sourced content. The WikiMedia Foundation is now being ordered to deliver the private information of these three editors to the court. Discussion is taking place in regard to a community response and the potential fallout if the WikiMedia Foundation makes a decision to do so. The posts can be found at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)/Archive 8#The Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation situation]] and lower down at  [[Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Contacted by one of the editors]]. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 01:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:The Signpost has some coverage of this issue with WMF. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:It's very disappointing but I don't see what administrators, specifically, are supposed to do about it? &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe (mobile)|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe (mobile)|talk]])</small> 12:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::Any interested editor can check out the most recent development at [[Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation]]. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)♤

== Arbitration motion regarding Marine 69-71 ==

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by [[Special:Permalink/1255998320#Motion 2: Marine 69-71 desysopped|motion]] that:

{{ivmbox|{{admin|Marine 69-71}}'s administrative privileges are revoked. He may apply to have them reinstated at any time via a new request for adminship.}}

For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]]&nbsp;[[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 18:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motion regarding Marine 69-71}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 18:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Administrator recall: reworkshop open ==
You are invited to refine and workshop proposals to modify the recall process at [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop]]. After the reworkshop is closed, the resulting proposals will be voted on at an RfC. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 00:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

== Request Admin Close ==

There is a merge discussion taking place at <s>[[Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Requested move 3 November 2024]]</s> [[Talk:Wikipedia and antisemitism#Proposal to merge to Criticism of Wikipedia]]. I was about to close it myself, but controversial subjects should have an admin close and I think Wikipedia and antisemitism would probably be seen as suitably controversial. Would an admin here be kind enough to close that discussion? Thanks. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 21:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

:There is also an [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wikipedia_and_antisemitism#Wikipedia_and_antisemitism|AfD]] now, which I would argue is more appropriate since the action being considered is more of of a deletion in spirit / in effect (discussed a bit [[Talk:Wikipedia_and_antisemitism#c-XDanielx-20241028172500-Zero0000-20241028110900|here]]). To me the merge was starting to look like a backdoor deletion without AfD's policy rigor. The initial proposer of the merge seemed on board with holding an AfD. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 21:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
::'''Background.''' The proposer [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikipedia_and_antisemitism&diff=1254598000&oldid=1254597263 closed the Merge discussion] on Oct 31st, saying they'd undo Merge if anyone objected and propose AfD. I requested that the Merge be kept open and more time be given for improvements. On Oct 31, the proposer agreed and stated [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AWikipedia_and_antisemitism&diff=1254668958&oldid=1254666770 in the edit summary]: "Unclosing discussion. I will AfD the article in 4 days." Those four days would end tomorrow, Monday, at 22:38 pm Eastern. Fwiw, the original merge discussion had most comments ''before'' Oct 31. Since that time, there have been ~ 145 edits by 12 users, including substantive additions based on added IMO reliable sources. Also, a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FWikipedia_and_antisemitism&diff=1255221626&oldid=1255216926 different editor proposed an AfD today], prior to closing the Merge. Thanks to @[[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy]] and @[[User:XDanielx|XDanielx]] for addressing this. [[User:ProfGray|ProfGray]] ([[User talk:ProfGray|talk]]) 22:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:Might it be wise to cross-post this at [[WP:RFCLOSE]]? You might be able to better alert the class of editors that likes to make uninvolved closes if you post there. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 03:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:: I was specifically looking for an admin close, because the out of process AfD needs fixing too, but I see from [[WP:MERGE]] that you are correct. Admin closes are still requested there. I have posted there now, thanks.  [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC) 
::: It's not really out of process because one possible outcome of a deletion discussion is to merge, so there is no contradiction. The mistake here, if one can call it that, was not taking it to AfD in the first place. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Possibly a mistake, but we are where we are. There is a merge in which 25+ editors have expressed an opinion. Those opinions should be considered, and that consideration should happen before any other discussions. Consider the case that the merge has a very clear consensus for x, but AfD finds against x and closes as y instead, with a different set of editors. Then all those opinions for x have been ignored. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 07:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I entirely agree that the merge discussion should be closed before the AfD. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::A merge wouldn't really make sense any more, as the proposed destination already has related content now, and can't reasonably fit any more since it's [[WP:TOOBIG]]. So there's no merge to be done, just a possible deletion. Perhaps the AfD closer should read the merge discussion and consider any point that might still be relevant. — [[User:XDanielx|<span style="font-family: Arial; font-weight: bold; color: green;">xDanielx</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:XDanielx|T]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/XDanielx|C]]</sub>\<sup>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/xDanielx|R]]</sup> 15:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::If the merge is completed and the merge closes as consensus to merge, then all that remains is to make the redirect. It is not a deletion. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 18:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

*I wish I had seen this discussion before I closed this AFD discussion at the requrest of [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]]. More discussion on my closure occurred on my User talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Hi Liz. Then please accept my apologies. Although in the AfD where I requested procedural close I did say {{tq|I'll post to AN and see if we can get an admin to close the merge.}} There remains no doubt that there was no actual deletion rationale in the AfD and that it was opened one week into an existing merge discussion. Please feel free to self revert your close and relist if you think the close was an error, but I don't see how I could participate in that AfD unless the merge is closed first. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 07:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I actually don't think I'll revert the closure. I'm not sure if this discussion here would have changed my closure but I would have liked to have seen this first. Ultimately, this was/is a messy situation and I think closing this AFD was an effort to simplify what was going on. It doesn't make any sense to have two competing discussions going on at the same time. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 08:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia:Closure requests]] is the correct place to request a close for this I think. You can leave in your comment there that you prefer an admin to close it. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 08:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::I have already done so, following the comment from Red tailed hawk. [[User:Sirfurboy|Sirfurboy🏄]] ([[User talk:Sirfurboy|talk]]) 08:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

== What do I do about a username that includes contact information ==

{{userlinks|Call_Center_Kredit_Digital_Phone-082188251238}} is a single line ad. I'd like to do something to remove the phone number, but don't know who to approach about it, or if anything can be done. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 18:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

:Possibly [[WP:OVERSIGHT]]? [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 18:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::You'd be hard pressed to show that a call centre's number is suppressible '''personal''' information. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 19:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree with your username block.  Perhaps you could revdel the log under RD5?  ''Valid deletion under deletion policy, executed using RevisionDelete'', and as you say, it's a spammy username.  But maybe that's going too far with RevDel, especially since you've posted about it here too?  [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 20:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree that it does not meet the threshold for supression. It possibly does meet [[WP:RD3]] but getting rid of it with revdel at this point is kind of closing the barn door after the horse already got out. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 20:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Hm, I just suppress-blocked because while we do not particularly care about the call center's privacy, we have no way of knowing that this isn't a personal number being used for harassment. Thoughts? [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I guess you have a point that we don't know if we don't actually call it, which I'm certainly not going to do. The number is still visible here and on their talk page, if it's being supressed it seems like those need to go as well. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 20:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Naturally, but it felt not quite as urgent to remove. Since we're on the fence here, I looked it up, and the results suggest that this is in fact a call center, so I have unsuppressed. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 22:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I posted the number here because, based on the now-deleted user page, it was clearly commercial, and I only wanted to reduce future exposure, not necessarily eliminate it from all records. In retrospect, doing nothing is probably the best course, as that username alone is a pretty ineffective ad, so who really cares? —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::There seems to be a widespread assumption on Wikipedia that any mention of a product (such as a call centre) is promotional. That is obviously not true, so doing nothing beyond what you have already done is probably the best course of action, as often. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 20:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::To me, it seems the first step should have been to [https://www.google.com/search?q=082188251238&sca_esv=c263faa809bdb49e&sxsrf=ADLYWILoewrH4pHVwddUXQmFJcBKAzqmEA%3A1730929250337&source=hp&ei=YuIrZ4rVEpWGxc8P6_mQuAg&oq=&gs_lp=EhFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocCIAKgIIADIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAjIHECMYJxjqAkixClAAWABwAXgAkAEAmAEAoAEAqgEAuAEByAEAmAIBoAIqqAIPmAMqkgcBMaAHAA&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp search for the phone number on Google]. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666|&#124;666&#124;]] 21:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That's the first step I usually take if it's a problematic username. As others have mentioned above, posting at AN is about the worst thing that can be done - contact OS or an OSer directly and keep it as much as possible out of the logs (including places like AIV or UAA). [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:It's most likely this is just spam, which we get a lot of. It would be nice if we could rename it as part of clean up. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 17:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::Clean up without renaming, and the disruptive username eventually fades into obscurity (posint here makes it take longer, but it will still happen). Rename the user, and the user can return eventually with the same name, causing twice as much disruption. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666|&#124;666&#124;]] 11:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

== User Report: Niasoh - Repeated Vandalism and Harassment ==

= User Report: Niasoh== [[User:NoorBD|NoorBD]] ([[User talk:NoorBD|talk]]) 11:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

:Right off the bat, I see that you have been [[WP:Edit warring|edit warring]], breaking the [[WP:3RR|3 revert rule]] on the first article you edited. Please read [[WP:Vandalism]] and understand what is and is not vandalism before you start throwing accusations around. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 12:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:OP’s Talk Page should set any mop up nicely for a [[WP:CIR]] or [[WP:NOTHERE]] [[WP:BOOMERANG]]. Not sure which. [[User:Matticusmadness|MM]] [[User talk:Matticusmadness|<span style="color: brown">(Give me info.)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Matticusmadness|<sup style="color: Orange">(Victories)</sup>]] 14:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
::I went with DE, but yes all would apply. NoorBD is now '''INDEFfed'''. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 17:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

== Extreme Personal Attacks ==

{{Userlinks|49.36.183.242}} 

This IP addresses is personally attacking me in very extreme way. They are calling me [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceofPunjab&diff=prev&oldid=1256161589 Khalistani], (a supporter of a [[Khalistan movement|militant movement]]) and are accusing me of being an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceofPunjab&diff=prev&oldid=1256177707 "anti-Indian" user]. They are also in a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceofPunjab&diff=prev&oldid=1256161589 ''very'' subtly manner] suggesting a legal action against WMF, they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PrinceofPunjab&diff=prev&oldid=1256177707 admit] to word it in such a way in order to avoid [[WP:NLT]]. [[User:PrinceofPunjab|'''<span style="color:#BC13FE">ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ</span>''']]<sup> [[User talk:PrinceofPunjab|'''<span style="color:#1F51FF">(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)</span>''']]</sup> 17:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:Blocked 31 hours for making personal attacks and legal threats. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 17:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::This says (I think) these needs to be longer [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:49.36.183.242&diff=prev&oldid=1256185961]]. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::TPA revoked for making what I interpreted as legal threats, despite their clumsy attempt to obfuscate it as expert advice. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 18:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Agreed; "stop this or you'll get sued" is a legal threat no matter how you phrase it. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 18:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

== Request to remove topic ban ==
{{atop|status=Not Done|result=This has been open for two days without anyone supporting it. OP is '''strongly''' advised to mitigate the length of their posts in the future. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 20:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)}}
I am topic banned for weapons and Japan which are two topics I am interested in and have considerable knowledge and sources, and which I enjoy writing about.  I did make a ton of mistakes when new and caught the eye of a particular admin who rightly took me to task.  

Reason for topic ban:
As my editing skill increased, so did that admins attention on me.  We had many content disputes because they did not carefully review the sources. My user talk page has many examples of this if you need it. There were many more like it.  

This admin made countless assertions that material wasn’t in particular sources (when it was clearly was in those sources).  This caused borderline reference spamming but the false assertions of failed verification were coming even faster the plethora of verifiable sources, despite every source stating it.  Eventually they would say that they read a source, but this was typically only long after numerous allegations of something not being in that source and just as many deletions of all of material it referenced.  Working with that person proved untenable.  I’m sorry I don’t have all of the links or diffs to post here now. But they exist somewhere!  

I had a large draft I was reorganizing per that editors request/demands. I was trying to work with him. The admins valid observation was that the draft was too big and covered too many topics. (In hindsight, I may have built a Frankenstein). 

I moved masses of material from my draft into many main pages including some new main pages. My draft reorganization effort was ongoing. Only 1.5 hours after my last edit, this admin complained at Mfd that I was refusing to reduce the size of the draft by narrowing the topics AND that it was WP:STALE.  But the assertions were blatantly untrue. They came after yet another heated content/source incident. <u>These exchanges are perfect examples of the admin behavior being described.</u> Nevertheless, the involved admin had the draft permanently removed without any review of the merits of the reasoning.  Mfd did not check to see whether anyone was being accurate or truthful  That Mfd was appealed and voted for. I lost as only a rare few reviewed the merits.  Those that did, verified my version of events (''I think''). Most participants did not and review merits nor any of the diffs showing the moves and decreasing size nor of the recent edits.  If they had, the untruth of the admin would have been exposed.  But, the [[WP:VOTE]] upheld it.  There was a weather event here and family death during that process and I had no access to WP.

This same admin then created his own version of the page with much of the same the content he had deleted from my sandbox. It’s what remains on the main page right now. Their version of that article is not remotely close to a complete picture of the subject per the sources. Yet they fully understood the scope the subject encompassed when they were reviewing at what I had edited in my sandbox. The current page is a small fraction of this subjects scope content that was deleted.  

I restored the draft to my sandbox to cut it up in more parts and was eventually topic banned.  I also made some edits and talk comments on the newly created subject page created by that administrator in violation of the TBAN.

It took a bit for that rule to sink in because it seemed so unfair. Time has passed and I request the ban be lifted but without giving me or anyone else the benefit of doubt.  I’d like some assistance in finding the post-MFd (appeal?) as there is a diff that shows the draft revisions from before material was removed up to the point of deletion.  That diff would prove quantitatively when, whether and how much the sandbox draft content had been reduced. If the diff was clicked there would be no need to accept my assertion nor the other editors admission that it was in fact being condensed despite his MFd claim that it was not. 
My behavior(s) sprang from that abuse from involved admin over content, and then his achieved goal in making his own page with that material. 

I reacted badly and ignored or broke rules in reaction.  There’s no excuse or defense.  It’s an explanation that I hope is understood. 

I’d appreciate any other links that can be found and for any decision to be made on the merits I put forth.  However, that might be a TLDR situation. In the past those upholding the deletion and my ban did not look closely and took untrue words at face-value.  

After Mfd, the involved admin came onto my talk page and admitted that despite his mfd claim, I had in fact, been reducing the size of my draft and the secondly that it was not “Stale”.  Those are the very reasons he had the draft nominated to be deleted.  He admitted he knew the concerns that he used to get my draft deleted and me eventually topic-banned were false.  Did that admin work to restore my draft or have my topic ban removed?  We’ll, I wouldn’t be here asking now if he had! A large part of my talk page is interaction with or about that admin.  Feel free to look and my talk page or for additional links and diffs. 

If you read nothing else, please read the admins quotes below!

Obviously draft was being edited yet the reason provided was no improvements and being stale.  When the assertion were made the assertions were already know to be untrue.  This is not disputable. 

"MfD debate: At [[Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/OpRedHat]]
“I have nominated your stale userpage for deletion. Regards”

[[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/OpRedHat]]
"The user has not condensed the material."

Compare my talk page comments from the very same admin who nominated it at MFD (and remember it was a sandbox draft).  If it met the main page article requirements it would have been in the main space not my sandbox!  

"Yes, of course you were tinkering with the draft."
“Possibly I should have explained myself more clearly. The implied additional clause in 'The user has not condensed the material" is 'to produce an article that meets the requirements of WP:ARTICLE' etc. 

Yes, I responded poorly.  I responded by ignoring MFD and a ban because it was based on the above assertions of that involved admin that were admittedly false. 

I want to edit topics covering weapons and Japan and further I’d prefer a block on the involved admin from interacting with me in the future.  [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 08:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I did not alert the other editor because I didn’t mention his name. I want nothing else to do with them. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 08:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC) 
(fixed a few typos)[[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
* For the reference of anyone else who tries to make sense of this appeal, the topic ban was imposed [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive964#Request block of User:Johnvr4|here]].  I'd also note that if you are asking for an interaction ban with another editor, you need to alert them whether or not you mention their name. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 12:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Only 2 mainspace edits in more than 1 year. In fact, your appeal reflects your battleground mentality and justifies the topic ban. [[User:Abhishek0831996|Abhishek0831996]] ([[User talk:Abhishek0831996|talk]]) 13:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Question''' Would Johnvr4's edits to [[Midget submarine]] violate the topic ban on weapons, broadly construed? It's entirely unclear to me if a midget submarine is itself a weapon or if it is a container of weapons. And either way, if that would be covered. Note that Johnvr4's last edits to that article were more than a year ago. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
** It's certainly toeing close to the line.  It's also close to the line of the "Japan" topic ban, given that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midget_submarine&diff=1180114684&oldid=1178588638 his edits there] primarily relate to the GIMIK project which (according to the sources he added) was intended to infiltrate Japanese-occupied Korea and then Japan itself during WWII in preparation for an American invasion of Japan. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 14:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
*** (Also within the last fifty articlespace edits are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isoroku_Yamamoto%27s_sleeping_giant_quote&diff=1059232047&oldid=1054808859 a series of seven] to [[Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote]], which seems to be clearly within the scope of a TBAN on Japan broadly construed. It was back in December 2021, but Johnvr4 has made only 20 mainspace edits since then) [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 14:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
***:To help answer the question, talk pages and my sand boxes are where most of my most recent editing is contained, in a draft I was working on, and will need to come back to.  In sandbox drafts, there’s also mention of a notable crashed training TB-25 which could be considered a weapon if it wasn’t a trainer or had guns or bombs. It didn’t.  It had a famous general. 
***:If these examples are even borderline TBAN violations then I am clearly misunderstanding the broad scope of this ban.
***:An unarmed OSS semi-submersible for Korea (and that was never deployed) is nether a weapon nor about Japan and the fact that someone once wrongly assumed it was a Japanese vessel is not a qualifying factor.  
***:Similarly, a statement falsely attributed to a Japanese historical figure but in fact had nothing to do with anything he said is not related to Japan.
***:If broadly construed to be "related" to Japan is because it was uttered in response to the Pearl Harbor attack then in my view, that is way too broadly construed.  If that is considered a violation, then I beg for removal of the TBANs which I believe I am compliant with. 
***:I am considering an article on a scientific bird study by the Smithsonian and WHO and others.  There is an allegation that the program was secretly implemented for a biological warfare program.  Perhaps it was.  the allegation has been officially denied.  I don’t want to have to tip toe around a subject (Toyota cars for example) or wonder if some obscure relationship might trigger a TBAN violation.  I really don’t want to have to constantly worry or be so constrained by it. <u>It's difficult to work like that even more so because of how it happened in the first place. Due to a required source on the subject, a 2023 book by Ed Regis, I can not cover much of the subject and it would certainly eventually trigger the TBAN if I tried and made a mistake.  Just mentioning that potential source reference to a different editor who is also interested in the subject might be considered a TBAN violation. So I'm limiting my participation in main page editing until other admin can under what is my topic ban is about and why I believe (with very convincing evidence) that it's application (not to mention the admins deletion of the sandbox draft).</u>
 
***:Let's please be reasonable.  These are not controversial edits nor are they crossing any TBAN red lines.  I am here to request that I don’t need to watch that line so closely so I can continue editing on subjects I enjoy.  
***:I also apologize for the typos, this is from a phone and spellcheck is going haywire on grammar. I’ll try to fix them without disruption.  Thank you for the missing link(s). 
***:I am flexible on the interaction block.  A look at our past interactions should help to determine necessity of blocking interaction.  Thank you for the consideration.16:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC) [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 
***<u>some typos addressed</u> [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose'''. The initial appeal is textbook [[WP:NOTTHEM]], with barely anything addressing Johnvr4's own behaviour or why we should lift the TBAN beyond that they want to edit articles covered by the TBAN. Johnvr4's response to my raising their edits on [[Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote]] also does not give me confidence that we should loosen their restrictions.  A quotation attributed to a Japanese admiral about Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour is {{em|clearly}} related to Japan broadly construed, but Johnvr4's position is apparently 1. it's not and 2. if it is, we should lift the TBAN {{em|because}} they have violated it? If they cannot understand the connection between that article and Japan, I have absolutely no confidence that they are capable of understanding and avoiding the issues which led to the TBAN in the first place. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 14:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't intend to comment on every contribution. I do not intend to present a wall of further arguments. 
*:I very much appreciate ALL contributions to this request and want to expressly thank you personally for helping make sense of my initial submission and for providing useful links.
*:Regarding the [[Isoroku Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote]], there is no legitimate attribution to any Japanese General that is valid, including that expressed in that page's references and title (period). The falsehood, or more accurately, the [[Myth]] about [[Folklore]] has verifiable coverage in many sources but in the face of the original quote, they are factually dubious and can no longer be relied on for accuracy or verification.  The quote ("...and also don’t forget, sometimes you can strike a giant who is dozing momentarily, when the giant is awakened, look out.") is from an American about [[Giant]]s. The comment came in the aftermath of something from Japan and specifically one day after.  Now, if you want to listen to the entire Radio show, and present each of the times it does or does not mention Japan, you can. It could be relevant to a violation complaint or not. The title of that page itself is an issue because it falsely ties this quote to Japan or the Japanese.  It is clearly a myth and a false one at that is not related to Yamamoto. 
*:I do not believe the [[WP:BANX]] tag for that edit was required or I else would have used it in my edit summary. I would think [[WP:OR]] would be your complaint there as no other source anywhere that ties these two subjects or offers anything verifiable. Verification is why I linked the original source.  
*:We can agree there is an important and valid concern about that page (and title) and sources etc.  But I cannot raise the issue nor participate in important discussion because of the TBan in combination with a widespread mistaken belief of it being Japan-esqe.  
*:I can see that you are adamant and serious about your concern of these edits as a TBAN violation, which I do not want to take lightly even though I wholeheartedly disagree with it. I think there is a separate place to raise that concern and I agree to participate in that process, should you bring it or any of my other edits you may have concern with to that forum.
*:<b>To clarify, any concern or concerns being raised, It was me and only me who made the edits that previously violated the TBAN. As stated above, I did that. I reacted badly and I own that behavior (period).</b>   
*:What I was reacting to is spelled out in diffs and links. No one has to believe me to sort it out. It's there, laid bare for all. I can, in fact, understand why NotThem concerns are being put forth by those who glance at the surface of the matter. The NotThem concern requires the other parties actions to be free from the valid policy concerns I raised and that simply is not the case per the evidence available to all in links, and diffs, and concerns previously raised in discussion and elsewhere. Complaining that I was being disruptive while they were deleting any text or sources that disputed their POV was the easiest way to deal with my concerns about them and their editing and which eventually led to my behavior. The TBAN for my behavior was a consequence of that.   
*:I am not claiming innocence, but the facts edits, diffs, sources and everything else should give anyone pause before repeating the NOTTHEM (or any other concerns) that first raised by the very same admins involved in the behavior I've described and have strong evidence that confirms it at the links you've provided us (again thank you for that).
*:One super-easy test for this is to ask yourself, "Did the Red Hat Operation last for Six months, or did it last for Thirty years"?  
*:After simple verification answers that question to your satisfaction, then it's just a very obvious a POV issue. 
*:The (Johnvr4 sandbox4?) version that the other admin was successfully able to remove from WP stated that this Operation lasted for 30 years with exhaustive details and reliable sources with a plethora of detail about all three parts of the operation. The 30-plus-year scope of the Operations was verifiable by that admin and all other participants in the reliable sources that cited it and that version may still visible to admins that can still access it (I can't).  [[267th Chemical Company]] for example, uses a few of those sources but they are more than enough for any competent editor to verify super-easily that the subject Red Hat mission extended from the mid-1960s deployment up to the 2001 destruction of the Red Hat component agents. No one can argue otherwise. ...Except the other Admin and those involved with them in that effort.
*:The other admin stated numerous times their goal of an Operation Red Hat article that only covers (their words) "the core" six-month Red Hat redeployment occurring in 1971. there are many example of this in the links you provided above. The Red Hat Operation was initiated around 1965 and was already going on years before 1971 with the initial deployments and then continued right up to 2001.  What you are claiming as strong examples of NOTTHEM, is, in fact. <i>Them</i>. One can verify that editors obvious POV in the version of the article [[Operation Red Hat]] they resurrected and in the process to delete the article's history and talk page as well. My ban was in part related to his action to insert his POV and to reinsert nonsense and bad sources into the main space which I had already corrected long ago. 
*: 
*:To alleviate POV concerns I raised (Diff:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=788875849]], he had to reinsert material he deleted from my sandbox to avoid my obviously valid NPOV/PFORK complaint. His version now republished was never an improvement and is wholly incomplete. Someday (not soon), I may revisit that page if asked but the community has decided they want his POV version over that which I had presented in the verifiable sources I cited.  In my view, the community can be stuck with his version. The community worked really had to get that version and they deserve it now and without improvement, for eternity! There was an alternative to doing that. There are quotes from that editor that contradict every other assertion that he's ever made about it made or expressed in any forum about the version I was redeveloping. Never, not even once did that admin find something not verifiable in my sandbox. Please note that the reasons the admin stated for the removal of my sandbox that he put forth at MFD and everywhere else were entirely his own fabrication and that he actually came back to my talk page afterwards to leave comments where he stated that of course what he had alleged in order to have my sandbox deleted wasn't entirely accurate and basically admitted deception which is precisely that which many others latched onto (specifically complaints stale, abandoned, not being reduced in size per his requests, Not-here Not-them etc.). Those efforts were not me.  That, was THEM; plainly displayed. These are inescapable facts with diffs that can bare out false allegations-easily. Please consider facts with diffs and examples before alleging [[WP:NOTTHEM]] behavior and repeating unfounded opinions  as alleged by others (without diff or links). [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - [[WP:TLDR]], your posts are way too long. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 16:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I know. I can't help it. [[User:Johnvr4|Johnvr4]] ([[User talk:Johnvr4|talk]]) 18:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Then we're in [[WP:CIR]] territory, and you might find yourself facing even stronger sanctions. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== Linking Trump with dictatorship ==
{{atop|status=no action at this time|result=The edits in question and their assosciated edit sumarries are clearly not acceptable, but appear to be an isolated incident. {{yo|HM2021}} should consider themselves warned against repeating this type of behavior. (Also agree that this should have been at ANI.) [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 20:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)}} 
I'm concerned about {{ping|HM2021}}'s recent edits at [[Donald Trump]] & [[Dictator]]. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:Absolutely inappropriate. We can include sources to the comments Trump's made about that, but saying he is/will be one in Wikivoice is a complete violation.<span id="Masem:1730947214750:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)</span>
:Edits  like this make me wonder what they've done in the past and should we be reviewing more then just today's edits. <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]</span>🍁 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::Indeed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::I am an innocent editor and the edits I made in the past are nothing to do with politics. Just LEAVE ME ALONE. I won't touch those two articles again I promise. [[User:HM2021|HM2021]] ([[User talk:HM2021|talk]]) 02:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Here are links to three of HM2021's edits here, two on Trumpty-Dumpty's page, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1255872901 the first] and the second, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1255873338 quotes that "America is DEAD" in the edit summary] and another on [[Dictator]], reading [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dictator&oldid=1255873472 "America is doomed"]. 
:::The first Trump vandalism was made at 02:29, November 7, 2024 and the second, which was a revert of removal of the first Trump vandalism, was made at 02:32, November 7, 2024. The Dictator vandalism was made at the same time as the revert HM2021 made on Trumpty-Dumpty's page, at 02:32, November 7, 2024. 

@[[User:HM2021]], don't try to pull a trick over on the admins with the ol' "{{tq|the edits I made in the past}} ... {{tq|I won't touch those two articles again I promise}}" card, when it hasn't been even a half-hour since your disruption was done. What in the sam hill were you thinking? This probably should have gone to [[WP:DRAMABOARD]] instead. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 02:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:This should probably be moved to ANI. While judging these edits to be unacceptable, let's also acknowledge the election stress this week. If these three edits are part of a pattern, I could see advocating for a topic ban but if this was a momentary lapse in an otherwise okay editing career, I think a warning is sufficient. But again, this seems like a case for ANI, not AN. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::haha, Liz! I think that's right. the editor probably got carried away. I was thinking the same thing about why GoodDay brought things here. eh, no matter anyways. <span style="background: cornsilk; padding: 3px;border:.5px solid salmon;">[[User:BarntToust|<span style="color:#7b68ee;">Barnt</span>]][[User talk:BarntToust|<span style="color:#483d8b;">Toust</span>]]</span> 11:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abottom}}

== Closure request for [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 28#Ivy Wolk]] ==

Would an admin please close [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 28#Ivy Wolk]]? The consensus is obvious, but only an admin can implement it. Posted here because no admins watch [[WP:CR]]. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 12:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|no admins watch WP:CR}} a rather bold statement given there are over 600 people watching that page. Seems statistically unlikely. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 13:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}}. I know plenty of admin who watch [[WP:CR]], and I personally used to keep an eye on [[WP:DRV]], but I took a break recently. Will try to help with backlog there when possible. [[User:Isabelle Belato|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏳‍🌈]]</sup></small> 13:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

== Can someone delete my Userpage User:Blidfried ==

thanks--[[User:Blidfried|Blidfried]] ([[User talk:Blidfried|talk]]) 17:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

:I've done this. If you have a request like this again please use <nowiki>{{U1}}</nowiki>. [[User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|Pickersgill-Cunliffe]] ([[User talk:Pickersgill-Cunliffe|talk]]) 17:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

== Redirect ==

I was trying to create [[ஃ (film)]] as a redirect for [[Aayutha Ezhuthu]], as the lead of that article notes: "The film's title was taken from the name of a [[Tamil letter]] [[ஃ]] – three dots corresponding to the film's three different personalities from completely different strata of society." But was hit with a blacklist warning.

Can this be created as a redirect?

PS: Not sure why this is in the blacklist in the first place, would be great to know the reason. Thanks. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 18:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{u|Gotitbro}}, is the film actually ''called'' that anywhere, or is it just where the name comes from? {{ppor|no}} [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 19:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::Indeed it is, the title is a direct transliteration of the letter after all, and from what I can tell the reason the letter isn't broadly used is due merely to technical reasons (in print and otherwise). See for example [https://old.thinnai.com/ஃ__இளமையான_பழையஆயுத_எழுத்/] and [https://www.hindutamil.in/news/supplements/hindu-talkies/129745-04.html]. [[User:Gotitbro|Gotitbro]] ([[User talk:Gotitbro|talk]]) 19:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Done}}. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 20:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:::As for the reason, the comment in the blacklist entry is "potentially confusing mixed-script titles." I can't tell you any more than that. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 20:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

== Min968 unban request ==
{{atop|status=unbanned|result=It has been three days with no serious objections. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 21:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)}}
By request, I'm posting {{np|Min968}}'s request for [[WP:UNBAN]] here. As a [[WP:CHECKUSER]], I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Min968 was originally blocked as {{np|Ylogm}} (see below) and was de-facto banned under [[WP:3X]]. I'm also reposting a follow-up question and response. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:I, Min968 (Ylogm), would like to request a reconsideration of my block. I now understand the importance of collaborating with other members and how crucial it is to work together to develop Wikipedia. I am an introverted person and not good at handling conflicts, which unfortunately led to a heated argument with @[[User:LlywelynII|LlywelynII]] and subsequently being banned without being able to defend myself. I then used a sock account to continue editing, which was a sign of my helplessness and lack of knowledge on how to handle the situation. I acknowledge that it was wrong, and I am committed to permanently stopping using sock accounts and contributing positively, while also respecting the opinions of other members and collaborating with them to further develop Wikipedia. Blocks are not punitive. I believe I need to be given an opportunity to correct my mistakes, a chance to contribute to the community. 

:My 5-year plan if the ban is lifted:
:# Rewrite articles about the Ming emperors 
:# Improve and write new articles related to the Ming dynasty (my main area of interest) 
:# Enhance some content related to the history of Vietnam and Korea 
:# Correct mistakes and develop projects related to Chinese eras (a project I have started and also where I have made mistakes and stumbled)

:My behavior on Wikipedia:
:# Adhere to maintaining neutrality and not obstructing the project. 
:# Interact with members in a polite and respectful manner. We are all anonymous, somewhere in this world, and we are all here with the common goal of developing Wikipedia. Sometimes there may be mistakes, but we need to maintain good intentions, keep a cool head, and respect each other. All members are human, even those who have made mistakes. 
:# Follow all of Wikipedia's rules. However, I do not believe that all rules are useful. Instead, I will lean towards resolving issues through discussion.

:Why I chose English Wikipedia and requested to be unblocked: I chose English Wikipedia simply because it is a large project, widely popular globally, and accessed and used by many people for information. I want to contribute and improve content related to Chinese history, specifically the Ming dynasty, and bring it to a wider readership around the world. Unfortunately, the content related to Chinese history is not well developed and lacks information. I myself have waited for almost 5 years to read articles about Ming emperors, but they have not improved during that time. Therefore, instead of waiting, I want to take action. [[User:Min968|Min968]] ([[User talk:Min968#top|talk]]) 11:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::Is there a reason you are not appealing this block from the Ylogm account? That will definitely be asked when this appeal is taken to [[WP:AN]]. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 01:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:::When I was blocked before, I didn't know what to do or how to explain things. Usually, I just create a new account to continue editing. When I created this account, I wanted to start fresh with a more positive attitude. And when I was banned on this account, I received positive and enthusiastic guidance from @[[User:Remsense|Remsense]], so I chose to stick with it instead of Ylogm. [[User:Min968|Min968]] ([[User talk:Min968#top|talk]]) 03:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:I spoke at greater length six months ago on their talk page, so I'll try to be briefer here. If anyone has any further questions for me, let me know.
:Firstly, Ylogm has a track record of worthwhile constructive editing in a highly important topic area (early modern Chinese monarchs) that can particularly benefit from additional motivated contributors. In the time I've been here, Ylogm was the only consistent contributor to many of these articles. In itself, that does not justify being unbanned. However, when they say they have learned from their mistakes and want to continue editing and making contributions here, I do believe them. I '''support''' unbanning them.
:Ylogm was originally INDEF'd for disruptive behavior, namely a lack of adequate communication while undoing edits and otherwise ignoring the editorial concerns of others on articles they were working on. To be clear, I do not think anyone but Ylogm did anything wrong here, but is worth noting that [[Special:Diff/1142699197#Wanli_and_Jianwen_Eras|the original ANI report]] was very brief, and the volume of prior communication concerning their conduct was limited—if normally sufficient as fair warning. They did not seem to understand why they had been blocked, which is on them. They then made this situation much worse by socking for a prolonged period, and rightfully earned this community ban. However, I do believe this to be the result of previous negligence, and not malice: if one accepts that they did not understand the social context, their attempted contributions consistently show a clear intention to be constructive during this time.
:I am not aware that anyone engaged in direct conversation with them about their conduct until March, when [[Special:Permalink/1254829945#March 2024|I made an attempt to reach out to them]] on their sock [[User:Min968|Min968]], after initially coming to this conclusion. As they didn't seem to understand, I attempted to explain their situation one-on-one, and they were immediately receptive to this. Their reaction reinforced my belief, and I felt I should be an advocate for their case. Then and now, I would like for them to continue making substantial contributions, if they prove capable of doing so constructively. It shouldn't be surprising then that I was acutely frustrated when it became apparent they did not immediately stop socking following my initial black-and-white dialogue with them at this time—given I had made this an explicit condition of my advocacy for them. If this appeal is not successful, I think this will be the most compelling reason why. 
:Even so, after being told they would would have to wait six months before their ban would be reconsidered, I believed them when they said they would do so. Given the comparatively compressed timeline of events where an apparent total lack of understanding had to be rectified, I find it plausible that they were caught in the process of recognizing the full extent of their mistakes for the first time in March. That is a confusing situation coming after months of previous confusions. I can't imagine everyone will come away with this conclusion, but I can only be honest in saying I remain convinced of Ylogm's unalloyed good faith. Now that the previous contingencies have passed, I also believe that they adequately recognize the how and why of their mistakes, and will behave competently in accordance with site policy going forward. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 23:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' per Remsense. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 23:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support''' Given the explicit support of Remsense, the moral support of LlywelynII, the constructive continued editing at Chinese Wikipedia, and the fact that they\ underlying issues were merely disruptive, not dangerous, I think it's fair to extend another chance. The one thing I would ask -- though my support is not conditional on it -- is that Min968 voluntarily agree to a one-account restriction from here on out, as I think it would be beneficial for all parties, including Min968. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 00:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unban'''. We could definitely use this editor in the Ming dynasty space. Last year I stopped reporting their socks because the contributions were constructive. The request is accurate: no one is improving these articles. Let's allow Ylogm / Min968 to help. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 01:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' As blocking admin of the Min968 sock (not the master), I'm staying neutral here. They absolutely had socked in the past, but if the community thinks that there's merit to allowing this user to participate again under the [[WP:STANDARDOFFER]] I'm fine with that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 05:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Support unban''' It seems that this editor misunderstood several important aspects of Wikipedia editing when they first began, and that was probably exacerbated by lack of deep fluency in the English language at that time. I think that the editor has made great progress since then, and has indicated a genuine seriousness of purpose regarding improving articles about the [[Ming dynasty]] and a commitment to follow policies and guidelines.  The only recommendation that I would make is that the editor also focus on the preceeding [[Yuan dynasty]] and following [[Qing dynasty]] to help place that Ming history into a broader context for students of Chinese history in the past 800 years. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::The difference here is that our Yuan and Qing articles have seen relatively more development and improvement by other editors; our Ming dynasty coverage is particularly weak, possibly the weakest of any dynastic period (haven't compared exhaustively: this is my impression).{{pb}}As an aside, since periodisation by dynasty has been so universal in Chinese historiography, and the political situation tended to change dramatically between dynasties (with some exceptions), it is common for people to have subject area expertise in a single dynasty while remaining largely novices in chronologically adjacent dynasties. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 14:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment''' {{tq|Follow all of Wikipedia's rules. However, I do not believe that all rules are useful. Instead, I will lean towards resolving issues through discussion.}} I find that a pretty suboptimal declaration in an unban request; we don't pick and choose which policies are followed based on our personal opinions about their usefulness, especially in terms of "resolving issues". [[User:Grandpallama|Grandpallama]] ([[User talk:Grandpallama|talk]]) 17:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::This is a good point. @[[User:Min968|Min968]], I want to stress a distinction here: the rules that are there in policy are basically the result of tested best common practices, and while dogmatically adhering to their letter is counterproductive, that's not the same thing as "they're not useful". <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 18:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
::I think this is a translation issue. I'd posit that the intent behind this statement is valuing discussion over mere rules adherence to prevent conflict (otherwise, {{tqq|Instead}} is {{lang|la|non sequitur}}, and {{tqq|Follow all... rules}} immediately disclaimed). I would be interested in hearing {{u|Min968}}'s clarifications on this at their usertalk. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 00:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
::Min968 has responded to this subthread on their talkpage {{diff4|old=1255092350|1=1254829945|2=in three diffs}}. [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support UnBan''' The request seems reasonable and I don't see any malicious behavior in their past editing. If this proves to be a mistake, correcting it takes three clicks and about six seconds. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 18:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - See no reason against this request. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 00:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
: Given the result above, would it be possible for an admin to undelete the articles created by Min968 accounts that were deleted per [[WP:G5]]? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
:: I undeleted two of them, but then I realized that the appear to be recreating the exact same article (most of their deleted contributions are blue now), so I'm inclined to let them do that rather than use admin tools. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 07:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

== Theparties unban request ==
{{atop|Open for more than a week without opposition to the unban. Low participation but worth recalling this is a block from over a decade ago (also that reblocks are cheap). Thanks to those who contributed and {{yo|Yamla}} thanks in particular for the clerking and checkuser. 

Per this thread, {{u|Theparties}} is:
#unblocked and 
#indefinitely topic-banned from [[Philippines]]-related articles, broadly construed. 
Topic ban can be appealed in six months, hopefully on the basis of a record of productive editing in other areas. -- [[User:Euryalus|Euryalus]] ([[User talk:Euryalus|talk]]) 07:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)}}

*{{userlinks|Theparties}}
*{{userlinks|23prootie}}

By request, I'm posting {{np|Theparties}}'s request for [[WP:UNBAN]] here. As a [[WP:CHECKUSER]], I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Theparties was originally blocked as {{np|23prootie}} and claims to no longer have access to that account. They were banned via [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive203#Ban_on_23prootie]]. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 22:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

:I learned my lesson. I know I should not evade a ban. And I promise that I would not do that again. I can pprove this by showing that the last time I have been caught, I actually volunteered to be caught. I did not have to admit to be a sockpuppet of 23prootie. But I admitted it showing my sincerity in turning a new leaf. I know it must be difficult to believe me but by showing that I have not ban evaded in the past few months shows that truly my intention is to follow the rules. I have been editing in the Simple English Wikipedia for the time being. Working on election articles for the Philippines. Please give me another chance. Please truly allow me to become a better editor. I also want to add tat I cannot use my original username 23prootie because I forgot the password and I do not have an email to connect it with. May this username be my reincarnation for a new and better opportunity to prove myself. 

:I request that a [[WP:Topic Ban]] on [[Philippines]]-related articles be instated for me in exchange of being able to edit again on unrelated articles.

:(Rename/usurp request snipped by me, Yamla, see talk page. The reason given by Theparties was "Reason: Forgot the password. No access to email.")

:[[User:Theparties|Theparties]] ([[User talk:Theparties#top|talk]]) 05:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

::'''Note''': The blocking admin for Theparties and the blocking admin for 23prootie are both no longer active. I did not notify them. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 22:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Has realized the mistakes and accepted a topic ban from anything related to the Philippines. That is more than enough. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 00:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Per above. As long they edit unrelated articles for too long, they might appeal topic ban in the future. Welcome back. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 11:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Guidance to participants at a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Gertoux|particular AfD]], please ==
{{atop
| result = David Eppstein put his mop to excellent housekeeping use. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 23:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
}}

[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Gertoux]] has descended into a somewhat arcane discussion about a religious concept rather than being confined to whether the biography being discussed should stay or go. I can't find an obvious place to ask for whatever guidance is available to participants to be given, so I'm hoping this is the right board.

I realise that the eventual closer is well able to disregard any off topic material, but their job will be easier if it is handled at this stage. What I perceive as clutter is becoming rather large and imposing. 🇺🇦&nbsp;[[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]]&nbsp;🇺🇦 08:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

:Perhaps not needed. {{U|David Eppstein}} has engaged in selective hatting of off topic material. Thank you, David. 🇺🇦&nbsp;[[User:Timtrent|<span style="color:#800">Fiddle</span><sup><small>Timtrent</small></sup>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Timtrent|<span style="color:#070">Faddle</span><sup><small>Talk&nbsp;to&nbsp;me</small></sup>]]&nbsp;🇺🇦 08:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Revdel ==

Hi, Could you please revdel [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DHICKYPEDIA&diff=prev&oldid=1254155438 this]? And blocked the talk page as well? [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|talk]]) 22:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:Looks like [[User:Secretlondon]] removed TPA back in October and [[User:Fathoms Below]] revision deleted that edit. So, all done here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
::The username alone is powerful evidence that this person came to Wikipedia only to troll. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 03:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

== User:94.64.80.27 ==

the IP 94.64.80.27 keeps adding unicode swastikas to the [[Scholz cabinet]] article. Please block immediately. <span style="color:#D33C3C"><span style="vertical-align:sub;"><span style="vertical-align:sub;line-height:180%"><span style="font-size:180%; vertical-align:sub;">⛿</span></span></span></span> [[User:WeaponizingArchitecture|<span style="color:#111111">'''WeaponizingArchitecture'''</span>]] | [[User talk:WeaponizingArchitecture|<span style="color:#111111">'''yell at me'''</span>]] 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:Done, blocked for one week. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 21:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
:I feel like this is the sort of thing that an edit filter should be able to catch... — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

== Forum-y discussion ==

Hi, there's a very [[WP:FORUM]]y discussion at [[Talk:British_Isles#Irrelevant_archaic_colonial_era_terminology]] which has been dragging on for months but is going absolutely nowhere. I'm involved so can't close it myself per [[WP:SUPERHAT]], but if anyone fancies chucking some {{t1|atop}} and {{t1|abot}} templates around it so we can all get on with our lives, that would be appreciated. [[User:Waggers|<b style="color:#98F">W</b><b style="color:#97E">a</b><b style="color:#86D">g</b><b style="color:#75C">ge</b><b  style="color:#83C">r</b><b  style="color:#728">s</b>]][[User talk:Waggers|<small  style="color:#080">''TALK''</small>]] 15:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:Yeah, that seems to be going nowhere fast.  I can't find any sort of actual suggestion from the IP as to what ought to be done and nobody agrees with them; I've collapsed the whole thread and suggested that if anyone has concrete suggestions and policy-based reasoning they should open a move request. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 16:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

== Red link example user ==

[[Red link example]] is permanently protected as a link that can be used in documentation and testing (note the page protection summary).

I have created [[User:Red link example]] for the same purpose.

Can someone kindly permanently protect the user, talk and sandbox pages, with an edit summary similar to the above? 

Once done, I will also request that the account be globally locked. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 21:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{Done}} [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Section resolved|1=Thank you. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 21:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)}}

== Self-nominations for the Arbitration Committee open ==

The self-nomination period of the Arbitration Committee elections is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024/Candidates|now open]]. The deadline for submitting a candidacy is 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== Is there a way to get an ENWP account blocked for multiple account abuse without filing an RFCU? ==

Hi there. I am editing on the Simple English Wikipedia, as well as this one, and this afternoon I've discovered an account on the Simple Wikipedia, belonging to someone who also has an account here.  [[User:Times Daily]] has been blocked indefinitely (on Simple) for abusing multiple accounts.  

The block was enacted by the administrator / checkuser [[User:Vermont]] on Friday November 1st 2024.     Without carrying out a CU here, is there any way of getting the user blocked on here too, since they have been active with similar articles to those written on the Simple site, or do you have to conduct a local CU for the English Wikipedia, too?   

The notice to the user is linked here: [[:simple:User_talk:Times_Daily#November_2024]].

Thank you.  [[User:DaneGeld|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:red">Dane</span>]]&#124;[[User_talk:DaneGeld|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#ffbf00">Geld</span>]] 17:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

:We'd need evidence that they have been abusing multiple accounts on this project. Do you know the name of the other accounts they used over there? [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 17:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::I don't.  I can check for an SPI over there, and see if their other accounts are listed.  I'll have to wait for a few moments, because I'm in the process of putting out the notices to the involved editors I've mentioned.  I'll get on it in a moment. [[User:DaneGeld|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:red">Dane</span>]]&#124;[[User_talk:DaneGeld|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#ffbf00">Geld</span>]] 17:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Girth_Summit}} - I can only see one on the SPI for Times Daily there, and that's [[User:The Unknown Explorer]], who has not edited this site.  They are however, connected.   Involved parties (Vermont and Times Daily) have now been notified of this thread.  [[User:DaneGeld|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:red">Dane</span>]]&#124;[[User_talk:DaneGeld|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#ffbf00">Geld</span>]] 17:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::::This has been an issue for over a decade, in that one CU block doesn't carry over to other projects and CUs rarely notify other affected projects in which the accounts have activity on. There is an additional process by filing the report on [[meta:Steward requests/Global]] to get a sockpuppet account global locked by stewards when this step should have been automatic. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 06:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::Ping to {{ping|JBW}}, who issued them a final warning; there are several issues with {{user|Times Daily}} that were flagged by multiple editors, including copyvios, trying to push a certain autobio with title evasion, and CIR concerns (calling readers 'viewers' in edit summaries for instance). <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 17:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
::I noticed only one, [[User:The Unknown Explorer]], and they have not made any edits to en.wiki.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 17:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*Based on the socking elsewhere and the disruptive editing here, I ran a check. They're a sock of {{noping|Top Gun X 4}}. Blocking, along with The Unknown Explorer (both {{confirmed}}). Blocking etc. [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 18:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== Edit filter manager request for non-admin ==
{{atop
| result = [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1256160391 Nom withdrawn] [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 03:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
}}

Hello all, there is an [[WP:EFM|edit filter manager]] application open for a non-admin. For information or to participate in the discussion, please see the [[WP:EFN|edit filter noticeboard]]. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 07:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT appointments, November 2024 ==

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to appoint the following user to the [[WP:CHK|CheckUser team]] following private and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/Rolling appointments/October 2024|public consultation]]:

*{{userlinks|TheresNoTime}}

In addition, the following administrators are appointed to the [[WP:COIVRT|conflict of interest volunteer response team]] following private and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports/October 2024 appointments|public consultation]]:

*{{admin|331dot}}
*{{admin|Robertsky}}

The Committee thanks everyone who participated and helped bring this process to a successful conclusion.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 01:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT appointments, November 2024}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 01:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== 84Swagahh unban request ==
{{atop
| result = Appeal accepted. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 03:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
}}

'''Request reason''':

:Hello members of the Wikipedia administration reviewing my request for unblock, It has been six months since my last request for unblock and editing activity on the English Wikipedia. Per the standard offer and other rules on Wikipedia, I have not used any other account or IP address to edit on any Wikimedia project during this block. In addition, I promise that I will not repeat the behavior that led to my blocks. This behavior including creating and abusing sock-puppet accounts, vandalism, harassment, disruption, and username policy violations. Lastly, I do not believe that given reasons for people to object my return. I have avoided bad behavior and contributed to other projects during my block. During this block, [[:simple:Special:Contributions/84Swagahh|I have been active on the Simple English Wikipedia]]. I have made over 1400 contributions and have not received any warning during my time. I reverted bad-faith edits using twinkle, gave those users warnings, nominated articles for deletion, performed copy-editing, welcomed new users, and expanded articles. I have applied for the roll backer permission and successfully earned it, meaning I am in good standing with the project's administration. However, I have not been as active with editing on the Simple English Wikipedia recently than I was the last 6-11 months. I still spent time reading articles on Wikipedia, but I just wasn't as active. I believe that this shows my efforts towards returning to the community and my ability to make positive contributions. Please note that this request was shorter than my last request in order to make it easier for administrators to review. If there are any questions for me, please ask me and I will respond to them. Thank you, 😂🤣[[User:84Swagahh|'''84Swagahh''']]🤣😂 [[User talk:84Swagahh#c-84Swagahh-20241108174300-Unblock Request through the Standard Offer|17:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)]]

Because he is banned via [[WP:3X]], I'm bringing the request here. There is no evidence of recent block evasion (see brief discussion at [[User talk:84Swagahh#Unblock Request through the Standard Offer]]). What he says about his activity on simple-wiki is true; there is some additional relevant discussion [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84Swagahh#c-Fehufanga-20240216034300-Coming_clean here]. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 21:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*Sure, I don't object. Editor seems to have matured some. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] ([[User talk:Drmies|talk]]) 00:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' – positive contributions at a sister project, meeting the [[WP:SO]]. Welcome back. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 01:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*Can we get some additional context on the initial block? Was it just blatant vandalism with multiple accounts? <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 12:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*:As far as I can tell, yeah. Examples (note datestamps): https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BulgariaWarrior -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*::In that case, '''support'''. Seems more mature, and there will be basically no cost if it turns out otherwise. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 20:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as the editor is a good-faith editor and has been productive on another project, but with the condition that they not edit from temporarily assigned devices from their school. [[User:CoffeeCrumbs|CoffeeCrumbs]] ([[User talk:CoffeeCrumbs|talk]]) 15:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' unbanning - I see no reason to not take this request in good faith and a spot-check of their contributions at Simple did not turn up any issues. <span style="color:green">[[User:ThadeusOfNazereth|ThadeusOfNazereth]](he/him)<sup>[[User talk:ThadeusOfNazereth|Talk to Me!]]</sup></span> 18:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== ACE2024 ==

In case you haven't noticed, [[WP:ACE2024/C]] is currently listing 3 candidates for the 9 open arbcom seats.  What strikes me about the three is that they are all either current or former arbs.  What is probably happening right now is what typically happens: there's a bunch of former arbs sitting on their hands and they'll add their names as the nomination window is nearly over.  I'm not saying that having former arbs is bad, but in the big picture, we need new blood to keep the thing going.  So all of you admins out there, please consider taking a step up and running for arbcom. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 02:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*I'll throw my hat in the ring if we get approval to unionize. I think the pay arbitrators get here is substandard compared to that of arbitrators in similar positions on other collaborative editing projects.{{pb 
}}Seriously though, how can there be 9 open positions? Isn't it typically 6? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*:It's typically either 7 or 8, depending on whether we're electing Tranche Alpha (7) or Tranche Beta (8). This year we're electing Tranche Alpha, so that's 7 positions, but Maxim and Firefly (both elected last year to Tranche Beta) recently resigned, bringing the number of open positions up to 9. --[[User:Rchard2scout|rchard2scout]] ([[User talk:Rchard2scout|talk]]) 08:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*:We could upgrade your boring, basic mop to a Smart Mop<sup>(TM)</sup>, would that do? -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 17:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{U|RoySmith}}'s concerns are really valid. All of the current candidates have already served more than one term within the past 8 years. I really encourage administrators with a year or two under their belt, particularly those who feel comfortable working as part of a team or who have experience with dispute resolution, to give this some thought. This isn't to criticize the experienced hands who have put themselves forward; it is to emphasize that "new blood" is essential for Arbcom to do its best work. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)  <small>Full disclosure, recently I was asked to consider running again this year (after about 10 years away), but having just come off the very intense work of the MCDC, I need to do more project-based work and less committee work for a while.</small>
*I was going to ask a question this morning about numbers etc, but Roy and Risker have now answered it. I wonder how many editors/admins are in my position — happy to help, a little hesitant given the burnout witnessed from consecutive Committees, somewhat hopeful that 10-12 other good options nominate so they don't have to, but will if numbers stay skinny. This might sound incredibly selfish but ArbCom does not seem like it would be 'fun' in the slightest; at best it could be considered rewarding. It's a big commitment (potentially two years) and that's a lot to ponder when considering throwing one's hat in the ring. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 09:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
**I'm in the same place, Daniel. I was an arbitration clerk for two years and I know how much work is involved at some points and how much criticism even the most functional committee receives. That leaves me with mixed feelings. It would help to hear some former arbitrators issue a sales pitch for why it was a rewarding experience. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
**:{{Ping|Liz|Daniel}} To a certain extent, many hands make light work. Obviously most of the committee needs to get involved in the big cases but we only have a few of those per year. You're both experienced admins so taking flak for a necessary but unpopular decision should be nothing new. I've been doing it for a year now and it's not as bad as I imagined so I'd encourage you both to run. If you really hate it, you could always resign at next year's election but new blood is important and so is having an election with enough candidates for it to be meaningful. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 11:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
**::I have enjoyed my experience on ArbCom, even though I have not been the most active. There are many roles within the committee, so members can work in the areas or topics that are most interesting to them. Moving checkuser blocks to the community has lightened our workload to devote more time to other activities. The admin tasks that I think are most similar to working on ArbCom are [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|AE]], unblock requests and [[Wikipedia:CheckUser|checkuser]]: those thinking about running can participate in those areas to see if they like that work. I strongly encourage anyone who is interested in ArbCom to run: I do not regret my decision and I feel like it is a fantastic place to help make Wikipedia better for its editors. Even if you are not successful, you can get some ideas on where you can find places to improve your skills on the admin side of Wikipedia. If anyone wants to reach out to me they are welcome to send me an email. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 14:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
''*Dracula voice*'' "We need ze blood! Ze fresh blood!" But seriously, yes we do need new folks on the Committee from time to time. I can say that it is one of the best and most rewarding things that I do in my life. It provides a lot of transferable skills. I also find it easy to do on the go, which is a real bonus over regular editing. Don't wanna be scrolling mindless social media? Why not try reading Arb discussions! Don't feel like you have to come in as a perfectly formed judicial decision machine. We need the same thing we need in admins: humble people willing to learn. The time commitment is different depending on your style. Some people go in sprints, some run a marathon; ArbCom needs both tortoises and hares to run well. I think the work that ArbCom does is important and really makes a difference. It's not all sunshine and roses, as various guide writers (see [[User:Barkeep49/ACE]]) have put more eloquently than me, but it's meaningful, engaging work. So if you're on the fence, I really do encourage you to throw your hat into the ring! Or if you know some whippersnapper who'd make a good choice, why not send them a message encouraging them to run? I would have never run if it were not for a community veteran who privately encouraged me to take the leap. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 17:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|I also find it easy to do on the go, which is a real bonus over regular editing.}} This, 1000%, is such a key selling point for me. I travel for work (far more than I'd like), and while I read Wikipedia/discussions/etc. every day, there are some days I just can't edit when travelling. Emails and just being across things are fine, but to sit down and actually edit on a plane or in a hotel just sometimes doesn't happen. Thanks for sharing your experiences CaptainEek, as well as HJ Mitchell and Z1720 above — it is genuinely appreciated. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 00:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, it's much easier to keep up with emails on a phone than it is to do any serious editing. If you're used to reading and digesting discussion threads in between daily life you'll probably find ArbCom quite manageable. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 00:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
*Until the WMF has a dedicated deputy general counsel and transparent budget and procedures for volunteer security/indemnification, I can’t countenance even standing for admin, far less Arbcom, even though I humbly suggest I would bring considerable experience and value to either role. I value my identity, job, and physical safety, and I cherish this project <small>(and, uh, have the litigation skills in spades for that role if it existed—and a proposed job description as an ongoing brain-doodling phone note)</small> but I’m going to stick to hyphenating compound modifiers and decapitalizing generic food names. I deeply appreciate the work of everyone who serves. I wish I felt comfortable being of more service. I’m just too scared of the trolls, and have too many IRL responsibilities to take on that enormous layer cake of anxiety with no expectation of support from the WMF. '''[[User:Julietdeltalima|<span style="color:#006600;font-family:Century Gothic">Julietdeltalima</span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Julietdeltalima|<span style="color:#806000">(talk)</span>]]'' 06:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*:ArbCom is covered by the [[foundation:Legal:Legal_Fees_Assistance_Program|WMF's Legal Fees Assistance Program]]. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 18:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*::To the extent of an unknown amount of “earmarked funds”, hence my budget transparency concerns. These cases get ''really'' expensive, really fast, because the obvious initial line of defense in many U.S. states (including California) is an [[anti-SLAPP]] motion, which requires accelerated briefing and discovery—and even though most such laws provide for the prevailing party (hopefully the WMF and volunteer(s)) to recoup attorney fees and costs of suit from the non-prevailing party, there is virtually never any ability or willingness for the loser to pay that award. Or they appeal. Either way, even the winner has to keep paying lawyers either to pursue the appeal or file motions as part of  collection efforts. I would need to know the extent of those “earmarked funds” and the policies regarding their distribution before I’d be okay taking on that risk. I can’t trust the WMF not to quit paying my legal bills because <strike>they purportedly ran out of money</strike> their “earmarked funds” got exhausted mid-case.  '''[[User:Julietdeltalima|<span style="color:#006600;font-family:Century Gothic">Julietdeltalima</span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Julietdeltalima|<span style="color:#806000">(talk)</span>]]'' 10:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*I note that there are now, about 62 hours from closing, 7 candidates for 9 seats, I presume (I have not followed the arbcom election messages) that if there are no more candidates than available seats all candidates will be successful, and that there will be no election. That can't be good. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Candidates still need >50% for a one year term, and >60% for a full two years, so an election would still be necessary. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 11:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Thanks for that {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}. You've put my mind partially at rest by showing that there is some quality control. It would still be better to have more candidates. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 12:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Here's hoping for the rush during the final 48. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::[[User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates]] is pretty good for those who may be on the fence. Clearly we need a few more good candidates. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 19:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::For more descriptions of what it's like to be an arbitrator, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitrator experiences]]. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 23:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*Glad to hear {{u|RoySmith}} and {{u|Liz}} are planning to add their names! :) How about some <s>straight-up peer pressure</s> other humble suggestions? Here are some folks I'd support (omitting a couple that I know I've nudged in the past and got a hard pass): {{ping|Red-tailed hawk|Firefangledfeathers|Novem Linguae|ScottishFinnishRadish|Rosguill|EvergreenFir|Girth Summit|Valereee|Joe Roe|Muboshgu}} (btw not expecting a response here -- just pinging in case you haven't thought about it) &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 21:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Candidates&diff=prev&oldid=1256140365 One step ahead of you]. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Well, there you go. I can pick 'em. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 21:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*:As a sitting member of the Ombuds Commission, I am ineligible. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 21:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
*:{{ping|Rhododendrites}} I'm flattered, and rather chuffed, that you would suggest I put my hat in the ring. Susceptible as I am to suggestion, I'm going through some IRL stuff at the moment which has taken me away from the project for much of the last few months, and which might do so again in the year ahead. I wouldn't want to make promises about my available time which I'm unable to keep. That said, if you put your name forward, as a very experienced and level-headed editor, I think you might get a lot of support... Best wishes, [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span>&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 00:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Understandable. Maybe next time. {{tq|if you put your name forward}} - oh heavens no. I'm just here to pester other people who would be good for it. :) &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 02:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Rhodo, I appreciate your confidence in me. But I'm not a spot in my life where I have the time to do the job of an arbitrator well, so I won't be running. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*ArbCom work seems it's even worse than closing long, difficult discussions. I can't imagine wanting to sign up for it, but those of you who do: thank you for your sacrifice, and I'll be praying for your wellbeing. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 02:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:What has kept me from throwing my hat in the ring, year after year, is that a) I enjoy the editing work I do now and that is pretty time-intensive and b) I don't want a repeat of my experience from my RFA which was grueling. But maybe arbitration candidates are treated more kindly than admin candidates. I do have a draft of a statement written up but I'm still undecided based on the two points I mentioned. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:: The biggest difference in the ArbCom elections is that the voting is secret, so you only have the question phase. That makes it less grueling in many ways, although even the questions can be tricky - I know I spent an hour figuring out how to answer a tricky question in my RfA but I guess I got it. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 05:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::Obviously I can't speak for ACE or EFA personally, but if you read the debriefs from the folks who just tried the admin elections, the general impression is that secret ballot made the whole thing pretty painless. Actually, one of the common complaints from the candidates who got more opposition is that they don't know what turned people off of them! The opposite of a gruelling RfA, really. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::<big>'''Note to anyone waiting until the last minute:'''</big> That would be right now. There are nine seats open and only ten applicants. You have two hours. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 22:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't know whether or not it was your message, [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]], but we got two more candidates in the final two hours. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I seriously feel a lot better. More candidates, to a point, are a good thing. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 05:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

== Request for Draft Creation: এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ ==

Hello administrators,

I am requesting assistance with creating a draft article titled "এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ". When I attempted to create it, I received a message indicating that the title is restricted due to blacklist criteria for Bengali language titles. This institution is a college in Ashuganj, Brahmanbaria, Bangladesh, and it aims to provide higher education to local students in a rural area with limited educational resources. Here is a brief overview of the college:

Establishment: February 2020
Founder: এ.কে.এম দুলাল
Principal: আহম্মদ উল্লাহ খন্দকার
Location: শরিফপুর, আশুগঞ্জ, ব্রাহ্মণবাড়িয়া, Bangladesh
Affiliation: Cumilla Education Board
EIIN Number: ১৩৯৬৫১
Facebook Page: akmdulaldegreecollege
Motto: "Education is Power" (শিক্ষাই শক্তি)

The college was established to provide accessible higher education to students in nearby villages, where such opportunities were previously limited. The college’s mission is to promote modern and scientific education to create a knowledgeable and self-reliant society.

Since I cannot create this page directly, I kindly request that an administrator help with creating the draft or advise me on how to proceed. Thank you very much for your assistance. [[User:A K M Dulal|A K M Dulal]] ([[User talk:A K M Dulal|talk]]) 04:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:A K M Dulal|A K M Dulal]] One thing that is necessary is to translate the name of the college into English, since this is the English Wikipedia. You'll also need to provide citations from independent coverage of the college in [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 04:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::There are similar educational institutions, like 'ফিরোজ মিয়া সরকারি কলেজ and বিএএফ শাহীন কলেজ,' which retain their Bengali names in English Wikipedia, indicating cultural significance. I believe 'এ.কে.এম দুলাল ডিগ্রি কলেজ' also holds local importance, providing essential educational services to underserved rural areas. I am also happy to include an English translation if needed, for example, 'A.K.M. Dulal Degree College.' Besides, I will ensure reliable sources and references to meet Wikipedia’s standards. [[User:A K M Dulal|A K M Dulal]] ([[User talk:A K M Dulal|talk]]) 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:Article titles [[WP:ENGLISHTITLE|must be in English]]. You should create a draft using the English name. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 04:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you for the guidance. I understand that article titles need to be in English, so I will create the draft as "A.K.M. Dulal Degree College." I will also include the Bengali name in the article introduction to honor its cultural significance, similar to ফিরোজ মিয়া সরকারি কলেজ and বিএএফ শাহীন কলেজ, which retain their Bengali names within English Wikipedia articles. [[User:A K M Dulal|A K M Dulal]] ([[User talk:A K M Dulal|talk]]) 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|A K M Dulal}} I can't tell what you're referring to{{snd}}[[ফিরোজ মিয়া সরকারি কলেজ]] and [[বিএএফ শাহীন কলেজ]] do not exist. [[User:Jlwoodwa|jlwoodwa]] ([[User talk:Jlwoodwa|talk]]) 08:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::But they do on Bengali Wikipedia. {{ping|A K M Dulal}}, if you want to write your article in Bengali please be aware that this page, and the instruction that article titles must be in English, only relate to the English Wikipedia. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 12:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::While you’re at it, please read [[WP:COI]]. [[Special:Contributions/100.36.106.199|100.36.106.199]] ([[User talk:100.36.106.199|talk]]) 11:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke]] closed ==

An arbitration case [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke]] (formerly titled [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion]]) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

* Yasuke is designated as a [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topic]]. Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.
* The article [[Yasuke]] is subject to a [[WP:1RR|1RR]] restriction for a period of one year.
* [[User:Eirikr|Eirikr]] is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
* [[User:Symphony Regalia|Symphony Regalia]] is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
* [[User:J2UDY7r00CRjH|J2UDY7r00CRjH]] is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
* [[User:Yvan Part|Yvan Part]] is topic banned from Yasuke, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
* [[User:Gitz6666|Gitz6666]] is warned that disruptive behavior will lead to increasing sanctions if they continue.
* [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] is subject to a one-way interaction ban with Gitz6666, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]] ([[User talk:SilverLocust|talk]]) 22:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Yasuke closed}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 22:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Please stop merging [[Mahsa Amini]] into [[Death of Mahsa Amini]] ==

[[Mahsa Amini]] article is going wrongly to merge into [[Death of Mahsa Amini]]. Merging these articles is wrong because both article are notable and specially where Mahsa Amini has received [[Sakharov Prize]]. I think a person who receive this important prize must have an article independently. Please stop merging these articles. [[User:AlijenabH|AlijenabH]] ([[User talk:AlijenabH|talk]]) 19:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:The merge is occurring due to the closure decision at [[Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini#Proposed merge of Mahsa Amini into Death of Mahsa Amini]]. Admins don't overrule consensus decisions on content. If they did, they'd likely be facing a recall discussion. You can try talking to the editor who closed the Merge discussion but it's unlikely to change the outcome of the discussion. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::That would be me, and they did, but I guess they were impatient, because they came here about half an hour later. I'm continuing the conversation at [[User talk:Compassionate727#Mahs Amini]]. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 23:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== Permission gaming after warnings ==
{{atop
| result = Uncle Ramon has been blocked (and globally locked) as an LTA. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 09:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
}}

[[User:Uncle Ramon]] seems to be making a ton of useless edits to user talk page to get to Extended Confirmed. They have been made aware that this is prohibited, but they have deleted that notice and continued, so here we are. [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|ABG]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/Report any mistakes here]]) </small> 06:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'm doing it because I can't post on someone's talk page because I need to talk to them about something and their talk page is extended confirmed protected [[User:Uncle Ramon|Uncle Ramon]] ([[User talk:Uncle Ramon|talk]]) 06:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:(I'm so dumb, I posted this in AN thinking this was AN/I...) There is always an option to request a decrease in protection level or reach the editor in a different way. [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|ABG]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/Report any mistakes here]]) </small> 06:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::What other way to reach them is there? [[User:Uncle Ramon|Uncle Ramon]] ([[User talk:Uncle Ramon|talk]]) 06:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::You can just ping them. <span style="background:#F1FEFE; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talking]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Win8x|spying]])</span> 06:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:I don't want to cast aspersions, but with recent LTA's always being here, I am led to believe they want to edit Qcne's talk page. The user could just tell us who's talk page they want to edit, but doesn't want to tell. <span style="background:#F1FEFE; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talking]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Win8x|spying]])</span> 06:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::Huh? Who's Qcne?
::<br />
::I'm not looking to contact that user, and their talk page isn't even ECP'd
::<br />
::I just looked upon going to that person's talk page [[User:Uncle Ramon|Uncle Ramon]] ([[User talk:Uncle Ramon|talk]]) 06:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Again, who are you trying to contact? We can contact them for you. <span style="background:#F1FEFE; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talking]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Win8x|spying]])</span> 06:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::But I don't want anybody to contact them tho
::::<br />
::::That's what I'm trying to get at
::::<br />
::::I want to be the one to contact them [[User:Uncle Ramon|Uncle Ramon]] ([[User talk:Uncle Ramon|talk]]) 06:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, this user came outta nowhere just today and they already know jargons like "ECP". I'm probably bad at assuming good faith here. [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|ABG]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/Report any mistakes here]]) </small> 06:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well you create an account and you already need to contact someone. There aren’t tons of ECP user talk pages. I want to assume good faith though, but I wanted others who see this report to consider the possibility. <span style="background:#F1FEFE; border-radius:5px; box-shadow:darkgray 2px 2px 2px; padding:2px 5px;">[[User:Win8x|win8x]] ([[User talk:Win8x|talking]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Win8x|spying]])</span> 06:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, because I just created an account 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure 2 months is enough to know what ECP is. [[User:Uncle Ramon|Uncle Ramon]] ([[User talk:Uncle Ramon|talk]]) 06:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::You started editing today. [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|ABG]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/Report any mistakes here]]) </small> 06:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::So just because I started editing today that means I didn't start READING Wikipedia until today...? 
::::::::
::::::::And I'm somehow supposed to magically assume that I don't know anything about the user permission rights because I just started editing today? [[User:Uncle Ramon|Uncle Ramon]] ([[User talk:Uncle Ramon|talk]]) 06:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Extended confirmed revoked. You can make a request to regain that permission after making 500 real edits. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 06:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Then how am I supposed to contact the person I want to contact if their talk page is extended confirmed protected? [[User:Uncle Ramon|Uncle Ramon]] ([[User talk:Uncle Ramon|talk]]) 06:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You’ve had plenty of offers to help. See above. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 06:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::And I already said I don't need their help. So I'm not sure why you… felt the need to take my extended confirmed privileges away. [[User:Uncle Ramon|Uncle Ramon]] ([[User talk:Uncle Ramon|talk]]) 06:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Gaming the system. You were warned multiple times. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 06:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::::Over a talk page?????? [[User:Uncle Ramon|Uncle Ramon]] ([[User talk:Uncle Ramon|talk]]) 06:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}{{u|Uncle Ramon}}, yes, this is over a talk page. The intent of the 500 edit requirement to achieve [[WP:ECP]] is to show convincingly that the editor is learning about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. An editor who repeatedly adds just another period to a long list of periods that does not improve the encyclopedia in any discernable way is learning nothing of value and is "gaming the system". That is what you have been doing, and if you want to have a conversation with another editor whose talk page is protected due to harassment, then there legitimate ways to do so, such as pinging that editor to this conversation. Your refusal to do so and reluctance to explain yourself indicates that your intentions are not productive. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'm not pinging them here because I dont want to ping them, I want to post on THEIR talk page. I already explained myself several times so I'm not being reluctant AT ALL to explain myself, y'all just dont want to listen. I said I wanted to post on another editor's talk page and I wanted to start the conversation from there, on THEIR talk page. Not anywhere else. I'm not understanding why the fuck y'all take a privilege away from somebody that already EXPLAINED their intentions and then refuse to give it back to them, when there shouldnt fucking be a  restriction on the other page in the first place. [[User:Uncle Ramon|Uncle Ramon]] ([[User talk:Uncle Ramon|talk]]) 07:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Following their permissions being revoked, they have left [[Special:Diff/1256719042|this message for rsjaffe]].  Given the wording used, I don't think they understand the situation to put it mildly.  --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 07:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}
[[WP:RBI]] [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== IP hopper back at the Help Desk ==

There's an IP hopper back at the [[:WP:HD]] posting stuff like [[:Special:diff/59.2.2.106/1256921141|this]]. This kind of thing has been happening on and off at various pages (e.g. [[:WP:THQ]]) for awhile now and seems to resume eventually [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=protect&user=&page=Wikipedia%3AHelp+desk&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist whenever the PP runs out]. There seem to be [[:Special:diff/14.133.119.168/1255877417|different versions]] of essentially the same post being added, but they're all in non-standard fonts. I think some of the accounts have been blocked, but that hasn't slowed this person down. Is there any thing that can be done outside of page protection? I don't have much experience with [[:WP:LTA]], but it appears this might be one of those cases. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 06:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:The disruption seems to have stopped for now; so, perhaps nothing needs to be done at the moment. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 07:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::I am sorry but probably nothing can be done. May be some ranges can be blocked but they seem to use multiple ranges. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 07:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::This now seems to be being discussed in more detail below at [[#Seeking opinions: protection of the help desk and teahouse]]; so, perhaps this thread can be closed. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 21:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== Flamewar at [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions]] over BilledMammal ==
{{atop
| result = Issues resolved, editors aware of the proper location(s) to raise concerns should they arise again. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 03:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
}}
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback#User:BilledMammal]] ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&oldid=1257012662#User:BilledMammal permalink])

{{u|BilledMammal}} was recently granted rollback permissions by {{u|Just Step Sideways}} and used those permissions to mass-revert {{u|CarmenEsparzaAmoux}}, a blocked sockpuppet. {{u|Makeandtoss}} and {{u|Zero0000}} (an admin) are now arguing at that thread the permissions were wrongly granted.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_permissions%2FRollback&oldid=1256934462#User:BilledMammal] Both of them should be told to knock it off.

First of all, RFP is not the right place for that discussion as both editors were warned by {{u|Extraordinary Writ}}, an uninvolved administrator, though they have continued arguing. Second of all, Extraordinary Writ and other admins have explained that to {{tq|revert edits by banned or blocked users in defiance of their block or ban (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)}} is an acceptable [[WP:ROLLBACKUSE]].

I would appreciate it if uninvolved administrators can step in and close that thread since RFP isn't the appropriate forum for lengthy discussions of tool use. I'd also like a clear consensus over whether or not rollback was acceptable here. 

For full context, Makeandtoss and BilledMammal were involved in a dispute over the Palestine-Israel topic area that made it to [[WP:AE]] in June, and the use of rollback occurred within that area. Makeandtoss was given a final warning by {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}} {{tq|for behavior that falls below the required level required when editing in contentious topics}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive333#Makeandtoss_and_M.Bitton] and previous battlegroundy behaviour in the area. There is probably a further conduct issue that can be dealt with here or at AE, but '''the immediate action should be to close the RFP thread.''' <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 19:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:I agree that PERM is not a place for debates. I've shut it down. I don't think that was an INVOLVED action as all I did was respond to the intial request, not the ensuing argument. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 19:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::You conflicted my edit! [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::And you thanked me for it. Go team. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 19:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

No idea what the justification is of this use of rollback[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calls_for_the_destruction_of_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1256956311], not reverting a blocked editor in any case. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 19:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal&diff=prev&oldid=1256961528] [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::For the lazy: it was an accident. I definitely misclicked rollback within a day of getting the permission, and I bet at least half of our rollbackers/admins have done the same. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 19:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Fun fact: although I work permission requests semi-regularly, I hate the rollback function, I use a script that blocks it (if you didn't know, admins have no choice whether they have it or not), and I use Twinkle instead. It's too easy to make mistakes with normal rollback. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I hit a rollback button accidentally several times a week (much more often than I rollback anything), so I also use that blocking script, and rely on Twinkle for rollback. [[User talk:Donald Albury|Donald Albury]] 19:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::When I got my admin tools rollback showed up on my watchlist. As I edit from my phone pretty often and mistaps are common, I immediately sought out help and installed a script to hide it before I got desysop'd for cause. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 19:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::This has happened to me before when I try to edit on my phone. Looking at a page history, the link to look at an edit/diff is right next to the link to rollback and I've misclicked. Luckily, you can rollback a mistaken rollback. I've stopped doing much work on my phone if it involves looking at individual edits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I am actually using a script which blocks rollback on my watchlist (the highest chance to misclick due to banners on top loading slowly) but not on page histories or user contributions. I have a global rollback, but I do not think this matters. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|talk]]) 22:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I use one to shrink the rollback button so that I am far less likely to accidentally click it. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 03:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::The remove rollback script is at [[Wikipedia:User scripts/List#Rollback/reverting]]. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 22:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::::There is a gadget that will require a confirmation before clicking. <span class ="nowrap vcard"><b><span class="fn">[[User:NightWolf1223|<span style="color:green;">NightWolf1223</span>]]</span> &lt;[[User talk:NightWolf1223|<span style="color:green;">Howl at me</span>]]&bull;[[Special:Contributions/NightWolf1223|<span style="color:green;">My hunts</span>]]&gt;</b></span> 20:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::The best mobile environment on offer for Wikipedia editing (Monobook with the "responsive mode" option enabled) automatically turns on this confirmation in small screen mode. In practice, that means I get a confirmation dialog on my phone but not on my laptop. No idea whether similar features exist in other skins. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 21:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I still believe there's an issue here. Makeandtoss appears to have a grudge against BilledMammal and ignored repeated attempts to de-escalate at [[WP:RFP/R]]. Would [[WP:Arbitration Enforcement]] be a better location for that thread? I'm asking for permission as [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] precludes me from bringing up the same topic at two noticeboards. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 19:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::[[User:Chess]]:You got it the wrong way around: BilledMammal seem to have a grudge against  Makeandtoss (and Nableezy, and me, and anyone else who isn't pro-Israeli enough). I haven't seen  Makeandtoss filling [[WP:ARB]], [[WP:ARCA]], or [[WP:AE]] with reports about BilledMammal, but I have literally lost count over how many times  BilledMammal has reported his "adversaries" these last couple of weeks, [[User:Huldra|Huldra]] ([[User talk:Huldra|talk]]) 21:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I would concur that BilledMammal has been demonstrating a bit of a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] attitude of late that is somewhat alarming. Granting them extra tools at this time and seeing them possibly mis-used is alarming. [[User:Simonm223|Simonm223]] ([[User talk:Simonm223|talk]]) 13:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well, that would be the third noticeboard you bring me into today. The claim that the respectful discussion at RFP/R was a "flamewar" is misleading. As for the other claim, are you really arguing that if someone filed a report against me in the past I am not allowed to dispute any of their editing behavior in the future? [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 20:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::"Flamewar" may be a slight overstatement, but [[WP:PERM]] is not a noticeboard, and not the right place to bring up such concerns, valid or not. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 21:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Okay sure, if I have new relevant concerns I will open a discussion elsewhere; though I will note that PERM is listed as a [[WP:Noticeboards|noticeboard]]. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 21:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{re|Makeandtoss}} I want you to recognize that following BilledMammal to [[WP:PERM]] and opposing user rights grants is not appropriate in any situation. It wasn't a respectful discussion, you were told by an administrator to knock it off twice and kept going for days.
::The correct place to bring up improper usage of permissions is at this very board. That's why I asked for {{tq|a clear consensus over whether or not rollback was acceptable here}} and why I redirected the discussion to this thread.
::Right now, you've made a non-apology and are insisting that because PERM is technically a noticeboard, it was appropriate to post there. That's not the right attitude. I would rather you acknowledge you were mistaken, and when you receive a warning from an admin in the future, to look at your own actions and correct course ''before'' a thread like this. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 22:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:I’m not going to get too involved in this discussion as doing so would probably increase tensions, but [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#RFC_signer|this discussion]], regarding objections to my signing of an RFC with a timestamp, was opened by Makeandtoss a day before the objections at RfPP, with the same editors participating. Personally, I’ve considered them related. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 22:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
The permission was granted by Just Step Sideways without commenting on the doubt that {{ping|Fastily}} had just expressed. I stated my opinion there, gave examples of what I believe is misuse of the tool, and noted that I am involved in the area. (Despite what Chess claims in this make-trouble posting, Extraordinary Writ said nothing to me.) Then the conversation was shut down by Just Step Sideways with the comment that we should take it up on BilledMammal's talk page. However, BilledMammal was just being BilledMammal. My comment was to Just Step Sideways, who in my opinion should have looked at BilledMammal closer before granting this unusual power and should have undone the mistake when informed of how it was used. And [[WP:ADMINACCT|should reply]] when their administrative actions are questioned (disagreement is fine). The issue isn't whether sock edits can be reversed—everyone knows it is allowed—but whether a protagonist in a contentious area should be given the ability to make mass reverts '''without looking at them''' in that area at all. In my opinion it shouldn't happen and I would never consider using my administrator access to the tools to do mass reverts like that (vandals excepted). I would look at the edits and keep what is good for each article, which was quite a lot in this case. By the way, calling that discussion a "flame war" is absurd. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 01:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{re|Zero0000}} {{tq|Then the conversation was shut down by Just Step Sideways with the comment that we should take it up on BilledMammal's talk page. However, BilledMammal was just being BilledMammal.}} What does this mean? You never left a comment at BilledMammal's talk page, could you elaborate why not? [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BilledMammal&action=history] The only comment is about the accidental rollback.
:I also don't understand how this is a make-trouble posting. You and Makeandtoss clearly believe BilledMammal acted in error. We are now at the venue where that error can be corrected. Why am I, a non-admin, being forced to create a thread on the Administrators' Noticeboard to get you to properly discuss your concerns with other admins? <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 02:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:: Gimme a break. "Both of them should be told to knock it off." is not a request for discussion. Nor are your subsequent comments. They are an accusation and request for action, neither of which have the least justification. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{re|Zero0000}} My point is that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback&diff=prev&oldid=1256757764 this comment] wasn't the best idea. <span class="nowrap">[[User:Chess|Chess]] ([[User talk:Chess|talk]]) <small>(please [[Help:Talk pages#Notifications|mention]] me on reply)</small></span> 04:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Zero0000|Zero0000]] I’ve always treated blocked socks edits as something that could be reverted basically without looking at them. Other people can look at them and restore the ones they want, which is what happened here, but the removals themselves are a non-issue imo. What I wish actually existed was a way to auto strike a sock of a banned editors comments on talk pages. The whole point of BMB is that, regardless of if they are good or bad, edits by a banned editors are by definition disruptive and can be removed. Somebody used a more efficient way to remove them, good for them I guess. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  05:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::It would actually be very easy to create a bot or user script like that - I no longer have the time, but you could ask at [[WP:BOTR]]. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 14:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Incidentally, WP:PERM is by design a place where decisions are made over whether someone should be given an elevated permission. I don't see why that should exclude objections to the result when the case file is still there. The record is better served by keeping it together than by moving it somewhere unrelated. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 04:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:The perm was granted already, there's not really a need to argue or continue the discussion there as opposed to a talk page or noticeboard. At this point, from my point of view, the only thing to consider is whether they have violated [[WP:ROLLBACKUSE]], which it does not seem like they have (minus a misclick, which happens). So, until they do, it's best to just let it be with your original objections having been noted at the request. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:: I agree, and I never had any intention of commenting on it further until Chess decided to make an AN case out of it. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 02:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

{{Clear}}
== Samantha Crawford (soprano) page nofollow index help ==

I am hopeful someone can help me here. I have made significant improvements to the article "[[Samantha Crawford (soprano)]]", ensuring that it complies with Wikipedia's notability guidelines by adding reliable, third-party sources. These sources clearly establish that [[Samantha Crawford (soprano)]] is a notable soprano, with significant international performances, verified recordings by verified music labels, and media coverage. I’ve carefully reviewed the criteria for biographies of living persons and have incorporated independent references that demonstrate her impact in the opera and concert world. Could an admin please advise on the next steps to have the "<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow,max-image-preview:standard">" tag removed? I would appreciate any guidance on addressing any remaining concerns about notability or sourcing. Thank you for your time and assistance. I have tried addressing this on my talk page but have received no answer, so hoping I'm in the right spot here. -EB Eshbowman [[User:Eshbowman|Eshbowman]] ([[User talk:Eshbowman|talk]]) 14:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:Hi. What's your connection to the subject? There's certainly some promotional language in there that needs removing. [[User:Secretlondon|Secretlondon]] ([[User talk:Secretlondon|talk]]) 14:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:It will be no-indexed until it's marked reviewed by an editor with [[WP:NPP|new page patrol]]. Please see [[WP:NOINDEX]]. As an aside, the article appears to be quite promotional. Do you have a financial or other relationship with Crawford? If so, you must declare a conflict of interest per our [[WP:COI|conflict of interest policy]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 14:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::I think the article should be moved to draft. I just took a quick spin and it's not ready for mainspace. A lot of references don't support the points being made, there were copyvios and too close paraphrasing. It reads still like a resume, not an encyclopaedia article. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:And you '''must''' reply to the concerns raised on your userpage regarding undeclared paid editing before editing articles any further. I also note that concerns were raised 8 years ago ([[Special:Permalink/1257159884#Paul Appleby (tenor)]]) that you failed to address. These need to be directly addressed now. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 16:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yeah. Wanting mostly to remove the noindex to allow search engines to find it means that they're more interested in the promotional purpose than encyclopaedic. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 16:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Which, as it happens, is ''precisely why'' we use [[nofollow]] to discourage linkspam. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] <sup><small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small></sup> 17:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
:noindex will be removed when the page is reviewed. I could be wrong, but I believe nofollow is built into the site infrastructure. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 00:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== i want to create userpage about me ==

can you create userpage of Jean Ngatcha this is my name. [[User:Jean Ngatcha|Jean Ngatcha]] ([[User talk:Jean Ngatcha|talk]]) 08:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Jean Ngatcha}} You are free to edit [[User:Jean Ngatcha]] to tell about yourself as a Wikipedia editor or user, not necessarily to tell anything and everything about yourself.  Please see the [[WP:USERPAGE|user page policy]] as to what types of content are acceptable (and not acceptable) for user pages.  Writing an '''article''' about yourself is entirely different, and highly discouraged, please see the [[WP:AUTO|autobiography policy]]. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 09:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

== Unban request for Kansascitt1225 ==

{{np|Kansascitt1225}} is considered [[WP:CBAN|banned by the community]] due to extensive sockpuppetry, see [[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Kansascitt1225]]. They are requesting the ban be lifted and I am posting their request below. As a [[WP:CHECKUSER]], I see no evidence of recent block evasion. Their request from August 16 indicates they haven't evaded in eight months, so that would make it about 11 months now. I lost track of this unban request due to [[2024 Jasper wildfire]] and [[COVID-19]], my apologies to Kansascitt1225 for making them wait so freaking long to start this discussion. I have ''very slightly'' altered the request to nowiki the references, to make them more obvious on this discussion page. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 20:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

:Hi admins, I have not edited Wikipedia since December of 2023. I was unable to continue responding to my last request due to personal circumstances and going out of town. I have demonstrated that I can follow simple, clear instructions which shows I am able to abide by community rules and not bypass my block. I would appreciate being given wikipedias standard offer. I promise to not use multiple accounts which is the behavior that got me blocked to begin with. Most of these accounts were improperly used for persistent block evasion. I don’t want to give anyone anymore reasons to object. I know now that if I have a disagreement with someone I can talk on the talk page or on their user talk page instead of edit warring or creating an account. I have learned that civility is important on Wikipedia too and have become easier to get along with as I am older now also. I want to make constructive edits to Wikipedia and am interested in demographics and geography along with world and cities populations. I am trying to keep this short and I promise that I don’t intend to be disruptive to the project at all. I know it was a problem on my investigations case page me objecting to “largely suburban” on the Johnson county pages. I truly believed I was doing the right thing as I was always taught where I was growing up that a suburb was a more car centric place that is less dense within commuting distance of a city which is currently what the [[suburb]] page says now. I intend to edit this page to educate people that sometimes especially in the US that suburbs is where most jobs are located. In the case of Kansas City this suburban area and the municipalities within it have lower single family housing rates, more jobs, more population and higher density than the city with some suburbs walking to work more than the city. I wanted to make this clear. I do have good references for this including from the us census bureau. I think the main issue I had with the content is that calling the communities like Overland Park and Johnson county “suburban” makes people think that more people commute out than into these places and that these places are less dense and have more single family housing, which is the complete opposite of reality. I won’t remove anything about these communities as being suburban but want to include that they have more density, more jobs and lower single family housing rates so people don’t get confused. I also edited a while ago (more than 6 months) the [[Economy of St. Louis]] page and showed how white flight influenced the city’s economy as it was the same for [[Economy of Kansas City]] and wanted to edit the page to make it more accurate instead of saying the economy is anchored by Kansas City Missouri even though there’s more jobs outside the city than within it. I have edited these before while blocked but not within the last 8 months. I want to make constructive edits to improve the encyclopedia and working cooperatively with others is what I intend on doing. I was also upset that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johnson_County,_Kansas&diff=prev&oldid=874081850 this] was removed as biased, misleading and false to the point the page was protected and from my point of view I felt as though I was being blatantly lied too. It’s a well known fact that Kansas City has experienced decades of white flight and urban decay and I think I was also caught off guard by people in Kansas City calling these places suburbs meanwhile them having these characteristics.

:- Here are some references 

:• States that Most United States jobs are in the suburbs <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url= https://www2.census.gov/about/training-workshops/2021/2021-05-19-led-presentation.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-continue-dominate-jobs-and-job-growth#:~:text=Most%20Jobs%20Growth%20Since%202010,overall%20combined%20share%20of%20employment.}}</ref></nowiki>

:• States that Single family detached homes are less common in some of the suburbs compared to city in the Kansas City area. <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=DP04&g=160XX00US2053775,2938000}}</ref></nowiki>

:• Shows that there is a  Higher population density in some of the suburbs of Kansas City <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-area/Missouri/Kansas-City/Population#figure/place/population-density}}</ref></nowiki>

:• comparison that shows people walk to work more in some of the suburbs than the city <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=commute&g=160XX00US2938000}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://data.census.gov/table?q=commute&g=160XX00US2039350}}}</ref></nowiki>

:[[User:Kansascitt1225|Kansascitt1225]] ([[User talk:Kansascitt1225#top|talk]]) 09:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' The blocking admin is {{np|Berean Hunter}}. They have not been active for more than four years so I did not notify them. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 21:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Frankly, this unblock request reads as a promise to continue to [[WP:RGW]] on a specific topic ({{tq|I intend to edit this page to educate people that sometimes especially in the US that suburbs is where most jobs are located.}}), rather the opposite of what we want from editors. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 18:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:The following comment copied over from User talk:Kansascitt1225. Minor formatting changes from me, around references. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 19:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
::Hi {{ping|HandThatFeeds}} thank you for reading my unblock request. I’m not sure if you read these references or not, but the overwhelming majority of jobs are in the suburbs in the United States. In Kansas City for example only around 4% of jobs are in the central business district and only 30% of the Kansas City areas jobs are in the city of Kansas City, Missouri. Could you please explain how this would be tendentious editing so I can avoid it the future ? I can’t find any evidence for the contrary and genuinely do want to work cooperatively with others and I honestly don’t see how this is breaching Neutral point of view.  

::*Census publication <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url= https://www2.census.gov/about/training-workshops/2021/2021-05-19-led-presentation.pdf}}</ref></nowiki>

::*Website article <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newgeography.com/content/005264-suburbs-continue-dominate-jobs-and-job-growth#:~:text=Most%20Jobs%20Growth%20Since%202010,overall%20combined%20share%20of%20employment.}}</ref></nowiki>

::*Sample of jobs in central business districts. <nowiki><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.demographia.com/db-cbd2000.pdf}}</ref></nowiki> <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kansascitt1225|Kansascitt1225]] ([[User talk:Kansascitt1225#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kansascitt1225|contribs]]) </small>
:::Honestly, this just proves my point: rather than building up trust in the community by doing ''literally anything else'', the user wants to go back to an area to {{tq|educate people}} that they are right, and is arguing over sourcing rather than [[WP:CIR|understanding that their behavior is the problem]]. Kansascitt1225, if you want any hope of ever being unblocked, you should step away from this topic entirely and work on something else. If this is the ''only'' thing you're interested in working on for Wikipedia, I'd suggest just moving on to some other site. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 20:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Kansascitt should move on to different projects. I'd suggest taking pictures of subjects that are highly needed in articles, Commons is all about contributing with highly educational value images. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 00:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

== Arbitration motions regarding ''Palestine-Israel articles'' ==

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
;[[Special:Permalink/1257490232#Motion_1:_Appeals_only_to_ArbCom|Motion 1: Appeals only to ArbCom]]:
{{ivmbox|When imposing a [[Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Contentious_topic_restrictions|contentious topic restriction]] under the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict|Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic]], an uninvolved administrator may require that appeals be heard only by the Arbitration Committee. In such cases, the committee will hear appeals at ARCA according to the [[Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#On_community_review|community review standard]]. A rough consensus of arbitrators will be required to overturn or amend the sanction.}}

;[[Special:Permalink/1257490232#Motion 2b: Word limits|Motion 2b: Word limits]]:
{{ivmbox|Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within the area of conflict. These word limits are designated as part of the [[Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Standard_set|standard set]] of restrictions within the [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict|Arab-Israeli conflict contentious topic]]. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions.}}

;[[Special:Permalink/1257490232#Motion 2c: Word limits|Motion 2c: Word limits]]:
{{ivmbox|All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. This motion will [[Sunset provision|sunset]] two years from the date of its passage.}}

;[[Special:Permalink/1257490232#Motion 5: PIA5 Case|Motion 5: PIA5 Case]]:
{{ivmbox|1=Following a request at [[WP:ARCA]], the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the interaction of specific editors in the [[WP:PIA]] topic area. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case: 
* The case title will be ''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5|Palestine-Israel articles 5]]''.
* The initial parties will be:
**{{User|BilledMammal}}
**{{User|Iskandar323}}
**{{User|Levivich}}
**{{User|Nableezy}}
**{{User|PeleYoetz}}
**{{User|Selfstudier}}
**{{User|האופה}}
* {{U|Aoidh}} will be the initial drafter
* The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added or the complexity of the case warrants additional time for drafting a proposed decision, in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
* All case pages are to be semi-protected.
* Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to {{nospam|Arbcom-en|wikimedia.org}}. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.}}

;Addendum
In passing motion #5 to open a ''Palestine-Israel articles 5'' case, the Committee has appointed three drafters: [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]], [[User:HJ Mitchell|HJ Mitchell]], and [[User:CaptainEek|CaptainEek]]. The drafters have resolved that the case will open on November 30. The delay will allow the Committee time to resolve a related private matter, and allow for both outgoing and incoming Arbitrators to vote on the case. The drafters have changed the party list to the following individuals:

* {{User|BilledMammal}}
* {{User|Iskandar323}}
* {{User|Ïvana}}
* {{User|Levivich}}
* {{User|Nableezy}}
* {{User|Selfstudier}}
* {{User|האופה}}
* {{User|AndreJustAndre}}
* {{User|IOHANNVSVERVS}}
* {{User|Alaexis}}
* {{User|Zero0000}}
* {{User|Makeandtoss}}
* {{User|Snowstormfigorion}}

The drafters reserve the right to amend the list of parties if necessary. The drafters anticipate that the case will include a two week evidence phase, a one week workshop phase, and a two week proposed decision phase.

The related ''[[Special:Permalink/1257485532#Arbitration_enforcement_referral:_Nableezy,_et_al|Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy et al]]'' request has been folded into this case. Evidence from the related private matter, as alluded to in the ''[[Special:Permalink/1257322693#Covert_canvassing_and_proxying_in_the_Israel-Arab_conflict_topic_area|Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area]]'' case request, will be examined prior to the start of the case, and resolved separately.

For the Arbitration Committee, [[User:SilverLocust|SilverLocust]]&nbsp;[[User talk:SilverLocust|💬]] 05:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Arbitration motions regarding Palestine-Israel articles}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 05:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Change to the CheckUser team, November 2024 ==

At their request, the Arbitration Committee restores the CheckUser permissions of {{userlinks|Spicy}}.

On behalf of the Committee, [[User:Sdrqaz|Sdrqaz]] ([[User talk:Sdrqaz|talk]]) 18:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
: Discuss this at: '''{{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Change to the CheckUser team, November 2024}}'''<!-- [[User:ArbClerkBot|ArbClerkBot]] ([[User talk:ArbClerkBot|talk]]) 18:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC) --><!--Template:hes-->

== Titleblacklisted page creation request ==

I would like to request the creation of [[Draft:○△□]], to translate jawiki good article [[:ja:○△□ (絵画)|○△□ (絵画)]]. [[User:AlphaBetaGamma|ABG]] <small> ([[User talk:AlphaBetaGamma|Talk/Report any mistakes here]]) </small> 23:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:Done. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

== 15.ai behavioral issues. ==
{{atop|result=I'm going to be bold and close this discussion as it has descended into evidence-free accusations and conspiracy theories by relatively new accounts. This is not what [[WP:AN]] is for which are questions that need to be considered by the administrator community like block reviews, unban requests and larger questions about the project. This is not a free-form discussion forum. If you believe there is sockpuppetry going on, make a report at [[WP:SPI]]. If you believe there is vandalism going on, make a report at [[WP:AIV]]. But, as I said, cases like this belong at [[WP:ANI]] and I encourage this complaint to be reposted on that noticeboard. But know that continuing to make accusations against other editors without providing evidence could lead to a block of your account for making personal attacks. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)}}
{{userlinks|HackerKnownAs}}

{{userlinks|RocketKnightX}}

{{pagelinks|15.ai}}

The article [[15.ai]] has numerous issues which I have called attention to on the talkpage. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1251951829] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1251806363]. The article was recently subject to an edit war [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1248943919][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1248943622][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1248942493][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1248942493][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1248941586] which made it to DRN [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#15.ai]], however, the process has ultimately failed as after the moderator instructed editors to implement the change[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1253169677] as [[User:HackerKnownAs]] a clear [[WP:SPA]] [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/HackerKnownAs] who demonstrates [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOR]] behavior[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1&diff=prev&oldid=1253384815] toward the article arrived and has reverted the agreed upon edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1253330183] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=next&oldid=1253330183][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1257385166] as well as reintroduced multiple problems to the article in terms of misrepresented sources as well as sources which are considered unreliable. The editor in question has characterized my removal of unreliable sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1251775425][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1251797364][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1251746629] as {{tq|removal of well-sourced content followed by claims of insufficient citations is particularly concerning}} despite the fact that the sources I removed were declared unreliable per [[WP:WEGOTTHISCOVERED]] or in the case of Andrew Ng's The Batch, were marked as unreliable when the article was still a draft {{tq|A large portion of the sources used are not reliable, notably The Batch, which appears to be the personal blog of Andrew Ng}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&oldid=1072335666], but once the article was released from Draftspace the editor who is now vanished reinserted Andrew Ng as an erroneously flagged minor edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1074150423]. Likewise, at the recent request for protection the user has presented my conduct [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1257386400] as a {{tq|large amount of nonconstructive edits}}. The [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15.ai|AfD]] for the article was interfered with by [[WP:SPA]] vote-stuffing[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1135933989][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1135224026][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1134483927][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1134457478]. Other concerning events include the wholesale deletion of a talk page thread about potential [[WP:COI]] editing by a now-blocked IP editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:15.ai&diff=next&oldid=1090462519]. Coupled with demonstrable evidence of off-site coordination in editing the article on 4chan (which is demonstrable in the archived 4chan thread used as a source in the article) and the apparent failure of the [[WP:DRN]] and the continued edit warring by [[User:RocketKnightX]] and [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOR]] from [[User:HackerKnownAs]], I am raising this concern to the Admin Noticeboard. --<b>[[User:BrocadeRiverPoems|<span style="font-family:vivaldi; color:Purple;">Brocade River Poems (She/They)</span>]]</b> 00:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

:I am currently away from my computer at the moment, but I would like to point out that it is very interesting that this user has conveniently omitted any mention of her accusatory, sanctimonious, and frankly alienating behavior (despite being a relatively new editor herself) that she has been called out for in the past. I will make a more detailed post when I get back, but I urge anyone reading this to take a look at the article’s edit history (and note the perennial participant of the persistent edit wars in the last few months) as well as her alienating comments on [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/15.ai/1]] and wonder why she neglected to mention how she refused to elaborate on her unfounded accusations based solely on circumstantial evidence. [[User:HackerKnownAs|HackerKnownAs]] ([[User talk:HackerKnownAs|talk]]) 01:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:RocketKnightX seems to lack the sufficient maturity to edit Wikipedia, judging by the comments like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ltbdl&oldid=1248933846#What_did_I_told_you_about_vandalizing?!%F0%9F%98%A1 this one]. [[User:Ca|Ca]] <i><sup style="display:inline-flex;rotate:7deg;">[[User talk:Ca|talk to me!]]</sup></i> 02:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::I think this situation is more relevant to ANI than AN if you would like to move it to that noticeboard. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::: +1.  Thanks for summarizing the recent edit wars, the most recent seem to involve experienced trolling as well.  Suitable for [[WP:ANI|ANI]].  <span style="color:#666">&ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Sj|SJ]][[User Talk:Sj|<span style="color:#f90;">&nbsp;+</span>]]</span> 03:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, RocketKnightX and HackerKnownAs are tag-teaming to keep the article against consensus. 
:Note that all of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=HackerKnownAs HackerKnownAs edits] are related to AI and 4chan, which is how this mess started in the first place.
:See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=SirGallantThe4th SirGallantThe4th], the GAN reviewer, only edits are to chess topics and 15.ai. [[Special:Contributions/180.129.92.142|180.129.92.142]] ([[User talk:180.129.92.142|talk]]) 04:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::I do not know this person and I have never interacted with them. What are you people on about? Do the admins not see that these people are actively discouraging people from contributing to Wikipedia with this dishonest conduct? This kind of harassment needs to stop. [[User:HackerKnownAs|HackerKnownAs]] ([[User talk:HackerKnownAs|talk]]) 04:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::This is a tactic HackerKnownAs often engages in, accuse everyone of everything and see what sticks. (Also, you don't need to interact with someone to tag-team with them.) [[Special:Contributions/180.129.92.142|180.129.92.142]] ([[User talk:180.129.92.142|talk]]) 04:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I have always attempted to be cordial when interacting with editors on Wikipedia. I have also tried to always assume good faith as per [[WP:GOODFAITH]], but the OP seems to not have the same courtesy, as she feels the need to throw out repeated baseless accusations of COI and SPA editing to multiple editors ([[WP:GOODFAITH]]), repeatedly bringing up other editors' contribution histories and patterns ([[WP:HOUND]]), and having an underlying hostile tone in repeatedly questioning others' credibility and motives ([[WP:CIVIL]]). Also, possibly a violation of [[WP:OUTING]] (or at least getting close to it) by extensively tracking and documenting other editors' patterns and suggesting connections to off-wiki groups?.
::::I do not know what incidents you are referring to when you say I "often engage" in accusatory and underhanded behavior. I really am bothered by this entire exchange. 
::::And to repeat, '''I do not know who RocketKnightX is and I have never collaborated with them.''' I have interacted with SirGallantThe4th only when requesting a GA review, and have not interacted with him since other than when the article was under GA review, as was expected. [[User:HackerKnownAs|HackerKnownAs]] ([[User talk:HackerKnownAs|talk]]) 04:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::> Also, possibly a violation of WP:OUTING (or at least getting close to it) by extensively tracking and documenting other editors' patterns and suggesting connections to off-wiki groups?.
:::::So you admit you've engaged in off-wiki co-ordination? [[Special:Contributions/180.129.92.142|180.129.92.142]] ([[User talk:180.129.92.142|talk]]) 05:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, I have '''never''' engaged in off-wiki coordination; I invite anyone here to scrutinize my edit history. I mostly stay around articles that I find more comfortable writing about. There is nothing wrong with that.
::::::I am frankly disturbed that this is even being suggested when I have made major contributions to several articles in my spare time. It seems hypocritical that OP dismisses IP editors' positions as inconsequential (as well as those of SPA editors), yet faces no backlash when these same "suspicious" editors support her position. There is a clear double standard happening here and I simply have not been paying enough attention to the politics of Wikipedia to point out every single time she has been doing this. [[User:HackerKnownAs|HackerKnownAs]] ([[User talk:HackerKnownAs|talk]]) 05:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::So, no violation of outing. Understood. [[Special:Contributions/180.129.92.142|180.129.92.142]] ([[User talk:180.129.92.142|talk]]) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::[[Special:Contributions/180.129.92.142|180.129.92.142]], this is the Administrators' Noticeboard. Just because this is an open discussion doesn't mean you can cast aspersions and accuse editors of misconduct without providing evidence. If this continues, you will be facing a block. Like a registered account, you must abide by Civility, even when discussing disagreements. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Ok, understood. I will look for evidence. [[Special:Contributions/180.129.92.142|180.129.92.142]] ([[User talk:180.129.92.142|talk]]) 06:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::Like many disputes in Wikipedia, this is both a content dispute and a conduct dispute.  I acted as the mediator for discussion of the content dispute at [[WP:DRN|DRN]].  The content dispute concerned what should be listed as the status of the web site in the infobox.  The DRN thread was [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_250#15.ai]].  (The filing editor was then indefinitely blocked for conduct unrelated to [[15.ai]], and I continued the mediation because there were still editors in good standing who had a content dispute.)  RocketKnightX was listed as one of the editors, and made a brief opening statement, but did not take part in further discussions until the other editors reached an agreement to say that the web site had been abandoned.  The article was revised as discussed.  At this point RocketKnightX reverted the revision and disagreed.  I asked RocketKnightX if they wanted to take part in moderated discussion, but they did not answer.  Since there was disagreement as to content that could not be resolved by discussion, I first asked if I should start an RFC, and then launched an RFC.  The RFC is currently in progress at [[Talk:15.ai#RFC_on_Status_of_Web_Site]].  The content dispute should be resolved by allowing the RFC to run for a month.  [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 05:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::good one brocade make the brigading more obvious
::the gaslighting in this thread is insane yall are why i left the server lmfao its screwed up [[User:Rin6626|Rin6626]] ([[User talk:Rin6626|talk]]) 00:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:See [https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=15.ai&users=HackerKnownAs&users=RocketKnightX&server=enwiki Editor Interaction Analyzer on 15.ai].
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1256837185 20:29, 11 November 2024], RocketKnightX reverts 15.ai one last time and disappears.
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1257242591 23:27, 13 November 2024], HackerKnownAs returns from 18 day absence ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/15.ai/1&diff=prev&oldid=1253385021 last edit before that] was defending 15.ai) and requests page protection of 15.ai. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=15.ai&diff=prev&oldid=1257385166 Then reverts, 17:13, 14 November 2024].
:These two edit 15.ai when the other is absent.
:See [https://sigma.toolforge.org/timeline.py?page=Talk%3A15.ai%2FGA1&users=HackerKnownAs&users=RocketKnightX&users=SirGallantThe4th&server=enwiki Editor Interaction Analyzer on Talk:15.ai/GA1].
:SirGallantThe4th reviews 15.ai in '''1 hour and 24 minutes''', after 1 response from HackerKnownAs.
:([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:15.ai/GA1&diff=prev&oldid=1092651241 start], <'''51 minute''' gap>, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:15.ai/GA1&diff=prev&oldid=1092658223 response], <'''33 minute''' gap>, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:15.ai/GA1&diff=prev&oldid=1092661941 end])
:This is insanely quick, and is a sign of co-ordination. [[Special:Contributions/180.129.92.142|180.129.92.142]] ([[User talk:180.129.92.142|talk]]) 06:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::No, none of that is evidence. I've seen quicker GA reviews, start to finish—in fact, a recent one of mine, [[Talk:Checheyigen/GA1]], took 29 minutes from opening to closing. I hope you're not accusing myself and the reviewer of off-wiki coordination? [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 10:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Of course not. The difference being you're not a single purpose account. [[Special:Contributions/180.129.92.142|180.129.92.142]] ([[User talk:180.129.92.142|talk]]) 10:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:just so yall know, theres a discord server thats been trying to troll this community over the last half year trying to get this page removed by sockpuppeting and getting anyone who reverts it banned and the op (brocade) is in on it, notice the young account ages of the edit war actors and ip accs all over here [[User:Rin6626|Rin6626]] ([[User talk:Rin6626|talk]]) 00:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::im replying with my ip cause i want to prove im not on an alt btw [[Special:Contributions/174.110.109.110|174.110.109.110]] ([[User talk:174.110.109.110|talk]]) 00:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::I don't believe you for a second, but email your evidence to the Arbritration Committee at arbcom-en{{@}}wikimedia.org if you're telling the truth. [[Special:Contributions/180.129.92.142|180.129.92.142]] ([[User talk:180.129.92.142|talk]]) 03:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::I did think it was especially peculiar that editors are acting so hostile and trying to discredit people who are just trying to help Wikipedia by spinning up accusations out of nowhere (for example, the above IP editor falsely claiming that I am a single purpose account when I've received multiple thanks from various other editors for my contributions). I am not surprised at all that there has been a coordinated effort behind this.
::This article has been treated as a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] with only one side consistently being the aggressor. [[User:HackerKnownAs|HackerKnownAs]] ([[User talk:HackerKnownAs|talk]]) 03:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:I have found this: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=361116#p361116
:It appears that this user in question ([[User:BrocadeRiverPoems]]) has a history of sockpuppeting/alting and virulently defending ideologically driven edits, particularly those related to Yasuke, while engaging in hostile and aggressive behavior towards other users who disagree with their position. I would very much like an admin to look into the disruptive editing patterns and possible sockpuppeting activities of this user, particularly in relation to the ongoing edit wars and harassment on the article.
:This blatant dogpiling should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. [[User:HackerKnownAs|HackerKnownAs]] ([[User talk:HackerKnownAs|talk]]) 03:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::You're really good at steering the topic away from yourself. Point is, you are still reverting against consensus on 15.ai. [[Special:Contributions/180.129.92.142|180.129.92.142]] ([[User talk:180.129.92.142|talk]]) 04:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I am certain you are part of the circle of sockpuppetry that was mentioned in the link above. You have been nothing but consistently hostile toward me and are happy to fabricate evidence if it means trying to discredit me, which is exactly what BrocadeRiverPoems has done as well. This behavior is appalling. [[User:HackerKnownAs|HackerKnownAs]] ([[User talk:HackerKnownAs|talk]]) 04:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Where have I fabricated evidence? 
::::As for some mysterious "circle of sockpuppetry", bullshit. You mean to tell me that SuperStain, Thought 1915, Ltbdl, Brocade River Poems, Aaron Liu, North8000, Sj, BarrelProof, DrawWikiped, and Cooldudeseven7 are all socks? If anyone has a "circle of sockpuppetry" it's you and Rin6626, a 4 hour old account who's only edits have been to make wild claims about Brocade River Poems, which you also have been doing. [[Special:Contributions/180.129.92.142|180.129.92.142]] ([[User talk:180.129.92.142|talk]]) 04:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Deleted article question ==

The articles [[:Max Israel]] and [[:Y.Chroma]] were created by a new account yesterday, but I'm almost certain that [[:Special:diff/Marchjuly/1233839276|they previously existed]] and ended up deleted for some reason. Is there any way to get a look at the page history of a deleted article that ends up being recreated under the same name? I'm also pretty sure the files used in the articles were previously uploaded and deleted too. I think the articles and files were created by [[:Special:DeletedContributions/Toopus|this account]] but don't have the required permission to access the page. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 12:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
* I have deleted the former as it was identical to the one previously deleted for reason G5.  For obvious reasons, I have also indeffed the creator of this version (who also re-uploaded the same images). Equally, I toyed with the idea of draftifying the latter article but I've now deleted that as well. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 13:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*: Thank you for checking on this {{u|Black Kite}}. Is there any way a non-admin can "check" to see whether there were deleted files and articles which were subsequently recreated under the same name? I tried the [[:Special:Log]], but it seems as if the recreation of the pages somehow "removed" any record of their deletion from the log. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 13:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] when you look at the history you can see it's deletion history up top under View Logs for this page. [[User:Mcmatter|McMatter]] <sup>([[User talk:Mcmatter|talk]])</sup>/<sub>([[Special:Contributions/Mcmatter|contrib]])</sub> 13:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thanks for that. I didn't know about that. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 13:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Hello, [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]], you can also search here, [[Special:Undelete]], although it will only identify deleted pages with the exact title you are looking for. It will not help with variations on a page title. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 02:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks for that bit of info. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 03:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Non-admins can't use Special:Undelete. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 03:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::[[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]], I know it won't show deleted content but I thought it would show an editor that there had been a page at the specified target that had been deleted. It would show that a page had existed but was deleted, kind of like a page log would. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Unfortunately it does not, but [[User:SD0001/deleted-metadata-link]] does something similar. [[User:Jlwoodwa|jlwoodwa]] ([[User talk:Jlwoodwa|talk]]) 07:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Sorry, it looks like I was mistaken. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

== Abusive message from ip user ==

Not sure if this is the right place to report a user, but I've just received an abusive message from this IP user –

[[User:2600:1700:DF20:1A40:60CC:31BD:7F38:C78B]]

There are no contributions on their page, so I can't figure out why they have done this?.. 

[[Special:Diff/1257718291|this was the message they left]]

Thanks – 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 '''[[User:L1amw90|<b style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS','Courier New',Verdana; color: green;">L1amw90</b>]]'''&nbsp;&nbsp;([[User_talk:L1amw90|🗣️ talk to me]] 09:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:The IP has only made a single edit but I blocked the 2600:1700:DF20:1A40:0:0:0:0/64 range for a month. People can change IPs and it does not matter who is behind the IP. Best to ignore them. The right place to report this is [[WP:ANI]] but here is fine. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 09:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

== Persistent IDHT and disruptive fabrication of Wikipedia policy ==
{{ANImove}} <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Southasianhistorian8|Southasianhistorian8]] ([[User talk:Southasianhistorian8#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Southasianhistorian8|contribs]]) 17:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)</small>

== InfoWars link ==

Could someone with the permission to add and edit these links please change the link at the bottom of the [[InfoWars]] article from <code>infowars'''(dot)'''com/contributors</code> to <code>infowars'''(dot)'''com/</code>, because the contributors page doesn't exist at the moment. Thank you. [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|🍀]]) 02:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:You should make a request at [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::Well that's ... not how I thought this works. I don't want it whitelisted everywhere. Guess that's not possible then. Thanks. [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|🍀]]) 03:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::: The /contributors link is whitelisted everywhere. We don't normally whitelist domain roots for reasons explained at [[MediaWiki talk:spam-whitelist/Common requests#The official homepage of the subject of a page]] [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 04:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Apparently we can use "{{tq|a neutral landing page like the site's "about" or "information" page}}". Their /about page is online; I'll go ahead and request a whitelisting for that. Thanks Pppery. [[User:Nythar|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#36454f;">'''Nythar'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Nythar|💬]]'''-'''[[Special:Contributions/Nythar|🍀]]) 05:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Of note, there's currently [https://apnews.com/article/alex-jones-infowars-auction-onion-how-d42e7b2c916205b348628686c8b8dd4a a legal dispute] over the new ownership of the site, so it may be a bit premature to make any changes to whitelisting anything. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 17:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well we still need a link to the site and the current one is broken. Whitelisting one page briefly is easily reversed if needed. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 18:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

== Courtesy un-pblock for deceased user ==
{{atop
| result = Unblocked per original admin's request, nothing further needed here. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 18:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
}}

Hey all. Back in July 2022, I partially blocked {{vandal|JohnClarknew}} from three articles that he had been editing in violation of [[WP:COI]], including his disclosed IRL identity, [[John Clark (English actor)]]. I didn't love making that block, as Clark was one of our oldest active editors (89 at the time), but there was no way around it. It came to my attention today that [https://archive.ph/20230802213223/https://www.facebook.com/johnclarknew/posts/pfbid02p4Tubdt4M2gtrYe8T8jSwZBBiyEErjyGgLuamxJC4zzycSMR8k6isLmnWQiNvqH9l Clark died] about a year after that. While he's far from the first blocked user to die, in other cases where I've seen that happen it's been someone who was siteblocked and not really part of the community anymore. Clark, though, was still an editor in good standing at the time of his death, would even still have been eligible to vote in ArbCom elections if he hit activity requirements. So given his 3,000-plus mostly-positive edits and the fact that the block cannot any longer serve any purpose, would a current admin consider lifting the block I placed? Thanks. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe]])</small> 22:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:Unblocked, will request glock. Is it norm to create a redlinked userpage for a deceased editor with {{t|deceased}}? [[User:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred;">charlotte</span>]] [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|<sup style="color: darkred;">👸♥</sup>]] 22:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::I don't actually recall a time I've dealt dealt with a deceased user with a redlinked userpage, but I've gone and created one with {{tl|deceased}} and a link to his mainspace bio. I'll add something brief at least to [[Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/2023]]. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]&#93;</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe]])</small> 22:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== TP:ACEMM not subbing properly ==

I'm currently multitasking a bunch of stuff right now, and it would appear {{tlx|ACEMM}} is not substituting properly.  The Ivmbox is not rendering in substitutions.  I would normally debug this myself, but my hands are full right now.  Could someone take a look at why this isn't working? —[[User:Cyberpower678|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">CYBERPOWER</span>''']] <span style="font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:red">Message</span>]])</span> 23:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Izno}} since you work on this template mostly, can you check why it's not substing correctly?—[[User:Cyberpower678|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">CYBERPOWER</span>''']] <span style="font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:red">Message</span>]])</span> 23:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:I had no issue substing it on [[User:Izno/Sandbox]] besides the image being squished that I am looking at right now. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::I did a bit of under the wire tinkering.  The subst was leaving out ALL styling information initially.  I would appreciate it if you could maybe could push my attempted repairs over the finish line? —[[User:Cyberpower678|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">CYBERPOWER</span>''']] <span style="font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:red">Message</span>]])</span> 01:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

== Revdel? (Can’t use oversight) ==

I read the big red box at the top, but I was directed here by people at the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse|WP:TEAHOUSE]]. I’m requesting that all of my edits under this /64 range until the ones I made after my block expired get revdeled as I am ashamed of them and want to move on. I already emailed the oversight team and they said they would not do it under any circumstance. [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2|2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2]] ([[User talk:2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2|talk]]) 02:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:If it helps IP, no-one here knows who is behind a particular IP, your IP keeps changing, and it is a vanishingly small number of people who will ever see the contributions from an IP range. The easiest way to move on is just to move on, nobody else will be thinking about the edits. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::I’m really not sure. I know people have monitored my /64 in the past, and it is easily searchable by users (even if I don’t know how to do it myself). [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2|2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2]] ([[User talk:2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2|talk]]) 03:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I am sure. The people who might look up the /64 edits to Wikipedia are a subset of editors who notice an edit, of which a subset would actually check other contributions from that single IP, and an even smaller subset who would think to and know how to check higher ranges. Even of those who check, they would not assume that the other contributions on the range are from the same person. Best, [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

:Hello, [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2|2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2]],
:Are you the editor who was arguing about the Fictosexuality article? I was just looking at that ANI discussion from October the other day. First, I hope you are feeling better now. Secondly, if you hadn't specified an editing range, I never would have connected your current IP account with those previous edits. I doubt that you will be randomly assigned the same exact IP again. I think you can consider yourself anonymous. Finally, the Oversight team is correct, we don't revision delete edits that might be embarrassing later, only edits that are deeply offensive (racist, homophobic, etc.), violate our [[WP:BLP|Biography of living persons]] guideline, like posting personal information or copyright infringements. I'm sure that ALL editors here have edits from their past that they wish they could erase but in the name of transparency, all of that information is logged and available for view. 
:But, as I said before, if you don't connect your present account to that IP range, like you did here, I doubt any editor or admin will be looking into edits from that IP range. If I were you, I'd consider this as a new start and wish you luck editing on the project. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::I don’t really feel better, particularly about that topic you mentioned, but don’t worry about me.
::Frankly I’m just glad the embarrassing block notice that shows up when you try to edit is gone, I have other family members who share my IP. [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2|2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2]] ([[User talk:2603:8001:C2F0:7D0:F49C:577B:752D:55E2|talk]]) 03:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

== Need an RFC closed ==
{{atop}}

[[Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline]] has been open for about a hundred days now, with no comments for the last couple of weeks.  It's the oldest discussion listed at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests]].  It's a long discussion, but I don't think it's the most difficult, so please let me encourage you to write a nice summary for us.  Thank you,  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:How did it go unnoticed for so long? [[Special:Contributions/118.104.245.6|118.104.245.6]] ([[User talk:118.104.245.6|talk]]) 07:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::I don't think it's gone unnoticed.  It takes a long time to read a long discussion, and not everyone can set aside a block of time. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I have ambitions to get to it eventually, but I committed to that mess of a discussion at [[Talk:International Churches of Christ]], so that takes priority for me. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 19:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]] has closed this. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Request to Review and Remove "Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS" ==
{{atop|result=[[WP:FORUMSHOP]], discussions relating to this and two other similar articles are underway at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsa, the Tigress of Siberia]], [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsa, Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks]] <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 19:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)<br>'''ETA''' Both noms [[WP:SNOWBALL]]ed. <span style="font-family: Roboto;">'''[[User:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:royalblue4">Nate</span>]]''' <span style="color:#00008B">•</span> <small>''([[User_talk:MrSchimpf|<span style="color:#B8860B">chatter</span>]])''</small></span> 00:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)}}
I am requesting a review of the article "Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS" due to its explicit content and significant societal harm. The article describes a 1970s exploitation film featuring a Nazi officer engaging in sexual acts with prisoners. My concerns include:

1. **Promoting Harmful Ideologies**: The article glorifies sexual violence and Nazism, presenting these in a way that risks promoting unhealthy fantasies among immature male audiences.

2. **Stigmatization of Common Names**: The use of the name "Ilsa","Anata" and so on associates it with degrading depictions, causing real-world stigmatization and bullying for individuals with this name.

3. **Unsuitable for Public Platform**: This article is inappropriate for an open-access platform like Wikipedia, which is used by people of all ages, including minors.

4. **Timing of Creation**: The article was created decades after the film's release, in 2022, raising questions about the motivations behind its creation and its compliance with Wikipedia's policies on notability and neutrality.

5.

I strongly urge the administrators to review this article and consider its removal or severe content restrictions to uphold Wikipedia's responsibility as a neutral and appropriate public platform. [[User:Zaimingmingde|Zaimingmingde]] ([[User talk:Zaimingmingde|talk]]) 19:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Zaimingmingde|Zaimingmingde]], you've commented at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS]], which is the appropriate location. The discussion there will determine whether the article is kept or deleted. [[User:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#066293;">'''Schazjmd'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Schazjmd|<span style="color:#738276;">''(talk)''</span>]] 19:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Enable the mergehistory permission for importers|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) §&nbsp;RfC: Enable the mergehistory permission for importers]]==
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: Enable the mergehistory permission for importers|Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) §&nbsp;RfC: Enable the mergehistory permission for importers]].  [[User:Chaotic Enby|<span style="color:#8a7500">Chaotic <span style="color:#9e5cb1">Enby</span></span>]] ([[User talk:Chaotic Enby|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Chaotic Enby|contribs]]) 12:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->

== Cut-and-paste move and draftification; unclear how to proceed ==

{{userlinks|MD Hydrogen 123}} did a [[WP:C&P|cut-and-paste move]] of [[:2024–25 Federation Cup (Bangladesh) group A]] to [[Template:2024–25 Federation Cup (Bangladesh) group A]] following a message placed on their talk page asking if they meant to create the article there. I then requested a [[WP:HISTMERGE|history merge]] on the latter page, but withdrew this request after reading [[WP:NOTHISTMERGE]], since MD was the only significant contributor to either page. Between the request and withdrawal, {{userlinks|Cooldudeseven7}}, unaware of the C&P move, draftified [[Draft:2024–25 Federation Cup (Bangladesh) group A|the page]], meaning that the original page and the moved page now had diverging histories. I was going to nominate the now draft for G6 deletion, but I don't think that applies, because it is not holding up a clean move. [[User:JJPMaster|JJP]]<sub>[[User talk:JJPMaster|Mas]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JJPMaster|ter]]</sub></sub> ([[She (pronoun)|she]]/[[Singular they|they]]) 02:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:I've deleted the draft per G6 as it was created in the incorrect namespace and no other substantive edits were made to the page requiring a HISTMERGE. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 02:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you! [[User:JJPMaster|JJP]]<sub>[[User talk:JJPMaster|Mas]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JJPMaster|ter]]</sub></sub> ([[She (pronoun)|she]]/[[Singular they|they]]) 03:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

== Thanks! ==

Hello all Wikipedia Admins! I am just here writing to thank you all for the great work you do, and how you all make this an amazing place to be and contribute. I couldn't love more, the feeling of accomplishment and satisfaction I get from editing here and I plan to stay for as long as possible! Please keep up the good work. Have a wonderful day! [[User:Completely Random Guy|Completely Random Guy]] ([[User talk:Completely Random Guy|talk]]) 22:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:Hello, [[User:Completely Random Guy|Completely Random Guy]],
:Speaking for admins, we don't hear a lot of "thank you"s on this noticeboard. It looked like you had a rocky start as an editor on this project but luckily, you stayed around and continued to contribute. Admins are really just here to remove disruptions to allow content creators to get to work. So thank you for your contributions! <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
: You're welcome. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 05:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for editing wikipedia! -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 03:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

== Is WP:RECALL a policy? ==
{{Discussion top|result=There is a consensus that [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall]] should not be marked as policy. Some editors noted that the discussion adopting it as policy was widely advertised and disapproved of this discussion being a basis to undo that. Other editors countered that said discussion was not a sufficiently robust basis to establish [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall]] as policy because many were nevertheless unaware of the discussion, some people did not participate because the question was confusing, and the RfC was not specifically about whether the procedure should be policy (rather, it was about whether to have a process). Many editors find it idiosyncratic that a procedure like recall could have binding force but not be policy, but other editors noted that [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] is the same way; editors also noted that [[Wikipedia:Policy]] defines a policy by {{tq|wide acceptance among editors}}, which the turmoil from the recent recall petitions shows that [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall]] does not yet have. Overall, the arguments that the discussion did not establish the {{tq|high level of consensus from the entire community}} ([[WP:PROPOSAL]]) required to adopt it as such were stronger than the arguments that it did.{{Pb}}Nothing about this closure should be construed as disestablishing the recall process, which remains in force. <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 14:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)}}
In her otherwise decent close of [[Special:PermanentLink/1253547916#Administrator Recall]], {{u|Maddy from Celeste}} specified that {{tq|Wikipedia:Administrator recall shall be marked as a policy}} and then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_recall&diff=prev&oldid=1253548400 did so]. The problem is that the RfC did not ask if the page should be upgraded to a policy nor did anyone in the discussion subsequently propose it, making this aspect of the close a [[WP:SUPERVOTE|supervote]]. This perhaps happened because Maddy mistook the discussion for a change to an existing policy ({{tq|On the English Wikipedia, there are no formal requirements for policy '''changes''' [...] this RfC is a valid way of figuring out where we want to set the threshold for this particular policy '''amendment'''}}) and/or, as they acknowledged when I [[User_talk:Maddy_from_Celeste#Admin_recall|asked about it on their talk page]], because they forgot that we have an [[WP:PAG#Proposals|explicit process for proposing new policies]]. Nevertheless Maddy has said that {{tq|given the significant developments these last two days, [they] do not feel comfortable making any unilateral changes [to the close] at this point}}.

So as a partial challenge of that close, I'm asking: is [[Wikipedia:Administrator recall]] a policy page? &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 19:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
:You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I refer to my comments [[User talk:Maddy from Celeste/Archive 0#Admin recall|on my talk page]]. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- [[User:Maddy from Celeste|Maddy from Celeste]] ([[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|WAVEDASH]])</b> 19:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
::<small>Ah, the third (for now) active discussion about RECALL live at AN - shows that it's totally not a controversial idea at all! [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC) </small>
:::<small>I am currently running a pool on when RECALL will be brought to ArbCom.  Squares are filling up fast. Contact me for information on how to bet, and how to send me the money for safekeeping in the mean time. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 19:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC) </small>
*Per [[WP:POLICIES]], "Policies have wide acceptance among editors". It seems clear to me that this is not the case with this recall process. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<span style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</span>]]</span></small> 19:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*There's probably no one who argued more strongly than me against making this trainwreck into a policy. But Maddy correctly read the consensus as saying that this should be adopted and put into effect (and not simply as a trial). So if the community has reached a consensus to put something into effect, that can lead to a desysop, I cannot see how that would be anything other than a policy. If other editors are just now waking up to the fact that they should have joined me in speaking up earlier, well, it's too late now. At some point, we will have to have an RfC to revoke this policy, but for the time being, it's a policy. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|This should be adopted and put into effect}} – I agree with that, it's the "policy" designation that seems unwarranted, given the lack of an explicit proposal to adopt it as one. I want to avoid on the one hand watering down the definition of a policy as those guidelines and processes which have the highest level of consensus on the project (because come on, this is clearly not that!) and on the other making it harder to improve the current process through normal editing and consensus-building. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that this process needs amendment, but usually the way to make non-trivial amendments to a policy is through an RfC, and pretty much everyone also agrees that we don't want more RfCs on this... &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 20:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I see that distinction as wikilawyering. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::We would have done if we had been aware of it! (see previous section re:lack of notice). [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 20:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::::Yeah, that's an issue. But the people who pushed this through insisted that they did everything required in order to publicize the discussions, and they have a point. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*Does it matter if it's a policy vs. a procedure? Is RFA a policy? ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Yes, in practice it's considerably harder to change a page tagged as a policy; and nope. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 20:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*As a process (or policy) it's far from ready, as the Graham87 petition and all the various discussions around the project-space are showing. It's not a case of ironing out small details; the very fundamentals are being questioned and challenged. More workshopping is needed. WP:AR should be returned to draft policy status and discussion centralised on its talk page. [[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<b style="color: #FF0F00;">Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b>]] ([[User talk:SuperMarioMan|Talk]]) 20:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:What parts are far from ready? What aspects of admin recall that haven't already been discussed during phases I and II of the RfA 2024 discussion and subsequently still need to be hashed out? [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::Well, within the last 48 hours alone, questions posed on WT:AR have included timing of petition closures, the structure of the petition page and naming of its sections, the maximum runtime for petitions, early closure rules (or lack thereof), and the applicability of [[WP:SNOW]] (now at WP:VPP). Valid, key questions. I think a large part of why they're being asked now is because up until now, no one had much idea of how the policy/process would actually work in practice. As currently presented, the content of WP:AR feels scant, hardly a solid foundation for launching petitions. And the attempted early close and subsequent re-opening of the Graham87 petition further damage the process's credibility. [[Special:Contributions/SuperMarioMan|<b style="color: #FF0F00;">Super</b><b style="color: #FF3F00;">Mario</b><b style="color: #FF6F00;">Man</b>]] ([[User talk:SuperMarioMan|Talk]]) 22:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*"[[WP:POLICIES|Policies have wide acceptance among editors]]". This policy/procedure does not have that level of support, as has been evident over the past 48 hours. Per SuperMarioMan above, this policy/procedure should be temporarily put on hold and then workshopped extensively to make it better. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 20:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:Agree with this take, assuming it can even be made better, which I'm not sold on. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*: Opposition largely seems to be coming from admins, which makes sense but is hardly representative of editors at large. I would advise admins to take a step back and accept the wider community's opinion here. [[User:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|Horse Eye&#39;s Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye&#39;s Back|talk]]) 20:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I kind of have to agree? I know it's a surprise that the policy made it through but it appears to have done so on a legitimate basis? To those folks challenging the close, is there any example of irregularity or a flawed read of consensus? '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::While it is true that because this involves admins and thus admins shouldn't try to discourage the process, it still is a matter that this recall process will need to be managed by admins and thus has to confirm within the framework of other processes across the board, and that's where the debate seems to be happening, that as currently written and executed, it leaves a lot of missteps that need to be addressed with the help of admins to make sure the process is able to actually work. I don't see this as admins opposing any recall process, just that this one does not have the rigor thst admins experienced in P&G writing can bring to tighten it up and avoid the pitfalls happening now.<span id="Masem:1730208787611:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 13:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)</span>
*No, process not policy. The original proposal didn't include listing it as a policy, most of the !voters didn't opine on whether it should be a policy, and similar pages like [[WP:RFA]] are not policies. The policy is [[Wikipedia:Administrators]], which links to [[WP:RECALL]]. That's all we need. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)<br/>Adding: This isn't to say it shouldn't have the same "force" as [[WP:RFA]]. And regarding notice, being an RfC at VPP and linked from CENT checks enough boxes. IMO the RfC was presented in a confusing way (consensus-for-consensus with a handful of lengthy, fragmented discussions summarized in the background section), but that might just be me, and neither I nor others adequately objected on "this is confusing" grounds to constitute a real obstacle to consensus [about consensus] forming. &mdash; <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 13:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*:+1 to both of these comments by Rhododendrites. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 19:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
* Who's going to be the first non-admin blocked for the lèse-majesté of seeking to recall an admin, per this policy? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 21:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*For those editors who say that they didn't know that this was being discussed, I expressed my concerns to {{u|theleekycauldron}}, the admin who oversaw the process, months ago, and you can see that discussion here: [[User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2024/May#My concerns about Phase 2|link]]. Here's a link to a discussion where I tried to get a better process for deciding whether or not it would be policy: [[Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Archive 1#When is this policy?|link]]. At that time, I think editors really were looking to conduct the decision process more carefully. But that got short-circuited by the RfC here: [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Administrator Recall|link]], which established the present consensus (however one wants to characterize that). You will see me arguing strenuously, but to little effect, that this was going to go badly. I and others argued that it was premature to hold that RfC, but {{u|Barkeep49}} insisted that the time was right. That discussion was at Village pump (policy), and was advertised on CENT, so I really do think editors ''should'' have been aware of this earlier. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 21:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
** CENT is a bit useless, though. If it had been advertised via a watchlist notice I think there would have been far more participation. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 21:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
**:CENT is at the top of this page, right under "Open tasks". Why do we put a useless box at the top of AN and other noticeboards? [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
**:* Except it isn't very visible, because the AN templates at the top and the TOC pushes it way down below the fold. I tend to notice Watchlist and Sitenotice messages, but not CENT ones. It would probably be useful to transclude CENT to watchlists. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 21:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
**:*:{{+1}} to adding it to the top of watchlists (or at least someone creating a userscript that does that). [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:I was aware of RFC3 thanks to T:CENT, but the wording of the question in RFC3 was confusing to me, and led me not to comment. I thought it wanted me to read an old RFC and summarize what the consensus was in that, rather than coming to a fresh consensus. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 06:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*I believe Maddy's closure was appropriate.  However, the first application of the policy left a lot to be desired.  I would like to see the normal editing called out in the close to refine the policy become a lot more vigorous as a result.  In particular, we need to decide if petitions are allowed to devolve into a RRFA prequel (in which case 30 days is ridiculous) or if they are not (in which case stricter guidance on commentary and discussion is sorely missing).[[User:Tazerdadog|Tazerdadog]] ([[User talk:Tazerdadog|talk]]) 21:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': If editors believe that admin recall should not have the force of policy, at this point there are two options as I see it: [[WP:CLOSECHALLENGE|close review]] of the RfC or start a new RfC seeking to strip admin recall of its status. Demanding that the policy status of admin recall be immediately stripped and that it be sent back to the drawing board is not how we establish and maintain consensus. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:That's what this is. A close review. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 07:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*::If only people read a little past the heading before commenting. <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- [[User:Maddy from Celeste|Maddy from Celeste]] ([[User talk:Maddy from Celeste|WAVEDASH]])</b> 08:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::Oops. My bad. {{self trout}}. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 17:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*[[WP:CONLEVEL]] is pretty clear that {{tq|Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.}} It's overwhelmingly clear from the response to the recall attempt on Graham that there's not actually a favorable community consensus on a wider scale than the couple of dozen editors who happened to respond to that not-particularly well-publicized RFC. Instead of demanding that we force through a bad process, perhaps consider that the original close was not reflective of what the broader community actually feels about this. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*:You're conflating two different things; I oppose the recall attempt but generally support the process, even though it's not perfect. (I haven't reviewed the discussion and don't have an opinion on the policy or not question yet.) [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 23:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
*::As someone who also opposes the specific recall, I'll add my much more noncommittal +1 to that. I don't really care too much about the specifics of the process and I'm supportive of considering it much more fluid and amendable than typical until a few months and/or recall petitions have passed, but I am overall supportive of having {{em|a}} process even if it's one that needs to be worked on (and even if I do believe we have another community initiated process that's sufficient, albeit only as a side effect and with likely a much higher... "activation energy", so to speak). [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 06:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*:This (and a bunch of other comments here) seem to be a back-channel way to revert the consensus process rather than any of the official ways to revert an RFC. Everyone agrees that this has been an incredibly rocky start for the process, other people are trying to fix it. But a bunch of editors suddenly complaining about the process, no matter how respected, does not suddenly revert consensus. In these three threads, editors who have concerns about this project are (rightfully) way more likely to comment now than the editors who already agree with calling it a policy. I encourage the former to follow the proper way instead of claiming lack of consensus without proof. [[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]])  02:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*:It was well advertised, I was aware of it but didn't comment or read much of it. If a well-publicised well-attended RfC closed less than a week ago is 'limited consensus at one place and time' then I have no clue what the wider community consensus ever could be.
*:If you didn't participate in an RfC for whatever reason and disagree with the result there are ways to go about it, citing CONLEVEL isn't one of them. [[User:Traumnovelle|Traumnovelle]] ([[User talk:Traumnovelle|talk]]) 05:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*The distinction between policy and procedure in this case may well be worth diggin into, but the idea that this has to stop because "admins didn't know about it" is the fault of those admins, as it was on CENT and in the last issue of the admin newsletter, and the overall RFA 2024 process has been going on for.... I dunno feels like forever. I didn't think it would pass, and I think this first attempt at using it has thrown some serious issues with it into the public eye, but this wasn't snuck in any back door. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 02:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*Yes, it is policy and enjoys consensus. The whole process was well advertised and had a lot of participation. Could it of been more? Sure, but it was sufficient. There are things that can be worked out with the process as shown, but there is no question that there is consensus to have a process. So basically, since this is a close review, '''Endorse''' the close. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 13:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*The policy modified is primarily [[Wikipedia:Administrators]], [[WP:RECALL]] is really just the procedures for how to follow the policy. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
* Fourth time is the charm huh? '''Yes''', it is a policy. How many times do we need to ask this question before we accept it as such? <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#000000">[[User:Fanfanboy|<span style="color:#586AEA">'''fanfanboy'''</span>]] [[User talk:Fanfanboy|<span style="color:#80FFFFFF">('''''<s>block</s> talk''''')</span>]]</span> 13:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*:This question has not been asked before. Please read the top of the section if you have not already. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe (mobile)|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe (mobile)|talk]])</small> 18:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*On the actual question Joe is asking, namely "should [[WP:RECALL]] have a {{t|policy}} tag, my response is that I don't especially care one way or the other; the tag at the top of the page doesn't change what actually matters, which is that the process has teeth (i.e. if an RRFA is failed, a bureaucrat ''will'' actually desysop the admin in question). But since at least Joe cares, sure, remove the tag, it was never authorized to be there. [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 14:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*Maddy's close was correct. I happen to think it's more process than policy because it's a process Admin X goes through to keep or lose their Admin flag. It's not a policy because there's no clear X/Y outcome. It's petition pass/fail, RRFA pass/fail. As both of those are subjective, it is not a policy situation. However it is a policy in that (using the current example) Graham cannot close Diletantte's petition because they filed it per the framework established. It has bugs as any new process does. Let it run and sort it out before the next. Disclosure, current petition opposer but not involved in RFCs as far as I can recall [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*Is [[WP:RFA]] a policy? No. Is [[WP:ADMINELECT]] a policy? No. Is [[WP:RECALL]] a policy? Also no. [[User:AirshipJungleman29|&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29]] ([[User talk:AirshipJungleman29|talk]]) 15:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:Yes, admin recall is a policy: it has wide acceptance ("[[WP:CONLEVEL|global consensus]]") and was thoroughly vetted by the community. Three separate RFCs over the course of a year, with over 100 editors participating, advertised at the Village Pump, AN, CENT, the Admin Newsletter, user talk page notices, and watchlist notices. If that doesn't count as thorough vetting and wide acceptance, then nothing will. Admin recall is a standard that must be followed (subject to IAR)--bureaucrats ''shall'' desysop following a successful recall--so it's not like a guideline or essay. And anyway, the mechanism by which advanced permissions like sysop are added and removed obviously must be done by policy and not by any lower level of consensus. The reason [[WP:RECALL]] should have a {{t|policy}} tag is because it's the page that documents the policy. To the extent this is a close review (I'm not sure about that), '''endorse''' and (involved). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
::Another reason it's policy: the third RFC was held at VPP, which is the page for changing policies. AFAIK nobody at any point suggested this was the wrong page. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 19:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''No, it's not a policy''' This is blatantly obvious. The RfC that was concluded indicating it is a policy did ''NOT'' include any mention whatsoever of asking if it should be policy. None. Nada. Zip. Nothing. In fact, several people who commented on the RfC noted that details of the policy still needed to be hashed out. The fact is, there was no vote to make this policy. [[User:Maddy from Celeste]], I appreciate the effort you put into making this close, but this close is a mistake in making this a policy. The question was whether the recall process has consensus, NOT if the recall process should be policy. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
* I don't really mind whether the contents of [[WP:RRfA]] are moved into [[WP:ADMIN]] instead, but that particular sub-section I think has the status of a procedural policy. I also don't feel all policies have the same barrier to change, if that's the main concern. Changing a fundamental part of [[WP:NPOV]] requires a very different level of consensus compared to a policy with 15 talk page watchers. There are things with admin recall that will likely need tweaking; I think reasonably advertised talk page discussion has the ability to make such change. Re procedure: I don't think procedural policies need an explicit vote to that effect. Many current procedural policies didn't, eg AFAICT [[WP:File mover]] was promoted after {{u|xaosflux}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:File_mover/Archive_1#Not_an_essay_-_move_to_upgrade_status noticed] felt it shouldn't be tagged as an essay, and nobody objected. Ditto with [[WP:IPBE]] per [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_37#IP_block_exemption%2C_last_call][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:IP_block_exemption&diff=prev&oldid=196823153].{{pb}}Ultimately, [[WP:RRFA]] details procedure on a process that many in the community likely care about the details of, and said thing is built up by defined rules approved by consensus, as opposed to fuzzy conventions built up over time by trial-and-error. I think these are the some of the hallmarks of procedural policy. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 23:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
*:{{tq|WP:File mover was promoted after xaosflux noticed felt it shouldn't be tagged as an essay, and nobody objected}}. [[WP:FMR]] appears to still be an essay. If you read the box at the top of the page carefully, I don't think it's claiming to be a policy or guideline. Instead, someone wrote a custom ombox that seems to be rather unclear, instead of using the standard {{t|Information page}} tag. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 04:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*::It's categorised under [[:Category:Wikipedia procedural policies]] and listed at [[Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Procedural]]. In any case, there's [[WP:IPBE]] and these are just the first two I checked. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 07:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*::I suspect all the userright procedural policies fall under the same bucket. The RfC behind them usually just asked if such a userright should be created / unbundled. The creation of a procedural policy page was either done by a single editor, or said by the closer to be done as in [[Wikipedia_talk:Page_mover/Archive_1#RFC_-_Proposed:_"Page_mover"_permission_to_be_created|page mover's case]], but was not the RfC question explicitly, and until the closer mentioned it, nobody else did afaict. My point being, I suspect very few of the current procedural policies had explicit confirmation votes. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 07:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*:::I've started [[Wikipedia_talk:File_mover#Is_this_page_a_policy?]] to work on fixing these odd pages that have a policy category but no policy template and little original talk page discussion about promoting them to policies. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style="color:blue">'''Novem Linguae'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 21:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*It's a rule, but it's not ready to be policy yet. Let the procedure evolve into a more final form and let the naysayers finish processing their defeat. Then hold a RfC about promoting it to policy.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 16:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

*Leaving aside the questions of whether it has consensus or not (I personally think the final version of the procedure should have been put to an up or down discussion rather than having a weird RfC to determine if a previous RfC had consensus, which would’ve avoided the issues we have now), I don’t see how we can ask crats to desysop admins under this procedure without it having the force of policy. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|talk]]) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
*:That's a very good, and important, point. If, hypothetically, an admin has a petition that reaches the required number, and either refuses to engage in a new RfA or fails to pass it, there could be a real question as to whether any bureaucrat has the authority to take action. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::Given that the RfC wasn't worded to ask to make it policy, the answer is no. There is no policy that supports a bureaucrat having the authority to remove the flag based on this procedure. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 20:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::::It's a nonsense! [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I've [[WP:BN#Role of bureaucrats in administrator recall process|asked the 'crats]]. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::I guess that will be up to the crats. One of their roles is to provide a final sanity check on sysops/desysops, so I don't think it's a bad thing to allow them some discretion during the first few runs of this new process. &ndash;&#8239;[[User:Joe Roe|Joe]]&nbsp;<small>([[User talk:Joe Roe|talk]])</small> 07:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

*'''Remove the "policy" designation'''  I think that the close was a pretty good one for it's narrow scope in the chain of events that led to this, albeit requiring some expert derivation because the question was not clearly in the RFC making it what I would call an edge case regarding being the right close.  But in the big picture (including that chain of events), a high impact policy should be something which had every sentence in it carefully reviewed, has been optimized, and has had wide advertisement/participation to adopt it, and where considering it to be policy a clear part of the question.  IMO none or hardly none of those criteria has been satisfied. Further, the initial general decision (in essence saying that there shall be a recall process) was only the starting point of what should have been a thorough process that included all of the above and which in my opinion it wasn't and didn't include all of the above. Let's just take a little extra time to do all of the above instead of having this cloud eternally hanging over the recall process.    Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The ship has been launched, so let it sail for a whole year. Than review it. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:Fingers crossed there's an iceberg soon... [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 21:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::I think the current petition could well be described that way. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::: What an interesting mixed metaphor ... [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 03:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
::::Well despite some initial doubt over the wisdom of the first recall including by me, things have turned out different so the process whatever you want to call it is actually being tested quite a bit. We'll see what happens next, I think our initial doubts have shown it's a mistake to jump to hasty conclusions so I'll leave it at that. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 14:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I think you raise an interesting point. For me, it's more like bad cases make bad law, because I think the new developments would have quickly come under scrutiny under the old processes as well. I don't really believe that the recall petition brought forth anything that would not have come forth just as quickly without it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 20:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
::You volunteering as Captain Smith, {{u|GiantSnowman}} :D  (Orig. sig: User:Serial Number 54129, 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)) [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 14:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}

== Notification of a request for transwiki importer rights ==

A request for the assignment of transwiki importer rights is occurring at [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for page importation#Request for transwiki-importer - EggRoll97]]. To participate, please see the linked section. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 15:12, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[User:AnubisIbizu]] requesting an unblock ==

Two years ago, I blocked [[User:AnubisIbizu]] pursuant to the ANI discussion now archived at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1110#AnubisIbizu]]. The editor has [[User talk:AnubisIbizu#October 2022|today requested an unblock]], expressing remorse for their prior conduct, while vehemently denying that they also engaged in sockpuppetry. Although I don't specifically remember the discussion, the sockpuppetry denial seems dubious to me, but not impossible. I would therefore prefer the input of this board before acting on this request. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 03:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:[[User:BD2412|BD2412]], if I remember rightly, unblock appeals are typically posted on [[WP:AN]], not ANI. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:: {{re|Liz}} You are correct; so moved. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 03:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:Seems there was an SPI about the socks, after the block: [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnubisIbizu/Archive]] - found after reading [[User talk:ZimZalaBim/Archive 12#Alt account?]], where @[[User:Zzuuzz|Zzuuzz]] had previously also commented about the socks.
:That's all I'm going to comment on as a curious user. &ndash; user in a [[Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32|::/32 range]], currently [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80BF:B801:8C35:ECA9:E927:764A|2804:F14:80BF:B801:8C35:ECA9:E927:764A]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80BF:B801:8C35:ECA9:E927:764A|talk]]) 03:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::This SPI seems pretty relevant to the sockpuppetry concerns with the CheckUser comment: {{tq|Traynreck and ZimAlakaZam are {{confirmed}} to each other. AnubisIbizu is {{unlikely}} or at best {{inconclusive}} to those two: different devices and different regions of the same country (though possibly could be explained by having a corporate VPN of some kind, but my confidence in that possibility is not high). I didn't find any other accounts. Honestly, could this be a joe job? Someone at the [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#AnubisIbizu|ANI thread]] linked above even suggested the possibility. [...] [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 22:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)}} and it was later closed without tagging. [[User:Retro|<span style="color:red">Retro</span>]] ([[User talk:Retro#top|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contribs/Retro|<span style="color:blue">contribs</span>]]) 05:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:Given the SPI evidence, it looks like we ought to be unblocking, though given the ANI, some reminders about what AGF means and how to sort out content disputes wouldn't go amiss. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 06:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:Commenting because I was pinged and previously commented. In the absence of other facts (which I haven't looked for) my previous comments should not get in the way of any unblock. My comments were not so different to the conclusions of the SPI, but were perhaps a bit more committed. The comments are what they are and I have no subsequent amendments to them, but that was like two years ago and as far as I know the only such incident. Courtesy pings for [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] and [[User:Mz7|Mz7]]. -- [[user:zzuuzz|zzuuzz]] <sup>[[user_talk:zzuuzz|(talk)]]</sup> 07:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::There's no immediately obvious recent block evasion from this user, based on [[WP:CHECKUSER|technical evidence]]. Looks clear from that perspective. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 11:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::: Unblocking now, then. [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 17:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

== MissionWar123 ==

[[User:MissionWar123]], a recently opened account, may be the same editor who has been posting barely coherent diatribes about plot holes in Indian TV soap operas from Indian IP addresses for some time.  See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FEntertainment&diff=1256122479&oldid=1256119189] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReference_desk%2FEntertainment&diff=1234579782&oldid=1234562981] for a couple of recent examples.  These posts have been reverted by concerned editors.  Now the same kind of posts have begun appearing on the entertainment ref desk under the given account name.  They have also been posting abusive messages on my and other editors' talk pages, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AViennese_Waltz&diff=1258930812&oldid=1258930784 here] for example.  Can an administrator assist, please? Many thanks. --[[User:Viennese Waltz|Viennese Waltz]] 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
* Yeah, that's the very definition of NOTHERE, especially the talkpage abuse.  Indeffed. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

== Edit request for protected page ==

[[User:Example]] ''and its talk page'' are protected.

On the former, please change:

<syntaxhighlight lang="moin">
== See also ==
* [[Wikipedia:User pages]]
</syntaxhighlight>

to:

<syntaxhighlight lang="moin">
== See also ==
* [[User:Red link example]]
* [[Wikipedia:User pages]]
</syntaxhighlight>

-- <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 14:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{done}} [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 14:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:Note for [[User:Pigsonthewing|you]] in the future: [[Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page]] also works for this sort of request. [[User:JJPMaster|JJP]]<sub>[[User talk:JJPMaster|Mas]]<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JJPMaster|ter]]</sub></sub> ([[She (pronoun)|she]]/[[Singular they|they]]) 15:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

== Self-reporting rollback ==

hi i rolled back [[user:RJJ4y7]]'s most [[Special:Contributions/RJJ4y7|recent contribs]], as talk page spam, apologies if this was excessive. (Albeit I've just realised I missed half of them—no idea why how, but will leave em.) [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 14:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:I think both the reversions and your decision to stop for now were good. --[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 15:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

== Appeal for Lifting Topic Ban ==
{{atop
| result = There is consensus against lifting the topic ban. Editor is cautioned against repeating the 2023 edits which, had they been noticed at the time, they would have been blocked for. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 15:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
}}

Subject: Appeal for Lifting Topic Ban

Dear Wikipedia Administrators,

I am writing to formally request a reconsideration of the topic ban imposed on my account three years ago due to discussions on the English Wikipedia talk pages. I acknowledge that my use of language at the time was inappropriate and that I made amateurish mistakes. These errors stemmed from a lack of experience and familiarity with Wikipedia's standards and guidelines.
Over the past three years, I have actively worked on improving my skills in both editing and communication, as well as my proficiency in English. During this time, I have consistently contributed to the Turkish Wikipedia, adhering to its standards and guidelines. This experience has not only enhanced my understanding of Wikipedia’s expectations but also reinforced my commitment to respectful and constructive collaboration.
I genuinely believe that I can now contribute positively and meaningfully to the English Wikipedia. I am fully committed to abiding by Wikipedia’s principles of civility, neutrality, and verifiability. If given the opportunity, I will ensure that my contributions align with these standards and add value to the community.
I kindly request you to reconsider my topic ban and allow me to demonstrate my commitment to these principles through constructive edits. I am open to further discussion and willing to comply with any additional conditions to regain editing privileges.
Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal. I appreciate your consideration and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
[[User:Cengizsogutlu|Cengizsogutlu]] ([[User talk:Cengizsogutlu|talk]]) 22:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The notification is still on this page;

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1025564072#Cengizsogutlu [[User:Cengizsogutlu|Cengizsogutlu]] ([[User talk:Cengizsogutlu|talk]]) 22:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

*'''Leaning decline''' - no activity on en.wiki since 2023 and their last edits here were violations of the tban. Edits at tr.wiki look fine but unremarkable, and they haven't been very active there either: essentially no talk page discussions, some decent translations but they haven't even reached EC yet. Meanwhile, the appeal here doesn't even come close to fully acknowledging the issues that led first to their ban and then to repeated blocks due to violations of the ban. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup>
*[[User:Cengizsogutlu|Cengizsogutlu]], you haven't done much editing on the English Wikipedia since your topic ban so it's hard to judge whether or not it has affected your editing here. Have you made any substantial contributions to other WikiMedia projects? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*:My current interests include military equipment, the defense industry, military history, culture, and architecture of Belgium (the country I live in). Due to a topic ban related to Turkey and the Turkish Armed Forces, I am currently unable to edit on these subjects. Additionally, Belgian-related topics are often edited by Dutch authors, even in areas where I have substantial expertise.
*:I have contributed to Turkish Wikipedia in these areas and continue to do so. Having completed my education recently, my English has improved significantly, and I’ve also developed a hobby in photography. What I want to express is that, if given a chance, I would like to contribute edits in these fields and upload my photographs to Wikimedia.
*:To be honest, I feel that I’ve matured with age and assure you that I will avoid engaging in childish disputes. In the near future, I plan to travel to Cyprus and Turkey, where I will attend military parades and would be grateful if I am allowed to upload historical and military-related photos from these events.
*:Apart from this, I am also interested in participating in several WikiProjects to further contribute to Wikipedia.I intend to focus solely on technological and cultural topics without engaging in ethnic or controversial discussions. If you wish, you can monitor my future edits in these areas, and based on that, you can decide on a permanent solution.
*:Kind regards[[User:Cengizsogutlu|Cengizsogutlu]] ([[User talk:Cengizsogutlu|talk]]) 06:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Leaning decline''' I blocked Cengizsogutlu for topic ban violations in 2021, but pretty much every one of the 30-odd edits they made in 2023 were ''also'' topic ban violations which no-one noticed at the time, or I suspect they would have been indefinitely blocked. Now they have returned after a year and want to edit on those topics?  I would suggest we need to see ''continued'' evidence of productive editing in other areas ''first''. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 11:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Thank you for your feedback. As I mentioned above, I have very little interest or knowledge in other areas, so I can mostly contribute to Wikipedia in these specific fields. Regards. [[User:Cengizsogutlu|Cengizsogutlu]] ([[User talk:Cengizsogutlu|talk]]) 22:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
* After being topic-banned from Turkey-related topics on 28 May 2021, the editor made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Cengizsogutlu&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=2021-05-21&end=2024-11-19&limit=500 a number of edits] prohibited by the ban. They appear to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/1168904999 have misunderstood the scope of their topic ban], a misunderstanding which was corrected in August 2023. That was their first breach of the ban and we should assume that it was a legitimate mistake. However, they have scarcely edited since, so this appeal is coming very soon and with very little fresh editing to assess. There is no evidence that the problems with competence, unsound sourcing, and pro-Turkish POV have been addressed. It is asserted in the appeal that the user has gained a fresh understanding of our policies and that their language and editing skills have improved. However, to support that, the only edits we have are this appeal, one reply in this thread, and one translated new article. I wouldn't be comfortable overturning with just that. '''Decline''' for now. [[User:Arcticocean|<span style="font-family:Tahoma;color:#5A4FCF;">arctic'''ocean'''&nbsp;■</span>]] 15:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:* In the block appeal from 2021, the replying admin stated very clearly that "If a topic has anything to do with Turkey at all, you cannot edit it", so they can't really say it was a misunderstanding. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 12:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{u|Cengizsogutlu}}, your topic ban on the English Wikipedia  does not apply to Wikimedia Commons. You can upload photos that you take on your upcoming trip to Cyprus and Turkey to Wikimedia Commons as long as you comply with their policies and guidelines. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*:After uploading the photos I take to Wikimedia, I also want to upload them to English Wikipedia to make edits and adjustments. That’s why the photos I upload will have such a connection. The main purpose is to upload photos to support editing. Just as buying paint and a canvas but not actually painting serves no purpose, these efforts would also be ineffective. However, other users can, of course, eventually use and edit these contributions. But I believe doing both simultaneously will prevent providing an impactful contribution. Best regards. [[User:Cengizsogutlu|Cengizsogutlu]] ([[User talk:Cengizsogutlu|talk]]) 22:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*::{{u|Cengizsogutlu}}, you can add those photos to the Turkish Wikipedia and other language versions as well. The English Wikipedia is not the "boss Wikipedia" or the "most important Wikipedia". If you establish a consistent track record of editing the English Wikipedia productively outside the areas of your topic ban, then you can come back here in six months or a year to appeal your topic ban again. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 00:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
* This appeal is clearly AI-generated. No. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 05:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Not saying it is or isn't, but do you have evidence of that? [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 19:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I've run it through four different AI detectors. All agree that it was AI-generated, with a high level of confidence. One detector thinks the first couple of sentences are not AI-generated. https://quillbot.com/ai-content-detector https://originality.ai/ai-checker https://app.gptzero.me/ https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 20:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Thank you for this list, [[User:rsjaffe|rsjaffe]], I've never known where to go to check and see if content is likely AI-generated. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::Likewise [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 01:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I get help from AI on most topics, what's wrong with using AI when expressing myself in a language that is not my native one. Is there such a rule on Wikipedia not using AI? [[User:Cengizsogutlu|Cengizsogutlu]] ([[User talk:Cengizsogutlu|talk]]) 04:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::You are expressing an opinion that you "used language at the time was inappropriate and that I made amateurish mistakes". Using AI is a step ''down'' from having amateurish mistakes and will only compound them. You were topic banned for a reason, continued to dabble in that topic but no one caught you, and now you want to be unbanned. This isn't good logic and lends credence to the concerns to others that you aren't going to be productive. Cullen gives you a good path going forward. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 15:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
* Suggest '''Decline'''. The appeal does not create confidence in this editor's ability to use the English language.  I agree that the appeal feels AI-generated, but any other explanations for the tone and content of the appeal would also be worrisome.  And, most of their recent edits were in violation of their TBAN. [[User:Walsh90210|Walsh90210]] ([[User talk:Walsh90210|talk]]) 01:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Pppery's evidence of AI involvement and lack of acknowledgement of the problem. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 01:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== History merge ==
Last night an LTA moved my user and talk page around a bunch and my talk page history got deleted in the mess. Could someone find out where it ended up and merge it back into the proper page? Thanks. <span style="padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:-1px">[[User:CFA|<span style=color:#00c>C</span>]] <span style=color:red>F</span> [[User talk:CFA|<span style=color:#5ac18e>A</span>]]</span> 14:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|CFA}} I am working on this now. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 15:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|CFA}} {{done}}. Let me know if anything looks out of place. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 15:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

== Closure request for [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN appeal]] ==

Would an administrator please close [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive366#IBAN appeal]]? I am not brave enough to test whether it is socially acceptable yet for non-admins to close discussions involving bans. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 22:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:<small>There is a [[WP:RFA|secret third option]], if you are feeling brave.— [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
::[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]], complaints that have been archived are not edited so closing an archived discussion would not be appropriate because, basically, it would be hidden from view and, as I said, archives are not edited unless it is to revert vandalism to them. 
::I would consider "unarchiving" this discussion and reposting the case here. But, regarding your main question, I don't think it's appropriate for a non-admin to close a discussion about imposing or lifting a ban or block although I'd like to hear from other admins here about this. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::At one point it was unarchived, but then someone commented at CR that this was unnecessary, so nothing was done when it was automatically archived again. In my observation, editors split about 50-50 on whether it is okay to close an archived discussion without first unarchiving it (usually, a courtesy note is left on the active page when leaving it archived). At any rate, I don't care about the implementation details, as long as someone closes it. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 00:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, if this query is not about a desired discussion outcome and more about your need for closure, then I think this request will not solicit any response from admins who review this noticeboard. Discussions on AN and ANI often get archived without any closure or action being taken. It's something you'll need to accept. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 03:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::With five people supporting an unban vs. two opposing, one of two things should happen: the ban be lifted, or an explanation of why the opposing side's arguments were stronger be given. I don't think it's fair to the appellant that a consensus to unban seemingly have formed, yet the ban never formally be lifted because no admin could be bothered to take responsibility for it. ''That'' is why I posted here. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 17:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::{{tpq|archives are not edited unless it is to revert vandalism to them.}}  Based on what happened at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444]], I would say that usually they are not edited unless it is for vandalism.  Rare for discussions to be closed after being archived, but it happens.  --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 04:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]], I find this surprising. Do any examples come to mind right now? <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Other examples, not immediately.  But I should be able to get a list of some discussions <s>in the next 30-ish minutes</s>.  (Going to go digging at [[Wikipedia:Closure requests]].)  --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 04:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Thanks. Consider this detective work, not homework. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Gotcha.  Since this is would likely take half a day to type up, I will just list the results from Archive 1 and Archive 39 for Closure requests and some additional notes for the others typed up afterwards.  (I was using the search results, hence the jump between multiple archives in the notes.)  Collapsed for convenience.  --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
{{cot|title=Search results.  --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 06:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)}}
# [[Special:Diff/460424723|Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78]] ([[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 1#October 2011|Request]])
# [[Special:Diff/483347597|Taiwan/Archive 20]]<sup>[A]</sup> ([[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 1#Talk:Taiwan#Requested Move (February 2012)|Request]])
# [[Special:Diff/483601639|Notability (people)/Archive 2012]] ([[Special:Diff/483686214|Additional edit]]; [[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 1#Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Improving PORNBIO|Request]])
# [[Special:Diff/483617804|Pakistan/Archive 14]] ([[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 1#Talk:Pakistan#Request for comment|Request]])
# [[Special:Diff/485736745|Talk:Circumcision/Archive 70]] ([[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 1#Talk:Circumcision#RfC: how should the lead summarise positions of medical associations?|Request]])
# [[Special:Diff/1250934609|Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444]]<sup>[B]</sup>  ([[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 39#Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444#RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues|Request]])
# [[Special:Diff/1253281055|Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169]](-1170?)<sup>[C]</sup>  ([[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 39#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169#Proposed topic ban on Adamantine123 from caste topics|Request]])

Other results:
* [[Wikipedia:Closure_requests/Archive 1#Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 52/Archives/ 42#RFC: Clarifying policy on pictures of deceased persons|Request refers to an archive (of a archive?)]], but the closure [[Special:Diff/465621660|does not appear to have been done within an archive.]]
* [[Wikipedia:Closure_requests/Archive 1#talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2012/June#Merger proposal|Request refers to an archive]], but the closure [[Special:Diff/469618907|does not appear to have been done within an archive.]]
* [[Wikipedia:Closure_requests/Archive 1#Admins needed at WT:NOT|Later comments request multiple closures within archives]], but it was declined.
* [[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 39#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#RFC_on_The_South_African|Request refers to an archive]], but it was declined.
* [[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 39#Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive 194#Notifying_Wikiprojects_and_WP:CANVASS|Request refers to an archive]], but it was not done.

Notes:
* [A] Taiwan/Archive 20 is abnormal.  Between 45 and 50 edits were made in March 2012 with the majority involving closing discussion.
* [B] Specifically un-archived when closed.
* [C] Discussion is abnormal.  [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1169]] has a version with the sub-topic closed and the original discussion still open when archived.  [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1170]] has a version with the sub-topic never closed and the original discussion closed.  Unusual duplicate.

Additional details:
* Archive 4: 8 requests with all being done.
* Archive 5: 6 requests with 5 done and 1 modified.
* Archive 14: 17 requests.
* Archive 19: 28 or so requests.  Multiple done and a few not done.
* Archive 22: 58 or 59 requests.  Multiple done, few already done, at least 1 not done.
* Archive 25: 20 requests.
* Archive 30: 30 requests.
* Total requests from Archives 1, 4, 5, 14, 19, 22, 25, and 30: 179 or 180.
{{cob}}
::::::::I'm not sure of how exactly to interpret this information but I appreciate your efforts and I think some of our data-loving administrators will find it interesting, too. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 06:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Archive 444 was the first example mention, but that was a bit of an exception. RSN regularly grows to an unmanageable size, so restoring a near half megabytes discussion would have (and did) make the page semi-broken. It shouldn't be taken as any kind of precedent. Also notices where posted on RSN that the close(s) had taken place. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 12:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::But at the same time, there are closes that occur after a discussion has found itself archived for one reason or another.  [[Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 22]] is the best example that I know of with over 50 requests.  --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 23:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::{{like}} [[User:Queen of Hearts mobile|<span style="color: darkred;">charlotte</span>]] [[User talk:Queen of Hearts mobile|<sup style="color: darkred;">👸♥📱</sup>]] 07:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*There's a consensus to vacate the sanction, but the other side of the IBAN opposes the idea. What's the play here other than to quietly allow status quo to remain undisturbed? I'd argue that it would be reckless to close that discussion. And as for closing archived threads, I've always felt that ''only'' archived threads should be closed since their archival indicates nobody had anything more to say meaning they're ''actually'' ready to be closed. [[Special:Contributions/78.28.44.127|78.28.44.127]] ([[User talk:78.28.44.127|talk]]) 00:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*:That would just allow parties to drag the discussion on indefinitely, avoiding a result. — <b>[[User:HandThatFeeds|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; color:DarkBlue;cursor:help">The Hand That Feeds You</span>]]:<sup>[[User talk:HandThatFeeds|Bite]]</sup></b> 19:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I agree. While it is important to listen carefully to the other party's concerns, I think that properly stops short of giving them a veto. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 19:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{Nacc}} I'd characterise the participation in (and material content of) the archived thread as sufficient to warrant a formal closure, and the byte weight of the thread as insufficient to disrupt this page. Anyone feel like unar&shy;chiving and closing? We've got like twelve new admins, right? [[User:Folly Mox|Folly Mox]] ([[User talk:Folly Mox|talk]]) 13:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I don't wish to be cynical, but my observation is that administrators tend to be risk-averse and reluctant to make difficult closes, which I believe is because risk aversion is what enables them to pass RfA in the first place. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 21:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Where you see risk aversion, I see prudence. It's counter-intuitive to lift a two-way IBAN when one of the parties is explicitly against it; I'd go so far as to say that it would effectively invite the opposing party to subtly annoy the other until they request its reinstatement. I don't know if [[User:MaranoFan]] would accept such an invitation, but I'd certainly find it more than a little tempting. [[Special:Contributions/78.28.44.127|78.28.44.127]] ([[User talk:78.28.44.127|talk]]) 23:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

== WickedFanAccount "outing" and digging through my social media ==
{{atop|User has been indefinitely blocked. '''[[User:Botto|<span style="color:#38003B">BOTTO</span>]]'''<sub>&nbsp;([[User talk:Botto|<span style="color:#38003B">T</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Botto|<span style="color:#38003B">C</span>]])</sub> 20:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)|Non-admin closure}}
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AConflict_of_interest%2FNoticeboard&diff=1258483252&oldid=1258483166

[[User:WickedFanAccount]] has dug through my social media post and made disparaging comments about me saying I'm "foaming at the mouth" at having met the cast of the Wicked play.

As @[[User:Trailblazer101|Trailblazer101]] mentioned this could be a form of [[WP:OUTING]]. 

Please [[WP:PING]] me if there's a reply as I'm not watching this page.  [[User:Tyw7|<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>]] ([[User talk:Tyw7|🗣️ Talk]]) — If (reply) then ([[Help:Notifications#Mentions|ping me]]) 10:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:What's the point in reporting a user if you're not even watching the page? Anyway, this presumably involves off-wiki evidence so you should [[Special:EmailUser/Arbitration_Committee|email the arbitration committee]]. Or find a pliable admin  :)  Cheers, [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 10:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::I occasionally check beck but not watching it.
::But as @[[User:Happily888|Happily888]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=1258559405 mentions] "I'd agree with above too. I believe this user just doesn't want to edit [[WP:CIVIL]]ly and that they think all their edits are factual, right and correct, even when they are not, and are instead disregarding policies like [[WP:VERIFIABILITY]], [[WP:CON]], [[WP:OWN]] and [[WP:EW]]. " 

::Anyway, an admin seems to have expunged the edit mentioning my Reddit account. But the other concerns still remain. 

::Edit: Ooo it seems I can subscribe to one topic only.  That's great![[User:Tyw7|<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>]] ([[User talk:Tyw7|🗣️ Talk]]) — If (reply) then ([[WP:PING|ping me]]) 10:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I admit the editor seems unlikely to enjoy a long career here. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 11:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Just noting that on-wiki outing should go through [[Special:EmailUser/Oversight]] as that team has more members and a faster response time than ArbCom. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 11:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yeah course, I was thinking of a Case. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 12:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:You have the same username. You accused me of not being allowed to edit articles of things I am a fan of when you yourself proved you are a mega fan. I was simply stating what I noticed in the pictures. [[User:WickedFanAccount|WickedFanAccount]] ([[User talk:WickedFanAccount|talk]]) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::You accused me of "foaming at the mouth."  Plus I don't go around digging your social accounts.
::Plus it isn't just me who have a concern with you.  @[[User:Happily888|Happily888]] does too. [[User:Tyw7|<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>]] ([[User talk:Tyw7|🗣️ Talk]]) — If (reply) then ([[WP:PING|ping me]]) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::Having the same username isn't enough. Unless someone explicitly connects the identity to external accounts or their real name, it isn't permitted. And using language like "foaming at the mouth" is a violation of [[WP:NPA]]. [[User:Guettarda|Guettarda]] ([[User talk:Guettarda|talk]]) 20:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::Though I disagree with the basis for the COI concerns and understand your frustration, you stepped ''way'' over the line by doxxing another editor. If you aren't blocked for this, my hope is that you'll know better so you won't do this again. '''[[User:Botto|<span style="color:#38003B">BOTTO</span>]]'''<sub>&nbsp;([[User talk:Botto|<span style="color:#38003B">T</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/Botto|<span style="color:#38003B">C</span>]])</sub> 21:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Is it doxing if they are using the same username on a public account with similar interests that line up exactly with their contributions on Wikipedia? [[User:WickedFanAccount|WickedFanAccount]] ([[User talk:WickedFanAccount|talk]]) 22:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::'''YES''' [[WP:OUTING]] {{tq| Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.}} —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 22:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's the SAME username. He literally put his username ON Wikipedia and matched that with his PUBLIC profiles. [[User:WickedFanAccount|WickedFanAccount]] ([[User talk:WickedFanAccount|talk]]) 22:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::It's [[WP:OUTING]]. It's critically important you understand this. It's [[WP:OUTING]]. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 22:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Plus it's [[Ad hominem]] and [[Tu quoque]] arguments. I thought it was a partial conflict of interest based on the name and the fact that you're frequently editing articles related to Wicked.  Then you went ahead and made a [[WP:PERSONALATTACK|personal ad hominem]] attack and use tu quoque to deflect my concern.  And as other said you went ahead and linked to my Reddit account, meaning you were stalking me since that post was probably on the second page of my profile. [[User:Tyw7|<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>]] ([[User talk:Tyw7|🗣️ Talk]]) — If (reply) then ([[WP:PING|ping me]]) 22:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I'll also note a match like this isn't conclusive. I literally blocked someone today for a username indicating they were [[Megan Thee Stallion]]. But even if it was conclusive, it's [[WP:OUTING]] and you '''must not do it'''. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 22:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::If you don’t understand this basic protection for users, then you should be blocked to prevent you from outing other users in the future. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 23:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Apparently the user has now stuck a "retired" notice on their user page with the message "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia ~~ Everyone here is soft and does not appreciate my truthful edits. I used this site a lot 10 years ago. I returned just this month, and I realized why I left. It's worse then than it is now. I am leaving this site for good.." Based on that comment, I suspect they maybe a puppet or have another account as this account only start editing on November 10, 2024. [[User:Tyw7|<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>]] ([[User talk:Tyw7|🗣️ Talk]]) — If (reply) then ([[WP:PING|ping me]]) 23:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::To avoid ANI flu issues, I have blocked for harassment indefinitely. I invite review by other admins as I am new to the mop. Alterations or reversion of the block is fine. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 23:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Just curious, what's ANI flu issues? [[User:Tyw7|<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>]] ([[User talk:Tyw7|🗣️ Talk]]) — If (reply) then ([[WP:PING|ping me]]) 23:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::[[WP:ANIFLU]] —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 23:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks. [[User:Tyw7|<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>]] ([[User talk:Tyw7|🗣️ Talk]]) — If (reply) then ([[WP:PING|ping me]]) 23:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::[[User:rsjaffe|rsjaffe]], my only comment is that, as I understand this situation, they were blocked for one instance of outing on one noticeboard. One very, VERY inappropriate edit. "Harrassment" implies more extensive editing focused on intentionally annoying a fellow editor and interfering with their editing which I don't see here. If anything, I think they were unnecessarily bothered with a totally ludicrous COIN case that argued that because they were a fan of a musical, they shouldn't be editing an article about it without disclosing they had a COI. If that's the case, then we should inform all of the Doctor Who fans who are editors that they are banned from editing any articles connected with that TV series. This was a frivolous noticeboard dispute and if it hadn't happened, the editor probably wouldn't have outed the filing editor and they wouldn't be blocked right now. I'm not defending what they did, outing is a red line none of us can cross without severe consequences, but this whole situation didn't have to happen. I think we have to do more to discourage editors from bringing minor disputes to the public forum of noticeboards. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::::It's more their name that I was thinking that might have a conflict of interest. [[User:Tyw7|<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>]] ([[User talk:Tyw7|🗣️ Talk]]) — If (reply) then ([[WP:PING|ping me]]) 08:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:Any mops may want to close the thread at [[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard]] too [[User:Tyw7|<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i>]] ([[User talk:Tyw7|🗣️ Talk]]) — If (reply) then ([[WP:PING|ping me]]) 23:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Wikizilla ==

Wikizilla is basically wikipedia, but based on ''[[Godzilla (franchise)|Godzilla]]'', ''[[Mothra]]'' and ''[[King Kong (franchise)|King Kong]]'' related stuff. What I've noticed is that people claim that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kong_(Monsterverse)&diff=prev&oldid=1255561477 text] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shin_Godzilla_(character)&diff=prev&oldid=1250793663 from] Wikizilla is copyrighted, though per [[User:CactusWriter|<bdi>CactusWriter</bdi>]]'s [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiamat_(Godzilla)&oldid=1255479176 claim on this revision on Tiamat] shows that Wikizilla licenses text under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). [[User:GojiraFan1954|GojiraFan1954]] ([[User talk:GojiraFan1954|talk]]) 09:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:[https://wikizilla.org/wiki/Wikizilla:Copyrights Wikizilla:Copyrights] is what CactusWriter probably used as the source. [[User:1AmNobody24|<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;background-color: #4D4DFF;color: white">Nobody</span>]] ([[User talk:1AmNobody24|<span style="color: #4D4DFF">talk</span>]]) 10:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well, [https://wikizilla.org/wiki/Wikizilla:Copyrights they claim] that {{blue|Wikizilla's text and many of its images are co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA)}}, although there seem to be a couple of caveats which I don't know whether have been adhered to as I can't see the deleted material (and of course, per Bastun's edit-summary, the main condition—that it was attributed (i.e. sourced)—was ''not'' met). I think more importantly, why are we using it as any kind or source—perhaps excepting on itself—at all? It's a wiki, a fansite, with no editorial oversight and like WP, [https://wikizilla.org/wiki/Wikizilla:General_disclaimer it admits] to not being a reliable source. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 10:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::I was wondering how I could gain said consensus to get it off the copyvios list. If Fandom doesn't give us copyright strikes, then what about Wikizilla? [[User:GojiraFan1954|GojiraFan1954]] ([[User talk:GojiraFan1954|talk]]) 11:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It won't go off the copyvios list because it still needs to be checked if the right [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources|attribution]] was added. [[User:1AmNobody24|<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;background-color: #4D4DFF;color: white">Nobody</span>]] ([[User talk:1AmNobody24|<span style="color: #4D4DFF">talk</span>]]) 11:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure what the copyvios list is. I'm also not sure what copyright strikes are. But if you mean, what are the circumstances under which we can re-use Wikizilla material then, as IaN24 says, it will only be after their criteria for re-use, and our policy of attribution,  is adhered to. But as to whether we would ever want to use their material, regardless of attribution: I'm wholly unconvinced of the necessity to do so. If we want to write about Godzilla et al., there must be plenty of non-fansites AKA actual reliable, independent third-part sources available. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 12:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::::The copyvios list is technically any link that's not on the [[meta:User:CopyPatrolBot/UrlIgnoreList|Url Ignore List]]. Copyright strike sounds like the [https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2814000 youtube thing]. [[User:1AmNobody24|<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;background-color: #4D4DFF;color: white">Nobody</span>]] ([[User talk:1AmNobody24|<span style="color: #4D4DFF">talk</span>]]) 12:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::<s>I can't find any evidencde that Wikizilla is licensed. I checked when CactusWriter declined the G12 and checked again now: the website has no copyright notice, no terms of use page, no licensing info anywhere. That means it is copyright and we can't copy it there.</s> [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 13:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::::{{reply|Diannaa}} Sorry if I'm missing something; but their page ("Wikizila:Copyrights") was linked a couple of times above? [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 13:39, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yes, I see it now. Sorry for the mistake. I have struck my comment.[[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 13:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::<small>No worries. I was worried I was completely losing it, which is always on the cards  :)  [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 13:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
{{outdent}}I did decline the G12 CSD on [[Tiamat (Godzilla)]] by investigating the source and finding Wikizilla is licensed CC-BY-SA 3.0. However, that was only in response to the CSD tag, not on the value of the text. I really should have tagged the article for the reliability and sourcing issues. And informed the article editor, as well. I agree that no Wiki should be used as a reliable source -- but rather only as a basis for finding possible good sources referenced by the article -- just like we do Wikipedia. Perhaps we can include an entry about Wikizilla at [[WP:RSP]]? <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#007000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#C75300">Writer </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]</sup></span> 16:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{reply|CactusWriter}} [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikizilla]]... ready and waiting  :)  [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 16:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::Excellent. Thanks, SN. <span style="font-family: tahoma;"> — [[User:CactusWriter|<span style="color:#007000">Cactus</span><span style="color:#C75300">Writer </span>]]<sup>[[User talk:CactusWriter|(talk)]]</sup></span> 16:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:CactusWriter|CactusWriter]], When copying from licensed material, attribution is required. So if you are going to decline a G12 because the copied material is compatibly licensed, it would be a good idea to add the required attribution template. I attempted to do that on [[Tiamat (Godzilla)]] but someone subsequently removed it. [[User:Diannaa|Diannaa]] ([[User talk:Diannaa|talk]]) 15:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::G12 is for material we are not legally allowed, with our licensing, to host, or which we have no means to verify that we are. Compatible unattributed material should get attributed, not G12-deleted. Of course,  this doesn't exclude any other deletion reason, speedy or otherwise.  [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666|&#124;666&#124;]] 00:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

== Block/unblock review scifaxEditor ==

My actions have stirred up controversy, so wanted them reviewed here. An editor, {{u|ScifaxEditor}}, who had predeclared their COI, wrote a draft on Scifax Publishing. I soft blocked for promotional name. I was later persuaded that it did not designate a role account, but rather a person at Scifax, and unblocked. [[Special:Permalink/1259131871#User-reported]] Shows the ensuing conversation. (Later addition) see [[Special:Permalink/1258413577#Changing username]] which had the opposite conclusion for another ambiguous possible role name. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 15:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:I haven't handled any UAA blocks yet, but ScifaxEditor, coupled with the disclosure of the COI, implies to me that this is an account that is being used by a single person at Scifax to write about the company and thus does not run afoul of the promotional username policy.{{pb}}I do not believe that the draft should have been deleted. This editor did what we instruct COI editors to do: declared their COI, wrote in draftspace, and submitted for AfC review. This editor was not being disruptive, nor were they trying to push the draft through to mainspace. Looking at the draft that was deleted, I highly doubt that this company is notable, but there's no harm in letting it get rejected a few times and then having it get deleted after 6 months when the COI editor gets the message. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 16:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:This conversation regarding an earlier block of mine, where the name is ambiguous (rep sr) I took to mean senior rep), colored my thinking. [[Special:Permalink/1258413577#Changing username]] —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:I would be a bit concerned that "ScifaxEditor" is a position and that the account is a role account, one that can be handed off to a successor. But as of now I'd probably just let it be. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 16:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:While I (eventually) understood how this can not be a role account (I thought for sure it was before reading the arguments), 'editor' IS a role at Scifax [https://scifax.com/#:~:text=Our%20team%20of-,experienced%20editors,-provides%20comprehensive%20editing] (under "Scientific Publishing Services").
:I'd say it's at least ambiguous, in this specific case, given that fact. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80CD:F701:2028:9813:C9AF:F143|2804:F1...AF:F143]] ([[Special:Contribs/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:80CD:F701:2028:9813:C9AF:F143|talk]]) 16:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:Sure looks like a role account to me. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
UAA is there to deal with ''blatant violations of the username policy'' and '''literally nothing else'''. I think this falls under what has been called the "Mark at Alcoa" exemption to the policy, in that it appears to identify an individual rather than a group. If there is concern that it may be a role account, that can be discussed but the username on its own is not a violation. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 19:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{ping|Deb}} blocked {{noping|OxervEditor}} (a user in this same shoe) for a username policy violation earlier today, even though [[User_talk:Rsjaffe#ScifaxEditor_block|I pointed out earlier]] that it isn't a literal username policy violation. Just wanted to point out as I think Deb is not aware of this situation too. Although, it appears OxervEditor is [[User_talk:OxervEditor#Block_notice|already asking for a rename]] as a result of the block. [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 22:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::There are reasonable people who disagree on this particular name pattern, and context matters, as this pattern could represent a role account for some. Also, if you mention the actions of another editor, you must notify them. I’ll take care of the notification. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 22:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Rsjaffe|Rsjaffe]] Whoops, thank you for handling that! [[User:Vanderwaalforces|Vanderwaalforces]] ([[User talk:Vanderwaalforces|talk]]) 23:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree with this. To me, this username strongly implies a role account, and I would not be surprised if I've blocked others with this same username pattern. If the company has any kind of "editor" position then I'd lean heavily towards it being a violation; if the company doesn't, it still screams "role account" to me. I think this pattern is uniquely confusing because the term "editor" in this context can be overloaded. I think there is enough room for interpretation here that if another admin reviewed a UAA report as "not a violation" I would not object; likewise, I'd not expect a block (''especially'' a soft one) to generate this level of controversy. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 23:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Such a name is very much a role account, one that could be passed on to another editor or shared by everybody who has the job of editor there. "Fred at Scifax" or "Scifax' First Wiki-editor" might pass muster, but not something so obviously a role rather than an identity. --[[User:Orangemike|<span style="color:#F80">Orange Mike</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:Orangemike|<span style="color:#FA0">Talk</span>]] 01:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I think we're looking at this slightly wrong. It doesn't really matter if it's a rôle account or not, what counts is whether it is "[[WP:ISU|... clearly intended to denote an individual person ...]]" (the exception to [[Wikipedia:Username policy#Usernames implying shared use]]). And one thing that's certain in this discussion is that it isn't clear that this is an account for individual use. The block was correct, I think – if it's a single good-faith editor it's easy to request a rename. [[User:Justlettersandnumbers|Justlettersandnumbers]] ([[User talk:Justlettersandnumbers|talk]]) 10:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, I did, and yes, I do disagree with the way the guidelines are being interpreted, and I would certainly have deleted the promotional content in ScifaxEditor's user page, which almost amounts to a CV. One difference between the two cases, however, is that OxervEditor, in addition to creating a spammy article, admitted to being the owner of the company (and did not post a COI notice on his/her user page). [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 10:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::Also, thanks for alerting me to the fact that OxervEditor has now added to his "appeal" by including yet another promotional blurb about himself and his company - which I'll be removing as soon as I've finished writing this. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 10:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

== Disclaimer ==
{{atop|1=Closing this to prevent further time being wasted on likely trolling. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 14:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)}}
Hi, I sent this message to a few Wikipedia admins to make sure it gets seen, and now I am putting it here. My brother, who lives with me, has mentioned that he intends on vandalizing Wikipedia articles. He hasn't specified (to the best of my knowledge) what articles he intends to vandalize. Knowing him, it's likely to be anything relating to Donald Trump, and other things relating to the republican party. I wanted to bring this to your attention in part because he and I live together and share an IP address (I don't want to be stuck with the blame), and because I value the integrity of Wikipedia. Thank you. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 23:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:If he does, you will be blocked. See WP:BROTHER. You could still prevent this. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 00:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::Believe me, I ''am'' trying, but you don't quite know him like I do. He goes ''out of his way'' to do the exact opposite of almost anything I ask of him. If he ''does'' get me banned, I'll instantly request it to be undone, but it is obviously not the preferred outcome. I'm aware that it is a widely used excuse, which is unfortunate for those of us who are actually encountering this issue. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::One important thing to do is to be '''absolutely''' sure he has no access to your account. Never leave any computer he has access to logged in, nor allow it to have your password saved. Do not use any password he would be likely to guess. You ''may'' be able to convince someone that your IP address is shared and that you are not responsible for all its actions, but certainly not your account. [[User:Animal lover 666|Animal lover]] [[User talk:Animal lover 666|&#124;666&#124;]] 01:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I am sure my account is secure from him (I made sure, since I know that's the kind of thing he's likely to do), and I plan on changing my password once a month for extra security. I'll still do what I can to keep him away. [[User:Shovel Shenanigans|Shovel Shenanigans]] ([[User talk:Shovel Shenanigans|talk]]) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Recommended using 2FA (see [[WP:2FA]]) on all of your accounts. Never use your phone number as 2FA. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 02:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:Would it bother anyone if I blocked this troll now? Or do we need to let him screw with us for longer first? [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 02:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::They have made several good-faith edits to article space; they haven't only posted about this disclaimer, and they have responded productively to feedback on their talk page. It seems like we should [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] unless there is a compelling reason not to. 03:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC) [[User:Jackattack1597|Jackattack1597]] ([[User talk:Jackattack1597|talk]]) 03:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:::This is what I was thinking as well. [[WP:BROTHER]] is intended for cases where someone vandalized, got caught, and is trying to make an excuse. OP's situation seems plausible, and they haven't vandalized (that I can see). If OP owns the residence I'd probably be trying to ensure they can't use my Internet connection, but if OP doesn't then they don't have any power in this situation. This doesn't seem too different from someone editing from a school using an account (which we allow), except that they're related to the potential vandal. --Chris &#124; <small>[[User:Crazycomputers|Crazycomputers]] ([[User talk:Crazycomputers|talk]])</small> 03:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::To clarify my remark above, when I said "you could still stop this" I meant: "there's still time to avoid being blocked". I don't believe a word, and Floquenbeam has the size of it. A five day old account suddenly wants to warn us about future vandalism coming from their IP? No. A (probably somewhat immature) attempt to get us all chasing our tails and bending over ourselves to show good faith? Yes. Now they know that now they don't even ''need'' to vandalize; we've wasted more time on the suggestion than we would have done on the actuality. Trolls vandalize for the attention; how much cleverer it is not to have to vandalize at all but still achieve the same result. DFTT. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 14:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Block request ==

Hello, can an admin please block the IP 58.120.141.78. It's a sockpuppet of [[User:Dopenguins]], a user who has been previously banned on 100s of occasions. I have raised this the proper way at [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations]], but it has not been dealt with quickly enough to prevent damage. In the last half hour alone, the IP has undone over 100 of my own edits, and if I didn't have to manually go through them one by one to restore content it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. [[User:Jkaharper|Jkaharper]] ([[User talk:Jkaharper|talk]]) 16:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{done}}. blocked as proxy and mass reverted the edits done in the last hour. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 16:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you! --[[User:Jkaharper|Jkaharper]] ([[User talk:Jkaharper|talk]]) 16:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[User:ReflexSpray]] violating [[WP:GS|General sanctions]] ==
{{userlinks|ReflexSpray}}

[[User:ReflexSpray]] has violated general sanctions numerous times (in fact, their entire contrib history is entirely GS-violating content) imposed on [[Russo-Ukrainian War]] and related topics, despite formal notification [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ReflexSpray&oldid=1256393897]. [[WP:RUSUKR]] dictates that "non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area". Notwithstanding [[WP:RUSUKR]], ReflexSpray has been commenting on edit requests and an RfC. [[User:ThatIPEditor|ThatIPEditor]] <sup>[[User talk:ThatIPEditor|Talk]] · [[Special:contribs/ThatIPEditor|Contribs]]</sup> 03:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC), made non-material changes on 04:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

:That does appear to be the case. One could simply strike their comments from the discussion via strike-through tags with a note that they violate RUSUKR. The user was given the RUSUKR notice, and continued to make edits. If they have questions about why their edits are being struck (or, if not, since they don't seem to understand this), then we should probably explicitly highlight the restriction to them. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 03:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

== Seeking opinions: protection of the help desk and teahouse ==

Most of you have probably seen threads here or on the incidents board about MidAtlanticBaby (MAB for short), a long-term attention troll who targets the [[WP:HELPDESK|help desk]] and [[WP:TEAHOUSE|teahouse]]. They're the one that rapidly cycles through open proxies to repost their whine about being banned everywhere and blocked on IRC and not getting responses when they email the Foundation. They're banned from all those channels because any attempt to communicate with them is met with spamming death threats to the user, [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drmies&diff=prev&oldid=885194403 like this]. Don't try to talk to them, [[WP:RBI]] is the only appropriate response.

For the past couple weeks they've been spamming those two new user pages. Look through the history and you'll see many instances of an IP posting a message in an alternate unicode font, being reverted and blocked, and a new IP restoring the message within minutes. This can go on for hours, and only stops if the page is protected, which of course means that legitimate new users also can't post to those pages. 

Earlier in the week I set both pages to pending changes, thinking that this would allow new users to post through PC moderation but also starve MAB of the attention they crave. It seems to be working - they are active but have not tried to post on those pages - but at the same time there have not been many legitimate posts from anonymous users hitting the moderation queue either. {{ul|Pigsonthewing}} asked on the Teahouse talk page to remove the protection, and other users have suggested that we should just let MAB run amok since someone has to revert them anyway even if their edits are paused in the PC queue. I'm on the fence myself if the protection is net positive.

I'd like to hear what other users think. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:I was actually just combing through the logs to look at who implemented pending changes, to start a discussion with them. I don't think pending changes really makes sense in this specific circumstance, since MAB's ostensible goal is to harass specific editors, and logged-in editors can see their posts through PC protection regardless of whether those posts have been approved or not, so PC doesn't really do anything to protect MAB's main targets. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 14:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*I think admins should be free tho deal with MAB as they see fit: short protections, blocks, and why not pending changes protection? There is no ideal solution, and being flexible in responses is a way to go imho. My take on pending changes has always been that it takes out the "immediate reward" part of trolling...I actually let the pending changes review lag for some minutes before reverting; some people have short attention spans. Anyway: pending changes is another way to deal with him, I would just shorten the time of protection. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 14:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:To be clear, I'm not opposed ''in principle'' to PC protection being used for this purpose (and certainly I don't think there was anything untoward with Ivanvector's use of it), I'm just unsure of the efficacy. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I didn't take it as being against pending-changes protection in principle; I just think that there's no right way to go about it, but also no wrong way. And as the WMF isn't moving, we are stuck with the instruments we have. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 15:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{ec}} As one of MAB's favorites, I understand the frustration in dealing with him. (Look at the > 100,000 byte edits on my talk page for examples.) I am pleased that he's found other ways to express himself while being saddened that others have to clean up his messes.  What worked on my talk page was very brief semi protection combined with RBI and proxy blocks.  Wish I had something better to offer. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&#45;-  Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 15:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:I'm more or less in agreement with Writ Keeper. I don't want to go into too many details about how I normally try and deal with them, and unfortunately there's very limited ways to get admin coordination on the response.
:I'm more concerned that this harassment can keep up for months and there's no support from WMF to get the lists of residential proxies they're using, e.g. vpngate and massblock them. That shouldn't be foisted onto individual communities and bot operators. There are other LTAs that use similar methods to harass people, including non-editors, and we really need to be able to shut that down. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 14:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::Amen, brother. Amen. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&#45;-  Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 15:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I echo ScottishFinnishRadish's point that we need more support to deal with long-term abuse like this. It's time-consuming and exhausting for admins to handle, and this is clearly MAB's goal. Well, that and to normalise death threats. MAB has kept this up for literally months, if (perhaps) not years. And admins shouldn't have to deal with this garbage. Every approach I've seen so far has simply moved him from one venue to another, but hasn't meaningfully reduced the frequency. I think if we bulk shut down all VPNgate proxies, that has a ''chance'' of working. I don't think anything less than this has a chance, but I support any attempts, including Ivanvector's approach. We need a much firmer approach with MAB. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 15:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Yeah, I think PC is the least bad option here. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 15:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::This is exactly what I mentioned [[meta:Research talk:Wikipedia Administrator Recruitment, Retention, and Attrition#Retention strategy|on Meta for admin retention strategy]], which includes more resources from WMF to support admins dealing with persistent, long-term abuse. [[User:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: #0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b>]][[User talk:OhanaUnited|<b style="color: green;"><sup>Talk page</sup></b>]] 22:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::Double amen on getting the proxies list. Ridiculous that we don't have it. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:Putting PC on the Teahouse in particular has a detrimental effect on its target audience - new, inexperienced users. As I said in the original discussion, if used in the case described, it should be for hours at a time, not a month. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]]</span> (<span class="nickname">Pigsonthewing</span>); [[User talk:Pigsonthewing|Talk to Andy]]; [[Special:Contributions/Pigsonthewing|Andy's edits]]</span> 17:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::Indeed. MAB gets frustrated quickly and moves along. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&#45;-  Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::The conundrum here is that if we protect for a short amount of time, or for a long time, MAB comes back within hours of the protection expiring. I agree that our goal here is to limit the disruption to new users, and I guess the question is: is it more disruptive to new users to have to submit their questions to a queue for approval (pending changes), or not be able to submit questions at all for a period of time (semiprotection), or to be frustrated by edit conflicts when MAB is active and spamming the page? We don't have a lot of good options here. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 19:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I think pending changes works perfectly well for this and don't really understand the opposition to it. It's not like newbies posting at the teahouse get immediate responses. They can also survive not getting immediate posting access. But semi-protection for an extended period of time is a bad idea, imo. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 19:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::For me, the issue is that they're normally reverted and blocked very quickly. Adding PC to that adds additional labor even when they're not actively trying to disrupt the noticeboards. I don't strongly object to PC, but I don't think it's actually benefiting us. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 19:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Hm, that's fair. I don't really feel like periodically approving some pending changes is a lot of work, but I see what you mean. I'll be the "don't strongly support" to your "don't strongly object". -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 19:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::A question in that vein: are users seeing a message that discourages them from editing pages under PC protection? I haven't been able to check, I'm on a corporate VPN. I can report that the message that logged-out editors get on proxy-blocked IPs ''is'' fairly discouraging. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Logged into my testalt{{snd}}appears there's a list of info with the following wording: 
::::::::"Note: Edits to this page from new or unregistered users are subject to review prior to publication (help link).
::::::::[Protection log entry for PC]
::::::::The latest accepted version was reviewed on xyz date. There are x pending revisions awaiting review.
::::::::The edit form below includes changes that have not yet been accepted. (show those changes)"
::::::::It's all listed next to an information icon, so no red warning signs or (excessively) giant text for what it's worth. I can't say whether or not that deters any editors, though. [[User:Perfect4th|Perfect4th]] ([[User talk:Perfect4th|talk]]) 02:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*I know the edit filter is not a fix-all solution, but might it be useful in this case? --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 19:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Without going into detail, it's already being used. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 19:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I see.  Well, in that case, (1) I would certainly defer to the judgement of people dealing with this user, but (2) if outside opinions are actively being solicited, I think I come down on the side of making Teahouse and Help desk more available to new editors, even if it means having to deal with more MAB posts.  If we keep pending changes, asking more PCR's to watch both pages for legit questions might help. If we remove PC, then asking more admins to watch those pages and RBI might help.  That's ... pretty useless advice, but it's all I've got. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 19:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::I'm an administrator with over 11,600 edits to the Teahouse and it is definitely frustrating to deal with this driven individual. Rapid reverting and blocking is the obvious approach and trying to engage is an especially poor idea in this particular case. Personally, I find pending changes a clunky solution that may well deter new good faith editors. I agree with Floquenbeam that more adminstrator eyes on the Teahouse and the Help Desk would be a good thing, and if this conversation accomplishes that, then that is a positive outcome. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 20:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::I do not recommend engagement. It proved counter productive. [[User:Deepfriedokra|&#45;-  Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::{{ec}} I thought I saw your face come up in the header yesterday. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

:If possible, I immediately unwatch all pages under PC (I really, really hate PC) so I am no longer watching the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Certainly protection of any kind for newbie-facing pages like these should be as short as possible. If we are fighting a single troll, I expect they will sleep every now and then so protection should be not longer than 16 or 20 hours at a time. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 22:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

My suggested approach to this type of individual has always that the Foundation should bring a legal proceeding seeking injunctive relief. I do not know whether that might be practicable in this instance nor whether the possibility has been explored. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
:I admit to some curiosity about how this would be possible but it seems like a [[WP:BEANS]] issue to discuss here. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

*I think we're in agreement here that protection on these pages is not ideal, especially not ''long'' protection. I'll lower it on both pages momentarily. Might I suggest that when MAB shows up again, short periods of PC would be preferred to short periods of semi? Or is consensus that we should not protect these pages at all and revert when needed instead? [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 20:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I think we should at the very least protect the pages for long enough to get them to go elsewhere. I don't think that needs to be a long time - 10 or 15 minutes worked for me last time. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 20:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*::''If'' we protect, it should be PC, not semi. Don't want to close the door on a newbie. That could have a lasting effect on the editor. —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 21:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::And we don't care about the effect on established editors? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*I emailed {{u|JKoerner (WMF)}} a couple of weeks ago after seeing [[Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 80#Relaunch of the Community Safety Survey|Relaunch of the Community Safety Survey]]. I gave brief examples of abuse and wrote {{tq|Asking "have you felt unsafe or uncomfortable contributing to Wikipedia" is not appropriate when such extreme abuse cannot be prevented.}} I received a nice reply but do not expect anything further. It is past time for the community to push the WMF. We need a statement that they exist to spend money on maintenance or on marketing. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Do you think they have any money to spare?{{sarcasm}} —&nbsp;[[User:rsjaffe|<b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:rsjaffe|🗣️]] 01:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{nacc}} Wouldn't it be wise to discuss further this wherever admins discuss LTA matters, i.e. maybe in a less public forum? Perhaps there's a chat or something? I'm not trying to prevent non-administrators from offering opinions, but it should probably be assumed that most LTA are aware of these noticeboards and the talk pages of the pages they're disrupting and are monitoring them to see what steps are going to be taken. The Help Desk was unprotected and the posts starting appearing right away. If [[:WP:RBI]] is what needs to be done with respect to LTA, then even a discussion such as this seems to somewhat be giving the LTA what its wants. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 00:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

=== Proposal: Ask the WMF to evaluate legal remedies ===
I appreciate that this is crossing a threshold into more serious waters, but I feel it's completely warranted to discuss at this point. To be clear: I am only interested in discussing whether we should ask the WMF to investigate; of course, I do not think anyone else should conduct anything themselves. While invoking the legal system is almost always a rhetorical pratfall, the internet is real life, and this level of sustained attack on Wikipedia's ability to operate warrants outside intervention. In my view, the WMF should determine whether MAB can be identified, and evaluate the merits of taking legal action against them if so. I know there has been much concern recently as regards the personal information of users, but there is no reason that seeking legal remedy against one of the most disruptive serial bad-faith actors in site history should be seen as a violation of trust or principles. Per [[User:win8x]], it seems plausible for the WMF to contact VPNGate given [https://www.vpngate.net/en/about_abuse.aspx their anti-abuse policy]. I would appreciate input regarding whether we should communicate this matter to the WMF, and if so what the best means of doing so are. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:This sounds like something that ArbCom could try to talk with the WMF about. A petition should be a last resort. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 04:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::Right—I've clarified that I would support whatever means of communication is considered best. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 04:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:Good suggestion. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 12:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
:I'm on board with ArbCom talking to WMF about this. Although I certainly don't have all the information, I'm happy to talk to either group about the problems if it would help. We've also brought up bulk-blocking VPNgate endpoints, though presumably this list wouldn't be something VPNgate would be eager to give us. I'm not immediately sure how we could obtain such a list. If we could, we wouldn't need ArbCom or WMF to do the actual blocks. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 13:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::I'll look into this, in my capacity as an individual arb. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 15:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
::There is currently some work to integrate IPTool with AbuseFilter: [[phab:T354599]]. Depending on the outcome of the integration, we may be able to prevent edits from proxy IP addresses. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 19:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*The Committee regularly deals with such requests and we will do our part to push for a resolution. I wouldn't hold your breaths though; a resolution will neither be fast nor guaranteed, for BEANS reasons. The community will still need an intermediate term solution. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 19:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
*:RE: "we may be able to prevent edits from proxy IP addresses." Yaaaayyyyyy! [[User:Deepfriedokra|&#45;-  Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 00:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*::''glances nervously at UTRS'' -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 04:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

== PIA shizzle ==

Hi, is there an appropriate warning template for a newish (non ec) editor adding PIA content to an article that isn't itself tagged as PIA? Thanks, [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 11:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

:I think just {{tlx|Contentious topics/alert/first}} suffices, right? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 11:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::Probably can add <nowiki>{{welcome-arbpia}}</nowiki> as well (friendly version of alert/first that uses the language "prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict"). [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::(e/c) :{{re|Remsense}} Yes, that looks like it. <small>I nearly fell off my chair when I got the big scary warning about warning people you get when you try to warn someone with it though. There should be some kind of warning.</small> Thank you, [[User:DuncanHill|DuncanHill]] ([[User talk:DuncanHill|talk]]) 11:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

== Moderator Tools newsletter - Issue #2 ==

Welcome to issue #2 of the [[:mw:Moderator Tools|Moderator Tools]] newsletter! It's been about a year since the first one (sorry for the delay), but we're excited to tell you what our team has been working on since then, and where you can guide our ongoing and upcoming work.

=== Automoderator ===
[[File:Automoderator CommunityConfiguration page en.beta September 2024.png|thumb|Automoderator's configuration page as of September 2024.]]
'''[[:mw:Moderator Tools/Automoderator|Automoderator]]''' is now feature-complete for its initial release! Automoderator is a highly configurable automated anti-vandalism tool which reverts edits that a machine learning model determines to be vandalism. It can be enabled, disabled, and configured at any time by administrators via a [[:mw:Community Configuration|Community Configuration]] form. Automoderator is now in use on Indonesian, Turkish, Ukrainian, and Vietnamese Wikipedias, with other projects at various stages of discussion and setup. You can track data about Automoderator's activity so far via a [https://superset.wmcloud.org/superset/dashboard/unified-automoderator-activity-dashboard/ Superset dashboard]. To request Automoderator on your Wikimedia project, please refer to the [[:mw:Extension:AutoModerator/Deploying|'''deployment steps''']].

We are wrapping up our focused time developing Automoderator while we review data and feedback about its impact. We also still plan to provide support for small Wikimedia projects with few/no administrators ([[phab:T372280|T372280]]), and integrate the [[:m:Multilingual_revert_risk_model|multilingual revert risk model]], which is an improved version of the model currently in use, with support for 47 language Wikipedias. We're looking for [[:mw:Moderator Tools/Automoderator/Multilingual testing|'''support testing the multilingual model''']] to better understand its behaviour - please check out the testing process and review some edits!

=== Nuke extension ('Mass delete') ===
During the 2024-2025 Wikimedia Foundation fiscal year, our team wants to make improvements to the software that moderators (patrollers, administrators, stewards, etc.) are using ''today'', rather than focusing on building new tools. Although it's valuable to build new features, it's also important that we continue maintaining the important tools that are already being used to maintain and improve Wikipedia's quality.

[[File:Nuke extension.png|thumb|Nuke search interface.]]
One such project is to make usability and feature improvements to the [[:mw:Extension:Nuke|Nuke]] extension (known as 'mass delete' on some projects). We have contracted a community developer, [[User:Chlod|Chlod]], who has worked on the extension in the past, to help us with this! With the Nuke project, we hope to make a number of improvements, including additional filters, increasing the deletion time range, automated deletion of related pages, and bug fixes. Read more about this project, and provide feedback, at [[:mw:Extension:Nuke/2024 Moderator Tools project|'''Extension:Nuke/2024 Moderator Tools project''']].

=== Recent Changes ===
As part of our efforts to improve existing impactful moderator tooling, we are [[:mw:Moderator Tools/Recent changes|'''working on a project''']] for a few months to make improvements to [[Special:RecentChanges]] and related workflows. We will be prioritizing work for this project on an ongoing basis, but have some larger projects that we will solicit input for via our project page. We have a brief survey at [[:mw:Moderator Tools/Survey:Recent Changes|'''Moderator Tools/Survey:Recent Changes''']] to gather input for this project - please answer the questions if you're interested.

=== Task prioritization ===
Finally, looking to the future, we plan to research and work on tasks identified as part of the Community Wishlist focus area titled [[:m:Community_Wishlist/Focus_areas/Task_prioritization|'task prioritization']]. We'll be looking for opportunities to speak with editors about how they decide what needs their attention, and in particular will be investigating the [[Special:Watchlist|Watchlist]] to see where we might be able to make usability and feature improvements. If you have thoughts about opportunities in this focus area please share them on the [[:m:Talk:Community_Wishlist/Focus_areas/Task_prioritization|'''task prioritization talk page''']], or [[:m:Community_Wishlist/Intake|file a new wish]]!

Although we have active engineering projects ongoing, we're always happy to chat about your community's content moderation tool needs - feel free to get in contact at [[:mw:Talk:Moderator Tools|Talk:Moderator Tools]] to let us know where you think we should focus our efforts. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 12:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9 (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Moderator_Tools&oldid=27814224 -->

== Unban appeal of [[User:Baqiyah]] ==
{{atop|Seeing as the requester just had a confirmed sock blocked earlier today, closing this. [[User:RickinBaltimore|RickinBaltimore]] ([[User talk:RickinBaltimore|talk]]) 23:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)}}
The following is the appeal of Baqiyah, who is requesting that their 3X ban be removed.  I am bringing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Mods!

First and foremost, I want to offer my sincere apologies for my past mistakes. I recognize the harm I caused, and I am committed to facing my actions and working to regain the trust of this community. It has been around eight months or so since I was last blocked, and during this time, I deeply reflected on my actions and fully understood the gravity of my past violations. I also took the time to further educate myself on the do's and don'ts of Wikipedia in order to never repeat any of the same mistakes again. After waiting more than the mandatory six-month period since my block, I am now requesting the opportunity to appeal my ban through the WP:UNBAN process.

To provide some context and clarity, I’d like to explain how things went wrong. I began editing with my main account, '''YousefSW07''' , without a clear focus or understanding of Wikipedia's policies. My edits were indiscriminate, and I lacked knowledge about the topics I was editing. As a result, I made many mistakes, including engaging in edit wars and arguing with administrators, unaware that these actions were violations of community guidelines. When that account was blocked, I created '''S Molecular''' in an attempt to bypass the restrictions, stupidly thinking I could continue editing undetected. I engaged in more edit warring and was eventually banned and caught for sock puppetry. I now fully understand that I should not have done this whatsoever and there is no justification for what I did.

Instead of learning from my mistakes, I created several other accounts—'''Burhim''', '''Lybcarian''', '''Walgart''', and '''FazeTK'''—thinking I could simply avoid violating the guidelines and escape detection. But I was wrong, and I was banned on all of these accounts as well. After a short period of time, I created '''Baqiyah''', stupidly thinking that if I started fresh and followed the guidelines, I should be fine. I worked on creating new pages and made efforts to abide by the rules, but I was still a sockpuppet, I was then caught again, as I should have.

At this point, I took a break from editing and waited out the mandatory six-month period before appealing. Since then, I have spent additional time reflecting on the harm I caused and disciplining myself. I fully understand why I was banned multiple times, and I sincerely apologize for my actions and the disruption they caused to the community. 

I now realize that true contribution to Wikipedia requires a commitment to the community's values (collaboration, transparency, and respect for policies). I am truly sorry for betraying those values in the past, and I am asking for the chance to prove that I can contribute constructively moving forward. I want to be an active, positive part of Wikipedia, working alongside other editors and adhering strictly to the rules. I also very much understand if there is any concern regarding my unban and am willing to answer any questions you may have. 

I humbly ask for the opportunity to rejoin the community and contribute in a way that reflects the integrity and spirit of Wikipedia.

Thank you for considering my appeal. Sincerely [[User:Baqiyah|Baqiyah]] [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:They are {{confirmed}} to {{np|Syria4you}} and {{np|Skibidy rizz}}. So nope. [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 21:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::Well, that was easy I guess. [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yousefsw07]] is the SPI if you want to add that to the record. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 22:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::More like Ohio rizz. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Unban request for Wikiuser1314 ==
{{atop
| result = Consensus to unban. [[User:Queen of Hearts|<span style="color: darkred;">charlotte</span>]] [[User talk:Queen of Hearts|<sup style="color: darkred;">👸♥</sup>]] 21:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
}}

{{np|Wikiuser1314}} is [[WP:CBAN|banned by the community]] under [[WP:3X]]. They were initially blocked as a sock of {{np|WorldCreaterFighter}} who has a long-term abuse page, see [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/WorldCreaterFighter]]. They claim to be unrelated, but admit a long string of sockpuppets. As a [[WP:CHECKUSER]], I see no evidence of recent block evasion. I solicited feedback from other checkusers on the cu mailing list but did not get a response. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 21:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

: Hello Wikipedia community! At first I want to apologize for my past mistakes. I want to face my past and work to regain the trust of the community. Quite some time has passed, and I fully understand my wrongdoings now. After waiting the mandatory six months since the block of this account, I sincerely ask for a [[WP:UNBAN]] process. – To better understand and summarize my past mistakes, I will try to exlpain how it started: my first account [[user:Satoshi Kondo]] (no access anymore), which initially got blocked because I stupidly created two other accounts at that time [[user:일성강]] and [[user:Kumasojin 熊襲]] simultaneously. I attribute these quite stupid actions to my then quite young age of 15 years old in 2016. After some time, those three accounts got correctly blocked as confirmed to each other, but later got merged into the "WorldCreatorFighter" sock-zoo, which now is confirmed to represent (at least) two distinct users (the other being [[user:Vamlos]]). I was however to dump and too impatient at that time to explain or wait and apply for a standard offer. As such, the misery started, paired with other rule violations and childish behavior on my side, such as being too impatient and too fixated on my personal views (regardless of if they were correct/sourced or not) and did aggressively try to implement them here. – My blockes were justified and I am ashamed of my past mistakes. Since late 2022, and with this account (Wikiuser1314), I learned a lot, not only here on Wikipedia, but also in real life. I improved myself, became more patient, more cooperative and appreciated to work together with other users. In short, I got older and learned from my past. For that, please also take a look at my talk page and edits of this account (Wikiuser1314). – I really want to constructively and positively edit and contribute to the Wikipedia project, together with fellow Wikipedians, and according to the rules. I do not want to run away anymore and hope to get a chance to prove myself. I am ready to fully cooperate with the Wikipedia community to regain trust. I am also ready to reveal my real identity to administrators and get in contact with them, to explain myself and for further details if it is necessary. Thanks. Sincerely – [[User:Wikiuser1314|Wikiuser1314]] ([[User talk:Wikiuser1314#top|talk]]) 12:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I then asked, Please list '''all''' of the accounts you've used. A good place to start is [[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WorldCreaterFighter]] and [[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WorldCreaterFighter]]. I'm primarily interested in accounts you've used in the past year that we haven't listed there and primarily interested in accounts you claim do not belong to you. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{Reply to|user:Yamla}} Embarrassing for me, but here are the accounts I once used: [[User:Banjardar]], [[User:Bharat99x2]], [[User:Kumasojin 熊襲]], [[User:Kush3897]], [[User:Ogbuago]], [[User:SapmiSamo]], [[User:WhiteTeaWiki]], [[User:X Aterui x]], [[User:일성강]], [[User:突厥 哈萨克族]], [[User:2001.4bc9.824.e0e4]], [[User:AmurTiger18]], [[User:AntiTuranism1908]], [[User:Ape-huchi]], [[User:Arario]], [[User:Arkiat]], [[User:AsadalEditor]], [[User:AustronesianTaiwan]], [[User:Azazmeh]], [[User:Baikal13]], [[User:BaiulyQz]], [[User:Bayan Khagan]], [[User:Benjamin Samasa]]?, [[User:Benji887]], [[User:ChampaDroid]], [[User:DeEnTranslator]]?, [[User:GanjDareh4]], [[User:GoguryeoHistorian]], [[User:Gyatso1]], [[User:HainanTai]], [[User:Heiwajima20Ip]], [[User:HlaaluTW]], [[User:Hmoob Yao]], [[User:Jäkke34]], [[User:JihoHone]], [[User:KalifFR]]?, [[User:Kang Sung-Tae]], [[User:KinhyaKing]], [[User:KuroZetsu oho]], [[User:KwestaPC]], [[User:Lankaman20]], [[User:LenguaEditar]]?, [[User:Lord Huynh]], [[User:Magyarrider]], [[User:Manasam98]], [[User:Mandari9]], [[User:Masamannamasam]], [[User:MLx22]], [[User:MomotaniSS]], [[User:MomotaniYY]], [[User:Nam Việt 18]], [[User:OghurBushi]], [[User:Quapaw]], [[User:Rimisibaqwa]], [[User:RobertoY20]], [[User:Ruuchuu]], [[User:Sakushain]], [[User:Satoshi Kondo]],  [[User:Saxhleel]], [[User:Shatuo]], [[User:ShiroEmishi]], [[User:Skaalra]], [[User:Takeshima42]], [[User:TAMILinJAPAN]], [[User:TamizhUser]], [[User:Tiberiussan]], [[User:Tomislav22]], [[User:TürkSamurai]], [[User:Turukkaean]], [[User:Whhu22]], [[User:WikiEdit2204]], [[User:Wikiworkbot2.0]], and [[User:YonaguniFan]].
:—
:The others in both lists are unrelated to me. '''(Not me''':[[User:WorldCreaterFighter]], [[User:ConspiracyThinkerPeople]], [[User:Dddcg]], [[User:DerekHistorian]], [[User:DragoniteLeopard]], [[User:Jinjin555]], [[User:KnowledgeAndPeace]], [[User:Lynch Kevin de León]], [[User:TechnichalProblems]], [[User:WorkingCatDog123]], [[User:Adygeheipeople]], [[User:BoxRec9]], [[User:CantoneseMaster]], [[User:ChowChowWong]], [[User:Dan Capoccia]], [[User:Deccodabo]], [[User:DrKoraKora]], [[User:Gailververgailqqq]], [[User:HeichtiSmech]], [[User:InternationalAffairs3]], [[User:LemanderOrange]], [[User:MasterChai]], [[User:Namela123]], [[User:OrenburgNative]], [[User:OttoKhan]], [[User:PeopleTaking11]], [[User:Pinoy123xaaa]], [[User:Robela2]], [[User:Spiritclaymore]], [[User:SushigirlJessice]], [[User:TelephoneBaby]], [[User:ToRespond]], [[User:TurkicDelight]], [[User:Verakhu]], [[User:WayneMacleod1]], and [[User:WuyueDNApeople]]. ''')'''
:—
:Accounts once associated with me, but not blocked/listed here should be these: [[User:Orange172212]], [[User:Noble4c2]], and [[User:Krause96]]. – [[User:Wikiuser1314|Wikiuser1314]] ([[User talk:Wikiuser1314#top|talk]]) 16:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

*If this user is really distinct from the master of the WorldCreaterFighter sockfarm, we couldn't distinguish them by behaviour nor by technical data, and we have a ''lot'' of those data points. At some point when we get into the ''hundreds'' of accounts that both look and act the same, we stop bothering to carefully distinguish one account from another, because they've collectively been so disruptive over such a long period of time that there's practically zero chance of them ever being unblocked, and each new one is just adding to the garbage heap. So maybe Wikiuser1234 is a different person, maybe they're not; to me it's irrelevant, and [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding Ted Kennedy#Sockpuppets|policy supports this irrelevancy]]. This case goes back over a decade, has been persistent throughout that time, and involves pushing fringe theories in a sensitive subject. I'm inclined to say ''never'' here, but I'd like to hear from people who edit that topic and have had to put up with this for a decade. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 19:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Do we know when the most recent sock was? There's too many here for me to hunt-and-peck looking for it. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Based on manual investigation (!!!) of the self-declared socks, {{np|Wikiuser1314}} last edited articles on 2024-04-22. Prior to that account, {{np|Krause96}} on 2023-08-02. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 21:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

* Wikiuser1314: what do you plan to edit if unblocked? Articles, topic areas, etc... what are your interests? [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
*:The user is blocked and thus unable to respond, but [[Special:Contributions/Wikiuser1314]] gives us a pretty good idea of their interests. Once unblocked, their immediate plans are probably to finish off the draft [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikiuser1314/sandbox in their sandbox] that they were actively working on when their past caught up with them. [[Special:Contributions/78.28.44.127|78.28.44.127]] ([[User talk:78.28.44.127|talk]]) 23:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Sure, '''support'''. this is a good unblock request, and I see no substantive complaints to their editing on the Wikiuser1314 account. They've decided to respect our rules by waiting patiently for a possible SO, and seem to show good faith in their contributions. I don't see much risk to giving them a chance. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 14:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''' There's every indication that the user is ready to be reintegrated into the Wikipedia community. They waited out the required six months patiently, made a perfectly reasonable unban request, and came clean about their past accounts. Their most recent account, [[User:Wikiuser1314]], made over 1500 edits over a period of 1.5 years without causing any disruption. I don't see any value in preventing them from ''continuing'' to positively contribute to the project. [[Special:Contributions/78.28.44.127|78.28.44.127]] ([[User talk:78.28.44.127|talk]]) 12:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. A solid six-month wait and a strong value to future constructive contributions seem that the user will not repeat the same mistake he did before. Welcome back. The community might trust you again. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 05:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Socked for too long. Let him prove he can productively edit any sister wiki before requesting unblock here again. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 03:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:I actually disagree with {{U|Capitals00}} here; there is a reasonable request, a substantial (and surely rather embarrassing) confession and, more to the point, why would we want to inflict upon a sister wiki a user whom we do not believe is reformed?  ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 20:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' for the reasons i mention above  ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 20:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' given the user provided their history of accounts. Give them some rope. – [[User:The Grid|<span style="color:navy">The Grid</span>]] ([[User talk:The Grid|<span style="color:navy">talk</span>]])  20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Support''' Contributions by [[User:Wikiuser1314]] have been valuable, including some very good synthethic graphs and maps ([[:File:Genetic makeup of the Saka and Scythian cultures.png|an example]]), with a good ability at incorporating feedback from other users. Past mistake are concerning, but I think he could be given a chance for a fresh start, in exchange for a firm promise not to ever engage in sockpupettery again. <span style=" 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:पाटलिपुत्र|<span style="color:green">पाटलिपुत्र</span>]][[User:पाटलिपुत्र|<span style="color:blue"> (Pataliputra)</span>]]</span> [[User talk:पाटलिपुत्र|'''(talk)''']] 08:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Issue with reverting major vandalism ==

There has been vandalism on the [[Age of consent]] article by [[User:Nhwr]], however it cannot be reverted since a url is one of the citations he removed is blocked. Please see the article and you will stright away see the vandalism. [[User:Terrainman|<span style="color:#2F2F2F">𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣</span><span style="color:#1A3D7C">地形人</span>]] ([[User talk:Terrainman|talk]]) 23:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
:I've removed the blacklisted source, reverted the edit, and warned Nhwr. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 23:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::Just a note that the edit in question was made by [[User:Nhwj]], not [[User:Nhwr]]. The latter editor hasn't been active for many years. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 00:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I [[Special:PermanentLink/1259587750#November 2024|warned Nhwj]] despite typing Nhwr above. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Voorts|Voorts]]: I don't get it, Nhwj didn't remove the blacklisted source (you removed it), why was Terrainman's revert setting the blacklist off? &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8095:F501:EDD0:5AB9:F3F1:29EC|2804:F1...F1:29EC]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:8095:F501:EDD0:5AB9:F3F1:29EC|talk]]) 00:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::voorts reverted manually and removed the source when they restored the edit. Terrainman was not able to use undo/revert because of the blacklist. At least I think that's what happened, I don't see any filter log entries. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 00:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Correct. I tried to revert as well but couldn't because of the blacklist, so I undid the edit and then manually removed the citation to faqs.org. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::It looks like @[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]] has [[Special:Diff/1259589943/1259592010|fixed the issue]]. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 00:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Ah I see, Nhwj's edit broke a reference, which turned the entire ''By Continents'' section (and more) into a reference error, this 'removed' the blacklist link (by transforming the part of the text where it was in into the error) which in turn made the algorithm think the revert was 'readding' it.
::::::It now makes much more sense why Terrainman called it major vandalism, despite it looking like a small change. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:8095:F501:EDD0:5AB9:F3F1:29EC|2804:F1...F1:29EC]] ([[Special:Contributions/2804:F14::/32|::/32]]) ([[User talk:2804:F14:8095:F501:EDD0:5AB9:F3F1:29EC|talk]]) 00:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
: For future reference in cases like this you can use rollback which ignores the blacklist. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 22:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::I initially tried using UltraViolet, which should have used rollback, but that didn't work. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::In my experience, some UltraViolet edits are tagged (and presumably use) Undo, while some are tagged Rollback... No idea how it decides between the two, though it seems to show up in the edit summary as well. I mostly use Twinkle myself, and I don't think I've ever seen reverts made from that be tagged as Rollback instead of Undo. [[User:Alpha3031|Alpha3031]] ([[User talk:Alpha3031|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alpha3031|c]]) 08:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

== Article moves, disregard for conventions and WP:REDACT ==
*{{Userlinks|Teterev53}}
[[User:Teterev53|This user]] has moved several articles to [[WP:OFFICIALNAME]]s, with clear disregard for article naming convention, even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Teterev53&oldid=1259813448 deleting our discussion about it] and branding it as "nonsense". Once this was brought up to RM, they committed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&oldid=1259816998 multiple WP:REDACT offenses in the discussion]—which should not have been in that section to begin with—and started an edit war over it. Blatant disregard for all editorial procedure and etiquette. [[User:Mb2437|Mb2437]] ([[User talk:Mb2437|talk]]) 06:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

* The articles move was correct. The name of the events are [[FIA Karting European Championship]] and [[FIA Karting World Championship]] per [https://www.fiakarting.com/competition-list FIA] and consistent with naming of [[FIA Formula 2 Championship]], [[FIA Formula 3 Championship]], [[FIA Sportscar Championship]], [[FIA Electric GT Championship]], [[FIA Formula 3 European Championship]], [[FIA GT Championship]], [[FIA GT3 European Championship]] etc. The event logo features the word FIA. The lead of the article say its a FIA event. Also the disrespectful user '''three times removed my words from my text''' after his complete lie about "dozens of article title" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=prev&oldid=1259816321] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=prev&oldid=1259816715] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=prev&oldid=1259816972] Also a very strange words about talk page. Per [[WP:BLANKING]], ''the policy does not prohibit users, whether registered or unregistered, from removing comments from their own talk pages''. [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 06:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:This is literally proving my point that you are disregarding [[WP:OFFICIALNAME|article naming procedure]] and [[WP:REDACT]]ing your responses to change the course of the conversation; those names are not consistent with naming convention, as proven in both prior conversations. Your aim ''is'' to change dozens of article titles, as you continued to move articles ([[Karting World Championship]]) after I opened the discussion with you, and there are dozens of articles which fit your repertoire. It is not "disrespectful" for someone to disagree with you, Wikipedia is a collaborative project fuelled by conversation and debate. [[User:Mb2437|Mb2437]] ([[User talk:Mb2437|talk]]) 06:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:: This disrespectful user again repeated his complete lie about "dozens of article title". Only 2 or 3 pages in a question, not 12. [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 06:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::"Aiming to move" does not mean "has moved"; you're clearly not reading my words. [[User:Mb2437|Mb2437]] ([[User talk:Mb2437|talk]]) 06:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::This user say he is know about my aim. CRYSTALBALL clearly. [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 07:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::Have you glanced at [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]] before invoking it here, or? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 07:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::: I mean (in a figurative sense) about that user' words about my aim. Its not about wiki-rule. [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 07:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Of course you may remove comments from your talk page, but that does not mean you can ignore the contents of the conversation and simply brand it as "nonsense" when a user confronts you with clear policy. [[User:Mb2437|Mb2437]] ([[User talk:Mb2437|talk]]) 06:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*I would support reverting the moves and initiating a move discussion. The situation that Teterev53 moved the pages, some without summary, without discussion and is contested is not appropriate in my view. [[User:ToadetteEdit|ToadetteEdit]] ([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|talk]]) 06:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
** Per [[WP:BOLDMOVE]], ''autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply'' (all applied). Also the reason of move and the prooflinks were listed in this edits. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FIA_Karting_World_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=1259812246] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karting_European_Championship&diff=1259812320&oldid=1259641461] What is not appropriate exactly? [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 07:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
**:What you said all are applied is {{tq|It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move.}} That one objected the move ''after'' you moved the pages yourself. Also you provided the link to one, not the other two which you moved without summary. Also [[:wp:OFFICIALNAME]] is an essay as opposed to [[wp:commonname]] which is policy that is based on reliable sources. [[User:ToadetteEdit|ToadetteEdit]] ([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|talk]]) 07:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
**: The page which was moved without summary were a technical fault (missclick), and the link was provided in a next edit on a page when discovered. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karting_European_Championship&diff=1259812320&oldid=1259641461 here] [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 07:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
**: And why do you think that a common name here is a variant without FIA? All secondary sources say '''FIA''' in the title. For example: [https://slovakiaring.sk/en/fia-karting-european-championship-2024] [https://www.ekartingnews.com/2024/08/05/fia-karting-european-championships-2024-two-great-european-champions-crowned-in-sweden/] [https://www.steelring.cz/en/fia-karting-european-championship/] [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 07:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
**::This is not a space for a move discussion, please read [[WP:CONCISE]]. [[User:Mb2437|Mb2437]] ([[User talk:Mb2437|talk]]) 07:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
***: I don't ask you what I should write here. [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 07:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
***:I can confirm that the titles confirm policy per commonname and consistency, but the objection of another editor is concerning. [[User:ToadetteEdit|ToadetteEdit]] ([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|talk]]) 07:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
***::I work extensively on motorsport articles, and they are not confirmed by consistency: [[World Sportscar Championship]], [[World Rally Championship]], [[World Rally-Raid Championship]], [[Formula E]], [[European Rally Championship]], [[Asia-Pacific Rally Championship]], [[Middle East Rally Championship]], [[African Rally Championship]], [[European Drag Racing Championship]], [[Formula One]], are a few examples of many. There is no disambiguation needed, and it being known simply as the "Karting European Championship" is also confirmed in secondary sources.[https://sports.yahoo.com/kimi-antonelli-mercedes-teen-tipped-131627108.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHeAgZzmEC3pttkPU-S2NKZ5901Lr-l5qso1L59HNeF45qRgrIcKNQFhC-AKgyPpnMhtfxqPXcf39u5mslp5fCxpNJN7w_QT85Ya_y6nwkC1xQ2tfJKTbGVa8hC3-F_qunjyeVlYjToqvmVCVEFmxvK6Q04tHTO_84iraCAd7d66][https://www.total-motorsport.com/f1-race-replace-lewis-hamilton-mercedes-2025-down-two-candidates/][https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/sport/other-sport/16751311.cumbrian-teenage-karting-sensation-follows-in-lewis-hamiltons-tracks/][https://www.atlasf1.com/news/2001/oct/report.php/id/5969/][https://www.essentiallysports.com/f1-news-fifty-years-ago-a-turning-point-in-michael-schumacher-s-life-paved-way-for-his-majestic-career/] The user is manufacturing points to suit his argument. [[User:Mb2437|Mb2437]] ([[User talk:Mb2437|talk]]) 07:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
***::Most sources listed in the article (and modern news outlets) say a FIA Karting in the title: [https://www.fiakarting.com/news/cancellation-fia-european-championship-superkart-le-mans] [https://www.driverdb.com/championships/cik-fia-european-championship-ok/2023] [https://www.kartcom.com/en/pressrel/decisive-fia-karting-weekend-in-sweden/] [https://www.fia.com/news/fia-karting-zuera-iglesias-and-powell-rewarded-spain] [https://www.fia.com/news/fia-karting-franciacorta-world-championship-breathtaking-intensity] [https://www.kartcom.com/en/pressrel/three-european-fia-karting-titles-to-be-decided-in-italy/] etc [[User:Teterev53|Teterev53]] ([[User talk:Teterev53|talk]]) 08:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*{{nacc}} While it's true [[:WP:BOLDMOVE]] states that users may boldly move pages, it's also states that such moves can be reverted. In this case, it seems prudent for the person wanting to move the page to follow [[:WP:PCM]] and start a RM discussion. This can be done for a single page or multiple pages if necessary. Arguing about something that's essentially equivalent to a content dispute doesn't really require administrator intervention to resolve, but continuing to argue back and forth about it may lead to someone posting something that could lead to an administrator stepping in and taking some action. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 08:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*I have reverted the moves to the three specified pages as an uninvolved page mover following a request to [[WP:RMTR]]. {{u|Teterev53}}, please open a requested move discussion regarding the matter. The technical requests section of the requested moves page is not the place to have such a discussion, nor is the administrator's noticeboard. If you need assistance with this process, please see [[WP:RSPM]] for instructions on opening a move request. [[User:EggRoll97|EggRoll97]] <sup>([[User_talk:EggRoll97|talk]]) </sup> 08:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I'll second that. Edit warring will not fix the problem you perceive. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 17:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}
== LTA page for MidAtlanticBaby? ==
{{cot|No thanks. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 00:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}}
Sorry if this is the wrong venue to ask this, but although I haven't been very active on-wiki in the past few months, I see that there is a new LTA [[User:MidAtlanticBaby]] who has been causing quite a lot of trouble, but doesn't yet have a subpage at [[Wikipedia:Long-Term Abuse]]. Is there consensus against giving them an entry there? I am wondering because his edits are disruptive in nature but might be mistaken for good-faith by somebody unfamiliar with his MO, rather than being unambigious vandalism like torrents of obscenities; in cases such as these I believe the usefulness of an LTA page outweighs the "vandal shrine factor". Thanks, <b>[[User:Passengerpigeon|<span style="color:#E68A00;">Passenger</span>]][[Special:Contribs/Passengerpigeon|<span style="color:#4C6680;">pigeon</span>]] ([[User talk:Passengerpigeon|<span style="color:grey;">talk</span>]])</b>  23:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

:I don't think there are many cases where MAB could be mistaken for a good-faith editor, what with the death threats and all. We already give them way too much attention as it is; we don't need to dignify it with a LTA subpage IMO. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 23:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

::{{reply|Writ Keeper}} Do his new sockpuppets come out swinging right out of the gate or does he start making inappropriate edits to articles "peacefully" and only begin the truly bad behavior when challenged? I would personally be in favor making an LTA page if the latter is true so that his socks can be detected and blocked quicker; if it's the former then I agree there is no need for it. <b>[[User:Passengerpigeon|<span style="color:#E68A00;">Passenger</span>]][[Special:Contribs/Passengerpigeon|<span style="color:#4C6680;">pigeon</span>]] ([[User talk:Passengerpigeon|<span style="color:grey;">talk</span>]])</b>  23:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree with Writ Keeper.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:We don't need new LTA pages on anybody, but particularly not this one. [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 23:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Update after close:MAB has been banned from all Wikipedia pages. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 01:07, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
{{cob}}

== Create Page ==
{{atop|No. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 19:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)}}
Could the page [[Youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ]] be created? it's the URL for the Rickroll music video and I want to redirect it to [[Rickrolling]]. [[User:MouseCursor|MouseCursor]] ([[User talk:MouseCursor|talk]]) 18:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:Yo {{u|Drmies}}, CU time. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 18:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== DIVINE unban appeal ==
{{atop
| result = Consensus was clearly against lifting this block and DIVINE appears to have [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DIVINE&diff=prev&oldid=1260068033 withdrawn] their request. No reason for this to linger. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 21:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
}}

{{userlinks|DIVINE}} is [[WP:CBAN|considered banned by the community]] because [[Special:Permalink/1218495811#Unblock request carried over from DIVINE's user talk|they unsucessfully appealed their block to the community]]. They are [[User talk:DIVINE#Unblock Request|appealing this ban]]:
{{tqb|1=I am requesting the unblocking administrator or the community to unblock me because I have understood the cause of my blockage. Why did I get blocked, and how would I have dealt with the situation calmly without providing legal threats already resolved long before, yeah more than six months if I recall it might be seven. I accepted that I was paid to vote for [AFD] and I revealed it myself which helped to block larger PR firms even after I got blocked I supplied information to concerned users and someone who claims to be an invisible administrator which I had submitted evidence long back to administrators.

In the period, I get blocked, I haven't used multiple IDs nor have I edited from any IP or any new ID i.e. CU can verify this humble request first before anyone reviews my unblocking request because, in the past, I have faced many failed SPI requests against me.

Within a pperiod of Six months after getting blocked, I have contributed to SimpleWiki which is kind of similar to Enwiki and I believe I have improved my English skills by learning and contributing via simple English.

To make this request short:

1) I understand why I was blocked and I will avoid those mistakes again and will only submit [[WP:BLP]] via [[WP:DRAFT]] and will follow further to get unblock from Mainspace WP:BLP in the future.
2) I won't vote in AFD for an additional Six months and request to community later
3) I love Wikipedia thus I have been here for 10 years and I still want to make an effective contribution and help Wikipedia as an individual volunteer once again 
4)I have never doxed anyone's identity, but I was the victim of doxing before from few Nepali administrators which I will keep confidential and I have proof of how they misused their power.

Thankyou for considering this request :) [[User:DIVINE|<b style="color:#29F">DI</b><b style="color:red">V</b>]][[User talk:DIVINE|<b style="color:#080">I</b><b style="color:#808">N</b>]][[Special:Contribs/DIVINE|<b style="color:#FA0">E</b>]] 08:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)}}
They are active at Simple English Wikipedia (courtesy link to [[:simple:Special:Contributions/DIVINE|their simplewiki contribs]]), and [[user:PhilKnight|PhilKnight]] found [[Special:Diff/1259663173|no CU evidence of evasion]]. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*I am of two minds for this request. The previous appeal was a non-starter, and this one cannot be as easily dismissed; it has been six months per the standard offer and they have made positive contributions to a sister project. DIVINE's simplewiki contributions are alright, but they are almost exclusively using Twinkle to nominate things for quick deletion (the simplewiki equivalent of CSD). By my count, there are 17 bluelinks in [[:simple:User:DIVINE/QD log|their simple QD log]], out of 261 nominations, which is an error rate of ~6.5%. Those would not be amazing numbers at enwiki; not sure about simplewiki.{{pb}}However, I am not seeing a lot which demonstrates their ability to [[WP:ENGAGE|communicate]] effectively, which brings me back to this block appeal. It is not the best appeal I have read, and I think that we need to see something better from someone blocked in part due to English proficiency issues. I find a time-limited topic ban from AFD to be wholly insufficient to address the UPE concerns (taking bribes to !vote a specific way is a massive no-no). I am not going to stand in the way of an appeal which comes with an indefinite topic ban from all XfDs, broadly construed; a six month AFD topic ban is a nonstarter and the fact that this was the offer from DIVINE is a reason to reject this appeal. Same thing with a only-BLP-via-draftspace restriction; I think we should be looking at an indefinite BLP topic ban, broadly construed. The "never doxed anyone's identity" appears to refer [[Special:Diff/1217072167/1217080018|a comment of theirs]] which was partially suppressed.{{pb}}I think on balance I recommend '''declining'''; the limited fluency is a real issue for engaging productively at enwiki. I think that simplewiki is a great place for DIVINE to contribute, considering their limited fluency in English, and I would encourage DIVINE to continue to contribute there. If this appeal is to be accepted, I think it should come with:
*#An indefinite topic ban from BLPs, broadly construed
*#An indefinite topic ban from XfD, broadly construed
*#An indefinite topic ban from editing topics with which DIVINE has a COI
*<li style="list-style:none;">But again, I think that considering the limited language fluency we should not spend more of our most previous resource – volunteer time –  trying to coax DIVINE to edit within the rules. I am not sure we can get enough benefit to make it worthwhile. Best, <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)</li>
*:I'd say six months of ban is enough time for reflection on how to edit Wikipedia better; if he returns to producing poor content, then of course a new ban would be in order.
*:I lean on giving him a chance, '''accepting''' the reinstatement of his account. He can prove his better English through his new edits. [[User:Aearthrise|Aearthrise]] ([[User talk:Aearthrise|talk]]) 23:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Forgot to ping [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] as the blocking admin. <b>[[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|<span style="color:#7D066B;">Blaster</span>]]</b>&nbsp;([[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;he/they) 23:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*I'm left wondering what an "invisible administrator" is. I think HouseBlaster's restrictions are reasonable if consensus is that an appeal is granted. As for me, I didn't know about the UPE on AFDs but I remember when DIVINE was originally indefinitely blocked, they went wild and several of their talk page comments had to be oversighted. We have to ensure they have the temperament to edit on the project where disputes are very common. 
:Also, given their unsavory connection with AFDs, I think they should stay away from CSD-tagging completely because I don't trust their sense of what articles and pages should be deleted. I know our admins review all tagged articles but given the previous COI, I think their primary activity shouldn't be page deletion. Maybe improving articles, copy editing or vandal fighting would be more appropriate. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' Appellant has not adequately addressed the UPE concerns and I cannot support even with  proposed restrictions on deletion matters  and BLP. We could never be sure of their conflicts of interest.. Their best fit is SIMPLEWIKI.[[User:Deepfriedokra|&#45;-  Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 08:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1259925768&oldid=1259924016 Adding per Spicy to decline rationale] [[User:Deepfriedokra|&#45;-  Deepfriedokra]] ([[User talk:Deepfriedokra|talk]]) 01:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' along similar lines as DFO. The appeal fails to engage meaningfully with the history of UPE; the fact that DIVINE sometimes reports their competition does little to convince me that they themselves have actually come to terms with the fact that abusing Wikipedia for financial gain is extremely high up on the list of the most harmful things one can do to this project. --[[User:Blablubbs|Blablubbs]] ([[User talk:Blablubbs|talk]]) 13:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*From DIVINE's talk page: {{tqb|1=Reply to Deepfriendokra & Liz:{{pb}}To Okra, Yes, I was involved in multiple UPEs (three Wikipedia pages). I had done a few COI edits. When I am unblocked, I will declare all of the in my user page. But all I want is one more chance, and I want to change myself and my contributions to enwiki. If SimpleWiki is the best fit for me, then why not enwiki, where I have been contributing for 10 years?{{pb}}Keeping your hesitation and concern in my mind, I will effectively contribute in the future, and I need that chance. If you suspect or feel anything like if I am being involved in COI or anything again, then you always have the tools in your power to block me without any hesitation. Thank you.{{pb}}To Liz, I accept your suggestions and will follow those. I will focus on anti-vandalism. I was a rollbacker before, and I do have ideas regarding that.  Thank you.{{pb}}For English proficiency, I can present my English test certificates. I won’t say that I’m the best in English, but my CEFR score is B2 level for now, including reading, writing, & listening. I do have good communication skills in speaking, which is not useful while editing.{{pb}}The previous issue with my English was there because that day I was kind of under the influence of beer, and I was sad that I got blocked. And I wrote “gibberish” whatever I could without checking again.{{pb}}If the community feels keeping me away from Wikipedia is the best solution. So be it, I will accept the consequences and decision of the community}} I will not have access to a computer for the next few days, so I would appreciate it if someone else could take over the responsibility for copying over responses :) Thanks, <span style="white-space:nowrap">[[User:BlasterOfHouses|BlasterOfHouses]] (HouseBlaster's alt • [[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]] • he/they)</span> 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*I think that the "invisible administrator" comment refers to an unknown person who contacted DIVINE by email after they were blocked, and may have been trying to impersonate me. The edits that were oversighted were their own personal info if I remember right (I'm not an oversighter but there's some discussion in my email related to the impersonation incident). I don't think either of these things are a concern, nor do I think is their English proficiency - they're clearly comprehensible, and we have never required anyone to have university-level English to edit here. It's evident (they've admitted) that they've engaged in undisclosed paid editing and have feuded on-wiki with other UPE operations, and I feel kind of the same as DFO and Blablubbs about the appeal addressing these things but I'm not quite ready to go full decline. Is there a restriction we could unblock to instead? They were productive here and have been productive at simplewiki. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 16:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline unblock'''. The issues with this user weren't limited to UPE and legal threats (which are bad enough on their own) or poor English skills. I'd invite people reviewing this request to read some past ANI threads involving DIVINE, such as [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive344#User:Robert_McClenon|this one, which resulted in the revocation of their advanced permissions and a block for personal attacks]]. My long-standing impression of this user has been that they are [[WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE|not compatible with a collaborative environment]], and I think that even some of the supportive comments above speak to this - if someone needs three topic bans to have a hope of making acceptable contributions, perhaps they should not be unblocked at all. It might make sense to forgive certain indiscretions if someone was regularly contributing high-quality content, but their contributions to simplewiki have been fairly scant and mostly consist of slapping speedy tags on things. Frankly this user has been a massive time sink, violated the terms of use, and abused others' trust, and nothing I have seen indicates that they will provide enough positive value to make up for it. [[User:Spicy|Spicy]] ([[User talk:Spicy|talk]]) 21:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Spicy|Spicy]]  Thank you for your comment on AN regarding my unblock request. When my permission was revoked due to my request regarding the 4th level warning. I requested to remove other permissions like rollback and PCR after that, as I am never a fan of PERMS; I keep them when I feel like I need them. In simplewiki, I slap with speedy deletion because I follow Wikipedia rules to slap because they create pages that are supposed to get deleted by me or any other reviewer that won’t change the fact. Additionally, I have created 70 pages. Helped more than 100 pages to add references on them and have fixed them. Have filed multiple SPIs with 100% accuracy if I believe and have fought against in anti-vandalism. Anyway, I don’t want to waste my time and yours writing this long essay. 
*:Let’s me break this down: 
*:1. The day I was blocked, my identity, my university, and even my professor's name were doxxed publicly in AN, and nobody cares, but I was blamed for doxxing another user's identity. And editors were praising another editor, calling them Sherlock.
*:2. I am human, not a saint; i feel bad and i do have feelings too. Yes, I reacted every time. That’s why I am here requesting to get unblocked after 8 months, and I was punished with an indefinite block. 
*:3. What you need to accept is that I have made effective contributions, but what I will accept is that I had some attitude problems, but I never meant to do personal attacks against someone. 
*:4. I have already mentioned that if you want to block me forever, there is no problem; I will accept that, and don’t think I came here to get unblocked after slapping multiple CSDs on SimpleWiki. I was editing there before getting blocked on EnWiki, but I came to seek one more chance.
*:5. Wikipedia is an open community for all, and yes, of course there will be debates and arguments, but when I come to seek help in AN for getting a 4th level warning, it comes from nowhere towards me like an arrow that turned out into personal attacks. 
*:6. I have already submitted multiple unblock requests previously mentioning all of those things before; that’s why I didn’t add much into this fresh request, as I wanted to forget all of those and move forward with positive thoughts and positive attitudes. 
*:7. I feel like I was tricked; I got blocked by Ivanvector, but it wasn’t per community vote, but when I requested to get unblocked, it was passed to the community, and I got six months to appeal the block, and when I am requesting now, I am facing more brutal charges than before. 
*:Anyway Thankyou for your kind comment but we never encountered previously. [[User:DIVINE|<b style="color:#29F">DI</b><b style="color:red">V</b>]][[User talk:DIVINE|<b style="color:#080">I</b><b style="color:#808">N</b>]][[Special:Contribs/DIVINE|<b style="color:#FA0">E</b>]] 21:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Just to be clear here, Pppery cross-posted these comments from DIVINE's user talk page, they weren't added here by an IP or other account. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 23:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per Spicy and DIVINE's inadequate response. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' per above. Noting that the failure of disclosing COI had impacted the chances of welcoming back. [[User:Ahri Boy|Ahri Boy]] ([[User talk:Ahri Boy|talk]]) 12:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. Saying "I love Wikipedia" in the same post that you're requesting an unblock after making legal threats and blatantly violating the TOU is not compelling. Neither is the attempt to spin the UPE as a positive ({{tqq|I revealed [the UPE] myself which helped to block larger PR firms even after I got blocked}}). The response to Spicy's post is just bizarre, frankly{{snd}}talking about feeling like they were "tricked" and making demands ({{tqq|What you need to accept is that I have made effective contributions}}) is not a good response to Spicy's points, and does not inspire confidence in their ability to edit here constructively. [[User:Giraffer|Giraffer]] ([[User talk:Giraffer|talk]]) 16:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks Giraffe, btw, I didn't demand I produce facts while everyone here was so concerned or confused with my csd tags.
*: I presented useful contributions and facts about simplewiki, and yes, I am being [[WP:BOLD]]. If you think I will beg for it, nah, never not a cup of my tea. 
*: What I knew was this was coming; my unblock request was ignored for 1 month and 18 days, while the Tulsi request was procedurally decided within two weeks. 
*: I also mentioned about getting tricked which is fact, so do you have any explanation about that?
*: Can you go behind and check the previous AN where my identity was doxed? 
*: Does anyone of you have the ability or will to talk in that? No, you will never, because at first you blocked me for legal threats. 
*: Second, language fluency. 
*: Third, person behavior.
*: Now you are being “mortuary archaeologists.”. 
*: I love Wikipedia and its not owned by you or anyone as it is owned by editors like you and me.
*: I will be admin within 5 years. Note it down; I am leaving it here.
*: 
*: I withdraw my unblock request here. 
*: I would like to thank @[[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]]. I was worried if he would go with decline as he was blocking administrator, but I always admired him, and @[[User:Liz|Liz]] was always supportive, whatever my past or present was, as she always requested me not to add too much CSD tags on WP:ADV drafts, but I ignored her and moved on by slapping and cleaning.
*: I will request to revoke all of my simplewiki rights today too. 
*: I know how well your CU works. Telling that I have never used multiple accounts though.
*: Love you all, no hate. Peace, I don't want you to disturb me. 
*: For COI declaration, Bongkosh Rittichainuwat, KP Khanal, Prakash Bahadur Deuba, Tulsi Bhagat, Sangeeta Swechcha, and myself [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3ct37sn].
*: am happy of who i am. Make Wikipedia better now it’s in your hands which never can.
*: I love you all. Take care and peace.
*: For UPE [[Pudgy Penguins]], the founder of Pudgy and one listed on my profile. Happy Now? 
*: Take care. I would like to request you to ban me here permanently. ❤️ [[User:DIVINE|<b style="color:#29F">DI</b><b style="color:red">V</b>]][[User talk:DIVINE|<b style="color:#080">I</b><b style="color:#808">N</b>]][[Special:Contribs/DIVINE|<b style="color:#FA0">E</b>]] 17:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Whatever the heck this is ==
{{atop|result=Goofy new editor behavior that doesn't need an admin review. Always try talking with an editor before bringing them to a noticeboard. And you needed to inform them of this discussion, [[User:Sandcat555|Sandcat555]], which you didn't. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)}}
see [[User:Ghadi21]] and [[User talk: Ghadi21]]- they have placed/ attempted to place a block notif on their own pages? Maybe a non issue but thought it important enough to mention here. [[User:Sandcat555|Sandcat555]] ([[User talk:Sandcat555|talk]]) 06:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:@[[User:Sandcat555|Sandcat555]] Perhaps they're testing and just need a pointer to [[User talk:Sandbox for user warnings]] [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 07:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Mach61|Mach61]] May be a silly question but are you certain they aren't actually a sock of someone else, given those are their only two edits? [[User:Sandcat555|Sandcat555]] ([[User talk:Sandcat555|talk]]) 08:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Sandcat555|Sandcat555]] Eh, my own [[Special:Diff/1107539411|first edit]] was pretty weird, unless there's a specific sockpuppeteer known to do this I see no reason to to [[WP:assume good faith|assume good faith]] [[User talk:Mach61|Mach61]] 08:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Mach61|Mach61]] Alright then. Guess it's nothing [[User:Sandcat555|Sandcat555]] ([[User talk:Sandcat555|talk]]) 08:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Pontential vandalism by Fray7 on Wikipedia's [[Zagreb]] page ==
{{atop|result=A content dispute that should be discussed on the article talk page. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 09:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)}}
Hello,

There’s a potential vandalism by the username of {{Userlinks|Fray7}} who has been changing the population of Zagreb. I’ve noticed that from weeks ago when they decided to change population, even though with all references related to Zagreb's population are accurate. Knowing that they are the user with overall 8 edits, makes it look like that. I’ve notify the user on their talk page. I posted a diff with link to the example that has been going on for weeks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zagreb&diff=1260177600&oldid=1260115000]

Thank you for you understanding. [[User:SatelliteChange|SatelliteChange]] ([[User talk:SatelliteChange|talk]]) 09:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:Greetings,
:[[User:SatelliteChange|SatelliteChange]] keeps reverting my edits and changing the Zagreb metro population from his Wikipedia account and 3 other IP addressess to an incorrect, random number of 1,217,150. The [https://www.zagreb.hr/UserDocsImages/gu%20za%20strategijsko%20planiranje/SRUAZ%202020%20_layout_ENG_digital.pdf source]  for and next to the metro population clearly states that the Zagreb agglomeration is home to 1,086,528 inhabitants (page 6 of the sourced PDF), not 1,217,150. [[User:Fray7|Fray7]] ([[User talk:Fray7|talk]]) 09:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::This looks like a content issue that should be discussed at [[Talk:Zagreb]]. I note that the figure of 1,086,528 is from the 2011 census. Maybe the 2021 census shows something different. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 10:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Rangeblock Calculator ==

Does anyone know of a convenient tool for calculating rangeblocks? I had been using [https://ftools.toolforge.org/general/ip-range-calc.html Fastily's]. Unfortunately they have retired and disabled their calculator. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 01:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:Source code is at [https://github.com/fastily/ftools https://github.com/fastily/ftools] so someone could adopt it and publish it to a new location. [[User:Raladic|Raladic]] ([[User talk:Raladic|talk]]) 01:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:The same thing was asked at the Teahouse today. Is [[Wikipedia:Teahouse#Alternative to range block calculator]] any help? [[User:Deor|Deor]] ([[User talk:Deor|talk]]) 01:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thank you. That was extremely helpful. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 01:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I have created a similar tool inspired by Fastily's code, and I will publish it shortly. – [[User:DreamRimmer|<span style="color:black">'''DreamRimmer'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:DreamRimmer|'''talk''']])</small> 02:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:{{tp|blockcalc}} works in a sandbox. Put <code><nowiki>{{blockcalc|1= ...wikitext with IPs... }}</nowiki></code> in a sandbox and preview the edit. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:[[phab:T381138|Phab request]] filed but will probably take a while. For the CUs among us, there's one at the bottom of [[Special:CheckUser]] (which realistically could be split off to its own special page, the JavaScript is at https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/extensions/CheckUser/+/refs/heads/master/modules/ext.checkUser/cidr/cidr.js). [[User:DatGuy|DatGuy]]<sup>[[User talk:DatGuy|Talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/DatGuy|Contribs]]</sub> 02:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:https://galaxybots.toolforge.org/iprangecalculator – [[User:DreamRimmer|<span style="color:black">'''DreamRimmer'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:DreamRimmer|'''talk''']])</small> 03:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:Or just use {{u|NativeForeigner}}'s tool[https://nativeforeigner.com/calc/]? It works fine. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 03:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC).
::Whatever gets decided, it should be added to [[Special:Block]]. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 19:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:::[[User:Primefac|Primefac]], since this thread is no longer very active, I went to [[Special:Block]] to add [https://nativeforeigner.com/calc/ NativeForeigner's tool], only to find I can't edit a "Special" page. Would somebody who can do that like to add either NF's or some other tool mentioned above? There should surely be something that works there as soon as possible. If some other alternative is then preferred here, it can easily be changed. Well, not ''easily'', apparently, but you know what I mean. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 02:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC).
::::{{u|Bishonen}}, the content at the top of the page can be edited at [[MediaWiki:Blockiptext]], which transcludes {{tl|Sensitive IP addresses}}. The link provided by {{u|DreamRimmer}} is on Toolforge too, perhaps a bit better privacy-wise than someone else's domain, so I [[Special:Diff/1260319008|added that one]]. [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 02:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
*I use {{tl|IP range calculator}} which works quite well. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 13:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

== Deacon of Pndapetzim==
{{atop
| result = No further action nor trouts needed. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 16:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
}}
Administrator {{u|Deacon of Pndapetzim}} has doubled-down on uncivil and canvassing behavior at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dachuna]].
*When the article was AfD'd, they took it very personally, as indicated by their initial response on their talk page expressing exasperation and questioning the nominator's motives ({{diff2|1258177179|diff}}).
*Posted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dachuna&diff=prev&oldid=1258178345 this patronizing comment] suggesting that non-historians shouldn't weigh in on historicity of the subject (deeply ironic not only because I am a historian, but because the nomination explicitly cited high-quality historiography to justify deletion)
*Canvassed {{u|Ealdgyth}}—who, according to AfD stats, had not !voted in an AfD for over a year and has only !voted five times in as many years—to counter a perceived conspiracy of {{tq|deletionists}} ({{diff2|1258179198|diff}})
*When confronted about this uncivil behavior, they respond by deleting it as {{tq|trolling}} ({{diff2|1258198581|diff}})

Deacon of Pndapetzim recently increased their participation on the project after an extended lull in contributions. I think they should be admonished and instructed to relearn the relevant policies. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 18:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

:Pbritti is evidently very unhappy that I informed Ealdgyth of the discussion and how Ealdgyth responded. Ealdgyth is as far as I'm aware the main editor on medieval English religious topics. Pbritti seems to have come here trying to escalate things & create drama following [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDachuna&diff=1258203979&oldid=1258200361 a threat to do so that he made on the discussion page]. Also, if anyone wants to explain what canvassing actually is to this user please feel free.  [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 18:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::Posting a non-neutral note seeking to affect the outcome of a discussion is canvassing per [[WP:INAPPNOTE]]. Your comments were also not very civil and anyone can participate in a discussion, notwithstanding whether they're professional historians. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 19:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::: Nope. Read 'It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation' That's what I intended to do and what I did. Not discussing this point any more, it's silly to suggest that one cannot inform other interested users and note their own concerns, esp. when the guideline page actually encourages it. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::<small>(Lest I be extremely hypocritical, I'll note that I saw this discussion mentioned in passing on Discord, but participated on my own accord without being asked :p)</small> That's a very select quote from the canvassing policy, and ignores the context of the rest of the page. Ealdgyth is certainly an accomplished editor in the field, but you informed her and only her in a clearly biased way and urged her to participate on your side of the argument. There's miles between that and popping in with a "Hey, there's an AfD in your area of expertise" without commentary. <small> [[User:Generalissima|Generalissima]] ([[User talk:Generalissima|talk]]) (it/she) </small>  19:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::: What?! Selective? It's from the top of the page my friend, summarising the most important points. If you disagree with it, go try and have it removed, then and there I think you will learn what the actual consensus about the policy is. If you are successful, come back.  [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 19:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::From lower down the page: {{tq|[[Campaign advertising|Campaigning]] is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.}} See also [[WP:VOTESTACKING]]: {{tq|Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a [[Wikipedia:Userboxes|userbox]], or from [[Wikipedia:User categories|user categorization]]), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.}} [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]]  vibes here, getting a bit robotic as well. ''It is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation'' Posting to Ealdgyth was not canvassing or vote stacking, Pbritti may not see it like that because of what Ealdgyth ended up saying but that doesn't change anything. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 20:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Quoting [[WP:AGF]] while question another editor's motivations for a reasonable AfD and then quoting [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] when nobody is convinced by your misinterpretation of policy. I change my recommended response to this from a formal warning to favoring thanking Deacon for their 16 years as admin and desysoping. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 20:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Admins can't desysop another admin: that proposal needs to be handled by ArbCom or recall. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 20:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
{{od}}Unless there's a huge reform in their behavior, I think we're heading there. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 20:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
: I'm sad that you dislike me so much, but I can tell you one thing from being here 20 years, Pbritti, conflict forum escalation and grievance drama mongering will only take you so far and eventually bring you more trouble than it's worth. Only the Machiavellians & folk with no interest in content get on with people 100% of the time. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 20:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC) 
::Please stop assuming anything about me. You have accused me of a number of things yet haven't provided evidence for any of it. I encourage you focus on your behavior and how you can adopt current policy/guidelines into your behavior on-project. Thank you for your years of content creation. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 20:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
* (after edit conflict) I'm going to repeat my comment I made at Deacon's talk page [[Special:Diff/1258197301|here]] "I have Deacon's talk page watchlisted, I was already aware of the AfD (I saw it in my morning reading of my watchlist over breakfast before Deacon posted on my talk page). I had planned to weigh in, but I had to feed farm animals and batten down the hatches this morning in front of a large storm headed my way." I'll further note I had noticed the prod notices and even before the AfD was filed, was predicting that one would be filed and had begun to look at the article during my overnight bout of insomnia (where, I also weighed in on Barkeep's talk page on a totally unrelated matter, thus confirming I was actually up at some ungodly hour of the morning), before Deacon posted on my talk page. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 18:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:You proved nothing except that you only intervened in this AfD once prompted. Rather humorously, you even mirrored Deacon's unusual !vote of {{tq|Oppose}} (rather than a typical "Keep") further suggesting that your involvement is reliant on Deacon's prompting. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*::What I see from DoP: a mild mannered exasperated response to an AFD; the comment about 'historians' was not patronising; the 'canvass' message was just (just!) the right side of breaching CANVASS, but in any event the person who was targeted has said they were not actually canvassed; and I can totally understand why they removed your talk page post (which ''was'' patronising), but describing it as 'trolling' was inappropriate.
*::All in all I'd politely suggest DoP take a deep breath in future when dealing with similar situations, but that's about it. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::The comment about historians was absolutely patronizing and completely improper: an admin should not tell editors they can't participate in a deletion discussion because they're not specialists in a particular area. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 19:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::: No-one should tell editors they shouldn't comment on a particular area, doesn't matter if they are an admin or not. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 19:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::: Posting templated 'warnings' on the pages of experienced users, it's patronising but trolling too surely, at least with a lower case 't'. What good can any experienced user reasonably expect except to arouse some sort of emotional reaction? Re the historian comment, no it has nothing to do with do not participate, it was a response to naive assertions about the historical issues relating to the talk. I did not act with any admin powers on that thread so I don't understand this obsession with me having the mop. I'm honest and sometimes tough in my approach to those things, I got my mop with that being a well established thing about me. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 19:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::neither Pbritti nor i posted any templated warnings on your talk page - i don't generally do that, and prefer to use my own words when there's an issue, as i did in this case. i PRODed and nominated the article for deletion with [[WP:Twinkle]], which automatically places notice templates on the creator's talk page. those are not warnings. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 19:18, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::More than that, I explicitly avoided a template and anny of those garish warning signs, even offering my appreciation for your return to content work in my personalized message. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::: I did notice the offering of appreciation, but it was accompanied by the 'warning' header and more trollish stuff, and I felt you were trying to escalate conflict, so I removed it and I would also remove other such comments in future if I felt the same way, it's my talk page I'm entitled to do that.  [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 19:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::What, exactly, was {{tq|trollish}}? That seems like a pretty serious [[WP:aspersion|aspersion]]. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 20:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::@[[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] Policy expects that administrators [[WP:ADMINCOND|lead by example]], and they are expected to be role models for the community and to be civil at all times. Having the tools means that your words and behavior are scrutinized more because you have measurable "soft power" in discussions. While [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]] has been cited by numerous people participating in RfAs, uncivil behavior has led to admins being desysoped. Accusing someone of trolling in response to good-faith concerns about your behavior and editing their comments breaches basic policies and guidelines. [[User:Fathoms Below|<span style="color:light blue;"><span style="font-size:110%">''Fathoms Below''</span></span>]] [[User talk:Fathoms Below|<span style="color:brown;"><span style="font-size:85%;">(talk)</span></span>]] 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::Also the fact that the canvassed editor intended to participate anyways is irrelevant. DoP couldn't have know that when the message was posted. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 19:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::: She wasn't canvassed, why are you proceeding with that notion like it's some established fact? [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 19:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::I don't interpret his comment about historians as saying 'do not participate in the AFD'. [[User:GiantSnowman|Giant]][[User talk:GiantSnowman|Snowman]] 19:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::I think the statement speaks for itself: {{tq|It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, neither of you know what you are talking about.}} [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::: Evidently not. The deletion discussion wasn't about the notability of this specific saint, not the historicity; that issue was being raised in naive and unhelpful way, that's why I suggested the issue be avoided. Make sense? [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::the crux of my argument is not about the historicity of the saint - that is simply one aspect i mentioned in the nomination. the crux of my argument is the lack of sources, i.e. non-notability. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 19:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::: The historians comment wasn't about the crux. Honestly, I think that's relatively clear, but I've clarified now in case there was any confusion. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 19:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*::::::Especially patronizing, considering that sawyer777 (who nom'd) has worked diligently in the medieval saint subject area and has contributed FA- and GA-level content. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 19:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
*i said i would disengage until further prompted, and apparently here's my prompting.</br>i nominated the article for deletion earlier today after my PROD was contested yesterday, and during the discussion (& on user talk pages) Deacon has made comments such as:
:* "this selective attempt to impose deletionist maximalism" ([[Special:Diff/1258199133|diff]])
:* "The deletionists going for the kill here could be emboldened to go after a lot more" ([[Special:Diff/1258179198|diff]])
:* "It might be useful if people here who aren't historians stop commenting on the historicity of the saint, you don't know what you are talking about." twice ([[Special:Diff/1258182286|diff]], [[Special:Diff/1258177539|diff]])
:* "if you want to call yourself a historian" ... "I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings but this is a public encyclopedia used by millions of people and the lack of relevant competence is important" ([[Special:Diff/1258200361|diff]])
:* "I didn't want this discussion to have no input from knowledgable people & just be me and the two of you" ([[Special:Diff/1258204607|diff]])
:i left Deacon [[Special:Diff/1258202903|a message]] regarding his conduct, and he both edited my comment and replied in the same [[Special:Diff/1258203706|diff]] (edit summary: "rm trolling & ugly format, resp"), which changed the meaning significantly by cutting out multiple sentences. i [[Special:Diff/1258205538|restored]] my comment and linked [[WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS]], and was [[Special:Diff/1258206053|reverted]] with the edit summary "rv, please don't troll or put ugly format on my talkpage. if you think your meaning has been changed remove the comment". that's not how this works. i am not imposing "deletionist maximalism" or "going for the kill" i just don't think this supposed saint is notable. speculating about my competence, accusing me of trolling, and editing my comments is creating a hostile editing environment. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 19:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::forgot one:
::* "Regarding being a historian, I don't care if you're not a historian [...] I made the comment because you were saying nonsense things about something that is much more complex than you seemed to understand. Personally I think if one is editing articles on a project like this one should be [...] honest about where and how one can contribute competently." ([[Special:Diff/1258203706|diff]]) 
::i don't even know how to engage with this. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 19:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It's certainly inappropriate to edit another user's message, and it's even more inappropriate to accuse an editor of good standing, making a good faith edit, to be trolling. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 20:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::This is astonishingly poor behaviour. -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 23:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::No comment on the article (here), but I think that {{u|Deacon of Pndapetzim}} should probably re-calibrate back into the relative obscurity they have enjoyed for most of the past, err, 12 years. Community expectations of discourse, collegiality and communication may have moved on since then. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<b style="color:#7a0427;">SerialNumber</b>]]''[[Special:Contributions/Serial_Number_54129|<b style="color:#17662c;">54129</b>]]'' 13:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*I'm not sure what the goal is here with this complaint. Is it to admonish Deacon of Pndapetzim and ask them to be more civil, to not give the appearance of canvassing or be condescending, to not accuse your fellow editors of trolling and to assume good faith on their part? Deacon of Pndapetzim, even if you don't agree with these charges, do not do those things in the future. None of us should behave in these ways and this complaint is a reminder of this to us all that even in the midst of a dispute, we need to treat each other with respect and civility.
:If the goal is to de-sysop them, well, you would have to show a pattern of misconduct, Pbritti, and while some of the behavior cited here is inappropriate, for a regular editor or for an admin, I don't think you have shown misconduct beyond their reaction to this one AFD. Additionally, at most, if there was a lot of agreement with your position, there might be a recommendation to take this complaint to arbitration or to start a recall petition but so far, I don't see a groundswell of support here yet and I don't think either a request for arbitration or a recall effort would be successful. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 20:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::I believe the focus is the civility, the implication that only historians should participate in that discussion, and the canvassing. At least that's my read of it. In my opinion, you do want complaints prior to recalls, so as to not appear to be jumping the gun and to give an admin a chance to grow and adjust based on feedback given. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 20:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::HMIJ summarizes my rationale for opening the AN. Without this posted to AN, there would be no formal acknowledgment of their inappropriate behavior. I think Deacon's persistent refusal to acknowledge that their behavior was inappropriate here suggests their status as an admin should be changed. Above, I say that a reform in their behavior could prevent this step, but it should happen sooner than later. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 20:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm also finding their inappropriate edit summaries (stating a genuine comment by an editor in good standing is trolling), and editing other user's comments to be very inappropriate. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 20:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Hello, [[User:Hey man im josh|Josh]], I hope it didn't seem like I was trying to shut down a discussion. That wasn't my intent. But I think it's helpful to know why a complaint is filed, what the goal of it is. If it is bringing to light misbehavior, I thought that had been accomplished early in this discussion. If the goal was seeking to de-sysop this administrator, then this is the wrong place for that discussion. But I do agree that, for arbitration, editors are advised to try other avenues for redress before opening an arbitration case request. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 05:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::::No, I definitely didn't view that as the intent of your message @[[User:Liz|Liz]], especially given our past interactions I know better than to assume something like that from you. I just wanted to share my perspective on the matter. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 13:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::::The complaint is presumably targeted at getting consensus that obvious incivility and canvassing is in appropriate, and below community expectations. We shouldn't create the expectation that the next step after bringing to light misbehavior is recall. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 14:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Liz|Liz]], I think the goal was articulated at the end of the initial post: {{tq| I think they should be admonished and instructed to relearn the relevant policies.}} -- [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 18:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

*I have to concur Deacon of Pndapetzim's comments in the AfD fall below the collegial standards I think we should strive to maintain in discussions. Comments should be about the arguments, not the participants. (I do admit this might be easy for me to say from the sidelines, especially as someone who is more of a reader than someone who writes content.)<p>Regarding [[Special:Diff/1258179198|the comment DoP sent to Ealdgyth]], to me it clearly crosses the line into non-neutral. There's no reason not to say simply "As someone interested in and knowledgeable about the topic area, you might be interested in participating in this AfD"; arguments about the precedent and consequences of deletion can and should be made in the discussion itself.</p><p>While I do offer my feedback in the hope DoP changes his approach, some of the back-and-forth discussion above doesn't necessarily seem to be benefiting anyone. Talking about RECALL also seems excessive at this time. [[User:Retro|<span style="color:red">Retro</span>]] ([[User talk:Retro#top|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]] &#124; [[Special:Contribs/Retro|<span style="color:blue">contribs</span>]]) 20:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)</p>
*:I actually think the discussion is at the right time, given the number of different issues that are evident conduct wise. RECALL may be premature, but you should start a discussion about someone's conduct before doing so, and this is the opportunity for DoP to adjust their behaviour appropriately. Unfortunately, their responses are falling quite short of [[WP:ADMINCOND]] at this point in time. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 20:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

:: Feel like there's a meme here 
:: Wikipedia: Why are there so few admins, this is a crisis. 
:: Also Wikipedia: That guy told someone about a discussion & someone felt attacked, they're an admin, get them to the stake. 
:: I feel like defending myself had just been feeding the drama beast, I'll leave this be, please don't tag me in any posts unless it is necessary. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 21:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] Is this how you intend to respond when people raise questions about your conduct in future? [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|GreenLipstickLesbian]] ([[User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|talk]]) 21:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] I'm asking you again, since you have apparently chosen not to respond. Is this the way which you intend to conduct yourself when people raise questions about your behaviour in the future? This is a yes or no question. [[User:GreenLipstickLesbian|GreenLipstickLesbian]] ([[User talk:GreenLipstickLesbian|talk]]) 03:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Whether on wiki or in real life, perhaps you should consider taking criticism to heart and hearing people out instead of being dismissive @[[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]]. Fwiw, part of the reason people believe there's not a need for more admins (a view I disagree with) is because so many old admins hold onto tools but don't utilize them, hence the misleading number of admins vs active admin numbers we have. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 21:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Without evaluating the whole thread, I will renew a concern I've expressed before about overbroad use of the anti-canvassing guideline. I understand the purpose of the guideline, but it should not be interpreted to prevent bringing a discussion to the attention of the people best able to comment knowledgeably. For comparison, I am a known authority on the author Rex Stout. If someone proposed deleting an article relating to Stout and I missed the AfD notice, I would like to be told about it; and if I then commented, I would not feel that either I or anyone else did anything wrong. Likewise, if an AfD concerns a disputed personage in medieval history, why would we want to disallow seeking input from a major contributor to our medieval history articles? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:You do make a good point, but the biggest issue in this notification is the non-neutral way in which it was done. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 21:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:just speaking for myself, i have no issues ''per se'' with him notifying Ealdgyth - she is, as you say, a major contributor in the medieval history area (and someone i have a lot of respect for). the issue Pbritti and others have taken with the talk page message is the tone and content, especially the parts that say {{tq|I'm pretty worried about the level and type of reasoning being used and the precedent potentially being added}} and {{tq|The deletionists going for the kill here could be emboldened to go after a lot more, including the many place-filler bishop articles we've created over the years.}} in my view, that clearly indicates an intent to bring a "friendly" editor to be backup in a debate, rather than a simple notification of a relevant discussion. it's a fine line, and i agree that it's not uncommon to see overzealousness with the anti-canvassing guideline, but i do think this crosses into problematic territory. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::I would not have phrased the notification with words like "going for the kill," nor would I have made any reference to "trolling." However, much of what was said on the user talkpage could equally have been said in the deletion discussion itself, which the "canvassed" editor would have looked at anyway, so I don't see why the location of the comments should make a big difference. And a comment suggesting that "if A is deleted, then by that logic B, C, and D could be deleted on the same grounds, which would damage our coverage of such-and-such topic-area" is hardly outside the limits of normal XfD discussion. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::You're assuming that Deacon knew the canvassed editor would see the AfD anyway, which is contradicted by the mere fact that they posted that notice. This is exacerbated by the uncivil responses both before and after the canvassing. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 21:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm actually assuming that even if the canvassed editor might have missed the AfD notice to begin with, once it was mentioned to her, she would then have looked at the contents of the AFD discussion regardless of how the notice was phrased. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Are you saying this isn't canvassing because a non-neutral notice posted to a friendly editor's talk page might spur the friendly editor to look at the discussion and then get involved? That is canvassing. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 22:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I took Brad to be saying that this is ideally how the canvassing rules should be interpreted or rewritten (but please correct me if I'm wrong Brad). I'm agnostic on that point and could be persuaded either way, but as of this moment, I don't think the community interprets CANVAS this way. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::(e/c) I understand your point, which has some validity under the guideline. But the point I'm making is that the effect of a "neutral" notification and a "non-neutral" notification, at least in this instance, would have been exactly the same, so whether or not the notice was "canvassing" strikes me as a peripheral aspect of the discussion. Put differently, if the editor posted "ABCD" in the notification, as opposed to posting "A" in the notification and "BCD" in the AfD itself, would that have changed the analysis? (And with that I may bow out of the discussion, lest I give too much attention to what I've just said should be a minor aspect of the thread.) [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 22:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Ah, this makes sense. I think I disagree with you on the idea that a neutral notice has the same effect as a non-neutral one (especially when it is only sent to a single friendly editor), but I can fully see why you might feel otherwise. Thanks for taking the time to rephrase that for me! ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 22:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of bringing to a noticeboard every example of someone getting upset that the article they've created is at AFD, but ... DoP is being so pointlessly aggressive, unfair, and patronizing here (and it's likely to end up being counter-productive to keeping the article), that I guess I can't really fault it too much. I suppose I'll say (a) DoP and his adversaries (for lack of a better word) should minimize contact outside the AFD, including here; and (b) if his aggression continues in the AFD, I'll just partially block him from participating there further.  I've got it watchlisted now. The non-neutral canvassing, while not great, is less of a concern to me, both for reasons outlined by NYB, and because not every single policy violation needs to be admonished/punished.  I know {{ping|Deacon of Pndapetzim}} asked not to be pinged unnecessarily, but since I'm warning him that I might block him from the AFD, I guess I need to. Sorry. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 23:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

: I've created over 1000 articles, I don't actually mind if an article I created is deleted per se, esp. one that short, you're speculating inaccurately. The users in question were making historical points based on some serious misunderstandings, I could've spent more time explaining if I wasn't so busy earlier today (honestly thought it would be nipped in the bud earlier) and if I'd been nicer there wouldn't  have been so much escalation on their part, but it's neither here not there as far as the Dachuna discussion is concerned. I'm not going to participate in that discussion any more because I have been threatened by yourself and based on your assessment above I don't trust you to be judicious. [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::Further assumptions of bad faith, despite several comments encouraging others to assume good faith in the last day or so... [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 03:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

*'''New Proposal: [[WP:TROUT|A solid trouting]]''' Both of y'all take a fish and let's settle down. Make your point in the AfD regarding the ''article'', not each other and move on. I'm not saying either of you do/don't have valid points, but it would serve everyone well to acknowledge they could behave better and back down. If not, I think a block is warranted per Floq. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 16:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*:I'm not really sure anybody but Deacon deserves a trouting in this situating.... but it was already essentially calmed down since the last response was ~8 days ago. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 16:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I was referring to Deacon & Pbritti. If it's calmer than then, I'm fine with a smack of a light goldfish. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
*:a) it's not really clear who "both of y'all" is referring to. i nominated the article for deletion and Pbritti started this thread. b) as josh already said, this ''has'' settled down. i've even taken the AfD off of my watchlist. c) i have made all of my points at the AfD about the article and its sourcing. i'd like to see what you're referring to. <span style="color:#507533">... [[User:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">sawyer</span>]] * <small>he/they</small> * [[User talk:Sawyer777|<span style="color:#507533">talk</span>]]</span> 17:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
*::Then a trouting will serve it's purpose well. Let's grab some fish and move along...hell, you can even swing a trout my way. I'm sure I deserve it for something :-) [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 01:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Close review: [[WP:ANI#Overzealous blocking by User:ToBeFree]] ==
{{atop
| result = Discussion has since been closed by two admins, including myself. Issue appears resolved. [[WP:DNFTT|Time to move on]] and as I said, if there's a legitimate issue an editor in good standing is welcome to open a discussion. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 16:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
}}

I closed the mentioned ANI thread due to the filing editor being blocked for sockpuppetry. A few minutes later Voorts comes to my talk page and asks me to revert my closure. I believe that I was right, however I am coming here to get a second opinion. If it be that the comunity does not endorse my closure, than I will revert it. <span class ="nowrap vcard"><b><span class="fn">[[User:NightWolf1223|<span style="color:green;">NightWolf1223</span>]]</span> &lt;[[User talk:NightWolf1223|<span style="color:green;">Howl at me</span>]]&bull;[[Special:Contributions/NightWolf1223|<span style="color:green;">My hunts</span>]]&gt;</b></span> 01:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:Not really sure you need to post these here as a matter of course. There's no reason you need to profess that you will revert your closure upon request: if an admin actually disagrees with the thread being closed, I'm sure they would reopen it themselves. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 01:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:This close review is unnecessary. I asked you to self-revert because generally non-admins shouldn't clerk AN or AN/I, and then responded with what I think SOCKSTRIKE says. I wasn't planning to unilaterally revert your close or bring a close review. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::Aside from that, there are plenty of reasons to keep a thread open when it's opened by a sock: to report more socking to the same thread, to discuss the editor's conduct, etc. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:If the idea of the closure was to deny recognition or to minimize the impact of the block evasion, that doesn't work if there is a disagreement about it, and it completely fails if it results in a discussion on another noticeboard. [[File:Face-wink.svg|18px|link=|alt=😉]] [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 02:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
::In fairness it was my idea to take it here. At any rate I have reverted <span class ="nowrap vcard"><b><span class="fn">[[User:NightWolf1223|<span style="color:green;">NightWolf1223</span>]]</span> &lt;[[User talk:NightWolf1223|<span style="color:green;">Howl at me</span>]]&bull;[[Special:Contributions/NightWolf1223|<span style="color:green;">My hunts</span>]]&gt;</b></span> 02:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}