Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk | contribs) at 10:38, 26 November 2022 (→Blanking inactive LTA pages: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

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

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
    CfD 0 0 0 19 19
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 2 6 8
    FfD 0 0 1 1 2
    RfD 0 0 6 42 48
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (48 out of 8846 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Template:Infobox airline/styles.css 2024-11-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4651 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    User talk:220.81.134.147 2024-11-16 12:13 2025-02-16 12:13 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector
    Amazfit 2024-11-16 11:37 2025-11-16 11:37 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: persistent WP:COI Yamla
    User talk:118.237.51.201 2024-11-16 09:42 2024-12-16 09:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    Sidhant Mohapatra 2024-11-16 05:45 2025-08-23 01:14 edit,move Persistent block evasion Geniac
    Solomon Etefa 2024-11-16 02:11 2025-11-16 02:11 create enforcing outcome (draftify) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon Etefa Asilvering
    Pannu 2024-11-15 21:56 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark
    Lamba (surname) 2024-11-15 21:53 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark
    Mirdha 2024-11-15 21:52 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: WP:CASTE RegentsPark
    Karel Komárek 2024-11-15 17:43 2025-05-15 17:43 edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy HJ Mitchell
    Millennium Dome 2024-11-15 13:54 2025-05-15 13:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry Goodnightmush
    User talk:61.80.147.98 2024-11-15 09:01 2024-12-15 09:01 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    User talk:189.219.66.135 2024-11-15 00:16 2024-12-15 00:16 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    Malayalam 2024-11-14 23:13 2024-12-14 23:13 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case
    2024 Ramyah clashes 2024-11-14 23:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Vietnamese irredentism 2024-11-14 22:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Matal (2018 film) 2024-11-14 20:25 indefinite create Restore salt Pppery
    Vettaiyan 2024-11-14 18:55 2025-08-19 20:25 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter
    Template:No significant coverage (sports) 2024-11-14 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    FRVR 2024-11-14 15:27 2024-12-14 15:27 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Queen of Hearts
    Operation Cast Thy Bread 2024-11-14 14:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Y.Chroma 2024-11-14 12:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Black Kite
    Yung Koebra 2024-11-14 11:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated DoubleGrazing
    Madurai–Mysore Wars 2024-11-14 08:54 2024-11-21 08:54 move Disruptive page moving Liz
    Module:Fiction redirect category handler/Franchise 2024-11-14 04:39 indefinite edit High-risk template or module Pppery
    Desert Doc 2024-11-14 02:41 indefinite create Sock target Pppery
    Indonesian Dutch 2024-11-13 22:05 2025-05-13 22:05 create Sock target Pppery
    User talk:217.178.141.183 2024-11-13 21:31 2024-12-13 21:31 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    User talk:211.53.87.201 2024-11-13 21:26 2024-11-17 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector
    User talk:221.150.224.254 2024-11-13 21:10 2024-12-13 21:10 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector
    User talk:213.87.102.204 2024-11-13 12:49 2024-12-13 12:49 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    User talk:112.169.222.27 2024-11-13 12:48 2024-12-13 12:48 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    User talk:187.188.59.169 2024-11-13 12:47 2024-12-13 12:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    User talk:211.34.182.26 2024-11-13 12:42 2025-11-13 12:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    User talk:220.93.19.43 2024-11-13 12:40 2025-11-13 12:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    User talk:77.108.235.237 2024-11-13 12:36 2024-12-13 12:36 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    User talk:118.86.237.182 2024-11-13 12:34 2024-12-13 12:34 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    User talk:118.172.199.201 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot
    User talk:138.94.122.200 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create 331dot
    User:Marine 69-71/Autographs 2024-11-13 06:21 indefinite edit,move Drop protection to ECP since full was never warranted (especially now that Marine 69-71 is no longer an admin) Pppery
    Portal:Current events/2024 November 10 2024-11-13 05:32 2024-12-13 05:32 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic
    Sevens football 2024-11-13 01:48 2025-11-13 01:48 move Move warring. Upgrading protection level after determining that AC sock had moved the article under sp-move protection. Robertsky
    User talk:117.53.223.10 2024-11-13 01:35 2025-02-13 01:35 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector
    Liam Parsons 2024-11-13 01:20 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie
    User talk:84.107.235.151 2024-11-12 22:09 2024-11-22 22:09 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector
    User talk:84.42.74.76 2024-11-12 21:58 2024-11-19 21:58 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector
    Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support 2024-11-12 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle 2024-11-12 20:19 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case

    Massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia

    I noticed this Turkish-language Reddit link.[1]. It seems a massive off-wiki campaign has been initiated by Turkish-language speakers to create more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. As the posts/comments were in Turkish, they were translated using Google tranlate:

    • "The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Wikipedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."[2]
    • "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Wikipedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Wikipedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."[3]
    • "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"[4]
    • "Turkish Wikipedia Community Discord server. Friends, I left the link below if you would like to join the works that started before us."[5]
    • "Friends, let's start with the liberation war first and let there be a spark of salvation for us from the lies in Wikipedia."[6]
    • "First of all, we must explain why this claim [Armenian genocide] is not true. For example, instead of the 1.5 million people they said, there were actually 1.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. There is no article about genocide against Armenians in the Treaty of Mudros Sevres or Lausanne. Until 1948, the United Nations and the League of Nations before it never defined a crime called genocide, and if you eat pizza and eat pizza in the future is a war crime, they cannot hold you guilty for what you did in the past. You can write that the deportation was carried out by the Union and Terraki and that the remaining Unionists completely severed their ties with the party at the Sivas congress, and the Parliament was against what the Committee of Union and Terraki did. In addition, we must reveal the evils committed by Armenians in the public opinion, instead of the crimes they have committed, the terrorist attacks of ASALA in Europe will be the best examples."[7]
    • "Ottoman archives of the period are available on this site: Devletarsivleri.gov.tr (<cant post the entire link due to blockquote error>) It is enough for someone to translate it into Turkish for us to understand. then we edit the page on the wiki."[8]
    • "The first thing that needs to be changed is the name. Then we will add the villages and towns burned by the Armenians. The number of people killed by Armenians is not specified. We should add them too. Let's diversify the missing parts as comments. Good luck with."[9]
    • "A patrol is here! hello, i am zemxer from turkish wikipedia. As I'm on patrol on Turkish Wikipedia, I try to help new users as much as possible. You know, there is an approval system for the contributions made in Turkish Wikipedia, and I am one of the patrol friends who approve these contributions. I can help users and groups who want to contribute to Wikipedia and who want to make these contributions in an impartial framework. good wikis"[10]

    So this group of people 1) clearly state their intention to spread Turkish government propaganda at Eng.Wikipedia disproven by the rest of the world 2) They receive support from users at the Turkish Wikipedia. Posting it here at AN as suggested by several administrators. You might be interested in this: @Rosguill: @Buidhe: @Bbb23: @Seraphimblade: @Black Kite: @Deepfriedokra: @Johnuniq: @HistoryofIran: @Dennis Brown: @Drmies: @El C: @Khirurg: @Kansas Bear: @Cplakidas: ‎- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting this is still ongoing, see Vahakn Dadrian and its abuse log. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The discord server

    When looking at the members of their discord, I noticed a person named "Berk". He has a portrait of Ulugh Beg as his discord profile picture, the very same added by one of our own Wikipedians, BerkBerk68, here [11]. In other words, they must be the same person. BerkBerk seems to have a prominent role there, as he has published the rules of the discord. This is not the first time user:BerkBerk has participated in off-wiki canvassing through Discord, see for example these two posts back in July 2021, where user:BerkBerk tried to recruit an admin to his "14 people" discord, which was apparently focused on editing the Syrian Civil War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. [12]-[13]- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Note the date 27-06-2022 at Discord:[14] Seems there's a triad involving editors at the Turkish wiki, off-wiki people, and editors at Eng.Wiki. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @LouisAragon, this report may have all kinds of merit, but doesn't the "The discord server" bit inch into WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Berk#2835 is me, and that community has permission from authorities of Turkish Wikipedia, and it is not interested in English Wikipedia editing. Many experienced/authorized Turkish-language editors are in that group, furthermore I am not the owner of that server. I undertake all the mistakes done by me at "discord" one year ago. BerkBerk68 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I not surprised to see you engaging in this kind of stuff again. Not interested in English Wikipedia editing? What is this you have written under Planlama ("Planning") then? Google Translate "Users will be divided into 2 main sectors as English and Turkish Writers. It is obligatory to make a total of 100 edits, 60 from one sector and 40 from another sector, on behalf of users who want to participate in both. When the new week is started, the number of edits between sectors (60-40) may change." I did write a similar report about BerkBerk to ArbCom sometime ago, though I am still awaiting an update. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I invite administrators to the discord server to prove that there is not any single edit provoked by me in english wikipedia, everything asked will be translated by me, and for any kind of distrust, access to server logs (+ProBot for deleted messages) will be given. BerkBerk68 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discord link here just got deleted [15] (including the user who posted it) and the discord is now gone. Something you and co. trying to hide? Fortunately I took pictures of BerkBerk's "Planning" list before hand. Would it violate WP:OUTING to post it here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    that text is not written by me, the person who writed it wanted me to post it (I understand the reason now), the planning list is already posted and I have opposed the things going on reddit on that server aswell. BerkBerk68 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kutlug Şad — 13.10.2022 O zaman r/Turkviki başlı başına canlı kuklacılık ("Then r/Turkviki is completely meatpuppet") Berk (me) — 13.10.2022 Öyle zaten ("it is, already") Kutlug Şad also posts a screenshot showing him posting a nationalistic comment, calling reddit users to the discord and asks me about it, I told him "don't". BerkBerk68 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    again, all logs and messages will be opened for Administrators. I have never motivated anyone to make any edits on English Wikipedia on that server. BerkBerk68 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So.. you wrote for the sake of someone else? Honestly, your excuses bore me. Prepare to make more, as this is not even scrapping the barrel. As I said, I also have that huge ArbCom report of you. Not to mention you have been called out for nationalistic editing or similiar by other users than me. Let's not forget my previous ANI report of you either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found messages of the owner sending me the text in order to publish it on server at 27.06.2022. since "discord screenshots" can't be used here, I will post it when its necessary. BerkBerk68 16:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly urge you (both) to only send any personal data like that to ArbCom — posting screenshots/text or anything that someone could argue is personal data will, at the very least, cause drama. The back and forth here is unlikely to resolve the issue, given that it appears to depend on this private evidence. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    its not just me, but also another experienced editor pings 2 other editors including me, asking if that would be "meatpuppet". and I respond: "it would absolutely be called that because it is". messages at 13.10.2022 proves that I am blaming that subreddit. BerkBerk68 13:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs Posting discord logs on wiki is oversightable. Email them to arbcom. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. The issue is that it (respectfully) takes too long if I message ArbCom. They still haven't updated me regarding the ArbCom report of Berkberk, which I sent two months ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoryofIran: If you believe there's action that ArbCom can take, I'd suggest starting a case request — just ensure you keep the right side of WP:OUTING etc, and (re-)email the committee the private evidence — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the evidence already provided in this thread regarding how this Discord group has been advertised and coordinated on Reddit, specifically taking issue with content on en.wiki, I don't buy the claim that this is unrelated to en.wiki editing. Frankly, the rhetoric surrounding this group online is WP:RGW and vitriolic enough that I would have serious concerns about them even operating as a group on tr.wiki; there may be a case for starting a discussion on Metawiki. signed, Rosguill talk 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You are openly invited to the aforementioned group to see the proofs of my opposition on the subreddit. messages there are clearly showing that individuals wanted to support the subreddit and to invite reddit users while experienced editors including me opposed that. it would also prove the fact that I have never encouraged/supported anyone to edit on english wikipedia. BerkBerk68 18:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you more clearly explain what the purpose of this Discord group is? Setting aside your specific participation, what is the purpose of the group, and why has it been promoted on reddit forums in the highly combative manner detailed by LouisAragon in the first part of this discussion? signed, Rosguill talk 22:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that both the Discord and Reddit sub-forum are now private makes BerkBerk's claim even less believable. I also still have that screenshot of his "Planning" message if an admin is interested. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, according to this post from 9 days ago, the privating the subreddit was something planned in advance, so. That's on me. ~StyyxTalk? 23:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, glad to see. Some users think that I am managing a whole reddit group despite I have opposed that group days ago. BerkBerk68 15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      promotions were made by different users and multiple experienced users including me thought that it would be meatpuppetry and opposed that (as it could be seen on the server messages including the meatpuppet expression). The general thought of the community is that Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that. BerkBerk68 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Turkish community on Wikipedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Wikipedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that, this does not allay concerns that the discord is operating as a POV-pushing platform. Additionally, your position in this thread is that there is a subset of people involved with the discord that have been publicizing it improperly, against your advice and against the intent of the server in the first place, would be a lot more convincing if you identified the black-hat editors misusing the discord so that we could investigate and address their malfeasance. signed, Rosguill talk 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      ofcourse, the user that I have warned about this situation is Kutlug Şad as I explained above. BerkBerk68 16:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There's some POV editing happening right now at Karapapakhs, who were renamed to "Karapapakhs Turks" by some IPs and a new account. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Have seen a large increase in dubious editing on Turkic history-related articles recently. I asked for a sockpuppet investigation into one because I thought edits were too similar. However, accounts coordinating off-wiki could very possibly be another solution. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Two brand new users are currently engaging in POV editing at Seljuk Empire, attempting to remove 7k sourced information through edit warring. This is not good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aaand r/Turkviki has been made private by its moderators. ~StyyxTalk? 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • My screenshot of BerkBerk's "Planning" comment also shows a certain user (who has the role of "Yönetici", meaning "Executive"), that is User:Beyoglou. A notorious xenophobic pan-nationalist and sock (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoglou/Archive), whom BerkBerk has claimed that he has "no relation to" [16] and has tried to defend [17]. Yet they are in the same discord, curious. Not to mention some of Beyoglou's socks have come to the aid of BerkBerk several times. Again, I have all kinds of proof to back this up, but WP:OUTING is not making this easy. I would prefer to send this to an admin who would be willing to make a quick judgement of this, rather than ArbCom. Though if I have no choice, I will send it to the latter. This connects rather too well with my current ArbCom report of BerkBerk. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Individual administrators aren't allowed to act on non-public evidence. It has to be ArbCom for something like this. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I have sent it all to ArbCom and asked them about an update regarding my other report. However, I do think some sort of action or actions needs to be taken here, as this is very concerning. We can't just sit idle. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've gone ahead and blocked BerkBerk68. If y'all have a clue as to other editors I should block based on this matter, ping me. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Was that an action based on private evidence (as you mention on the user's talk page) provided to ArbCom? If so, we can assume this was a block made in your capacity as an arbitrator (given that you wouldn't have access to that private evidence were you not one), and not a "standard functionary" — correct? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @TheresNoTime Ya know, that is a good question. I'm not 100% sure of that answer? I don't think it can be a block in my capacity as an Arb, because individual Arbs can't place blocks. An ArbCom block is by its nature a block by the committee and we only place them after a vote. So I think it must be a block in my capacity as an individual func. I asked that question of another Arb before I blocked, since I too wondered that, and they were also of the opinion that I could use the info ArbCom had been emailed to make an individual block. We do that from time to time with other matters: we get emailed something that really doesn't need the whole committee to waste its time on it, so one of us will just do it as an individual admin action. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      An individual admin action based on private evidence that no other admin/functionary (other than those on the committee) can verify/review? Doesn't that sound incredibly close to a recent discussion.. perhaps the community needs to be consulted on if they're happy for these actions to take place. I'm certainly not, and would expect our arbs to use a bit of common sense. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I read that RfC as saying that individual admins couldn't make those blocks, but individual CU/OS could, or of course ArbCom. So unless I've misinterpreted that RfC, I don't see how taking the action as an individual CU is an issue? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought the whole point with allowing that was private evidence was available for review by those with relevant access (i.e., all functionaries can review the private evidence which led to an action being taken)? Seeing as all functionaries are unable to review this evidence, and this wasn't an action by an arbitrator, all I can see is that you've decided to make a block based off of this thread. Perhaps that's warranted, I don't particularly care, but I definitely do care about ArbCom making somewhat secret decisions but enacting them in their private capacity. Whom do we hold accountable, the committee or the arb? How can we review an unblock request in this case? Do we contact the committee, or you? Why didn't ArbCom forward this evidence to the checkuser list when it decided it as an entity didn't want to do anything with it? These are worrying questions, and the community deserves transparency in how often this happens. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    While I see your concern, I'm not sure it's a major issue. Let's say that someone emails ArbCom an UpWork profile and says "so and so is a paid editor." Technically it's private evidence. But it would not be worth the time of the committee for all 15 members to deliberate and vote on blocking an obvious paid editor. So an individual Arb can just block said obvious paid editor without needing to make it an ArbCom block. It would be no different if say someone had emailed just me, and not ArbCom. In either case, the block I make is as an individual CU. The appeal is not difficult: the CU looking into unblocking just emails the blocking CU (pretty standard procedure) and asks what the basis for the block was. The blocking CU sends over the UpWork profile, and all is well. This case here is but a variation on that theme. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree, so have opened a dedicated thread below. Thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, CaptainEek. I will soon make a (probably unpopular) proposal here on how we can deal with this massive off-Wiki campaign, I would appreciate to hear what you all think of it. We shouldn't take this matter lightly one bit imo. Before the Reddit got private, there were like 400 members. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • :"I believe this all goes back to the current massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia, which Beyoglou plays a leading part in."
      There is a massive witchhunt going against a lot of person has nothing to do with our so called "massive discord group". I don't even know any of the banned user excluding my sockpuppet "Crasyy". But as I said they try to accuse all vandals and newcomers on Turkish-topics of being meat puppet and related to our "pan-nationalist" group and block them. It's a concerning situation when it comes to newcomer users who try to edit Turkey related topics. when some of the users that making witch hunt against us notice these newcomers, will try to ban them with accusation of relating to us. Is creating Wikipedia-related community and editing Wikipedia illegal according to policies? Absouletly not. But when it comes to some idiotic teenagers in reddit that has nothing related to us, they made our discord group "Pan-Nationalistic", "Xenophobic". 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
      For example under this comment a user named "Nyhtar" says "They are even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS". A random vandal changes "Russian" with Kurdish and accused to be in one of these groups.
      @TheresNoTime:
      @CaptainEek: and other users who involved. 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:Beyoglou[reply]

    Proposal

    As LouisAragon rightly put it, the WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS is a cesspool, and it's not going to get better anytime soon, especially with these massive off-wiki campaigns. In my 10 years on this site, the vast majority of IPs and brand new users in this area have been WP:NOTHERE, often ending up getting indeffed for pov editing and/or egregious attacks. It's also too easy for these troublemakers to sock nowadays, it's almost laughable. For example, see this long SPI archive [18] of the notorious sock Aydın memmedov2000, which doesn't even show all of their socks, there are even more of this person here [19]. Sadly that's just one of many cases. It would alleviate so much time and stress on Wikipedia if we implemented at least some sort of restriction in this area. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with HistoryofIran that there are too many LTAs in WP:AA2 (I can't speak for WP:KURDS) and that something needs to be done to address this. Aside from the LTA HistoryofIran mentioned above, there are 2 additional LTAs (1 & 2) whose socks I must report at least once or twice each month. It's extremely rare for a new account or IP in AA2 to make a helpful edit; instead, 99% of the time, they only do so to vandalise or promote a POV. I think the requirement of 500 edits and 30 days (which could possibly be lowered to 200-300 edits and 15 days) is a good idea to address this problem, so I support it. — Golden call me maybe? 10:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at this edit I reverted just now. They're even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS. Let's at least ECP articles directly related to that topic area. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone needs further evidence, check out the 8 9 10 reverts by an IP at the Orontid dynasty. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, so it's more or less the same as my proposal, but also takes cares of other details related to it. Thanks, I have slightly reworded my proposal. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, this is a good idea considering what I've seen when patrolling vandalism. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 23:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, Disruptive IPs and socks are becoming a big nuisance for the AA2 area, with experienced editors spending significant time protecting the articles from the never-ending flow of IPs, socks, and new accounts, when they could be spending it more efficiently. Yes, it will affect new editors who have good intentions, however, I believe it is better for them if they do not begin their editing in intense editing areas such as AA2. So, I fully support proposed initiative. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 06:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, but only for ethnic or political topics in this area. Under the current scope of AA2, an article about an Armenian railroad would be covered by the sanctions, but ECP would be counterproductive unless the railroad has a significant role in an ethnic conflict, or a non-ECP user has repeatedly added ethnic fanaticism to the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per constant disruption/vandalism by IPs on AA2 topic area. – Olympian loquere 06:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query I'm not against applying WP:ARBECR, but it seems to me this is an ArbCom-level restriction that needs to be applied, not one that we can do via WP:AN based on its phrasing. I support its implementation, but there appear to be some bureaucratic hurdles we should clarify. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community sanctions says the community can impose any general sanctions it wants, and can (and has) made its general sanctions identical in substance to sanctions imposed under ArbCom's procedures. That's if it wishes to, of course; the community is "not bound by Arbitration Committee procedures and guidelines" when imposing these general sanctions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This overwhelming support surely is more than enough for the WP:ARBECR to be implemented? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if you're brave enough for the WP:ARCA template, which no one is. Otherwise, it'll probably have to be set up (i.e. split) into something like WP:ARBEE → WP:GS/RUSUKR. HTH. El_C 23:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand. Are there even more steps required to go through with this? Weren't we only supposed to vote for it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: I understood this proposal to be for establishing ECR as a community-imposed general sanction. That would not require ArbCom action, if I'm understanding correctly. @HistoryofIran: I recommend posting at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you'd think that, Kevin, when the proposal plainly says: WP:ARBECR [...] over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. Now, asking the Committee at ARCA to consider doing that, as is the intent here, ought to be relatively straight forward when such overwhelming consensus has been gathered. Had I not been so lazy (I mean, the ARCA template isn't that hard) and likewise anyone else bothering, RUSUKR probably would have passed by motion as +ARBEE. The overall trend has been to streamline (subsume), like with WP:GS/COVID19 → WP:ARBCOVID; WP:GS/IPAK → WP:ARBPAK; WP:GS/IRANPOL → WP:ARBIRP; and so on.
    To me, personally, it's more or less all the same (even when inelegant), but beyond that, I think it would make sense to have something along the line of clerks assisting users, who, like in this instance, were able to accomplish community consensus for their proposal to add/adjust an existing ArbCom sanctions regimes. To help them file the paperwork, as it were. Because the less of an access ceiling, the better, I'm sure you'd agree. And all of this as we are in flux. El_C 01:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The confusion about this proposal may be my fault. Before my comment here, the proposal was for "500edits/30days restriction over" the articles. I suggested changing it to WP:ECR, which describes more nuances and implementing rules. My thought was that the community would implement the restriction itself, not that it would ask ArbCom to do so. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not following. What I quoted (the proposal: WP:ARBECR [...] over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS) was from Nov 1; your comment to whch you link is from Nov 11. The two Arbcom sanctions regimes mentioned in the proposal, WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS, are ones that many of the users supporting the proposal are already accustomed to (to whichever extent). What would be the benefit of adding a third sanctions regime, except this time making it WP:GS instead of WP:ACDS? Would it not make more sense to just amend AA2/KURDS, instead of overcomplicating everything with a new log, new alerts and page notices, new thing to remember? Thwink about it! El_C 16:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry guys, but I am even more lost now. Is there a tutorial somewhere for dummies that I can follow? I wanna proceed as soon as possible, especially since the numbers of socks are slowly ramping up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I've been trying to work towards in my comments above (and elsewhere), HistoryofIran. I wish Kevin would have addressed my point about this access ceiling. Oh well, maybe next time. El_C 23:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, the original proposal was for a 500 edits/30 days restriction, as seen in this diff provided by Kevin. This was overwritten later, following Kevin's comment. Can we please get the administrative and bureaucratic eccentricities out of the way, and have some sort of action on the problem? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not preventing you from doing anything, least of all read what I had written. El_C 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    At ARCA

    Might as well do myself, or it probably just won't happen. I requested ArbCom to amend WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS by motion per the #Proposal. See: WP:ARCA#Long title. El_C 22:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    New essay about noticeboards

    Editors and admins here may perhaps be interested in WP:Don't knit beside the guillotine. It addresses some aspects of the wiki-culture at noticeboards, and grew out of a now-archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 16#Making ANI less toxic. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a fantastic essay, definitely needed more than ever in this day and age. I will thoroughly ponder its lessons, and will do my best to take them to heart. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well written, Tryptofish! But ... is this your way of telling us that you have a completely unrelated doppelganger who looks just like you? --GRuban (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a far, far better essay than I could ever write... --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a really excellent essay. #Dealing with it is especially good advice. The (thankfully few) times I've been the subject of the ANI mob, I've felt appallingly alone, and wondered why nobody is stepping in to speak reason. But when I see others being subjected to it, I can't even bring myself to read the whole thread, never mind try and de-escalate. We should do better. – Joe (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A choice is being made concerning what history to include. Obvious historical examples of the harm caused by a mob mentality would be the witch hunts in Europe and America, the pogroms in the Russian Empire, or the lynchings in the American South. In all those cases virtually all the perpetrators were male. But those examples weren't chosen. NightHeron (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    They weren't chosen not because someone hates women or prefers men, but 'cause angry mob of lynchers is already used as example here. Please don't be quick to assume bias or discrimination. a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 21:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you didn't notice the word "unintentional" in my posting above.
    BTW the picture at WP:Angry Mob Noticeboard is not of a lynch mob. NightHeron (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, as someone from the US, you know more about lynch mobs than me. If you say that toy villagers on the picture don't look like they're going to do pogrom in Lego City's ghetto, I trust you. This all was intended as lighthearted nod to humorous "noticeboard", but I again messed up like dummy. Sorry and have a nice day! a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 14:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Great essay, Tryptofish. The mob mentality at ArbCom proceedings and other dramaboards can be horrific. They often function as kangaroo courts with no rights or protections for the accused. All forms of gross violations of our rules of conduct are allowed, including real-life slander and libel, with no repercussions at Wikipedia, but very real damage in real life elsewhere. I was once dragged through an ArbCom trial, and I was very close to committing suicide. Never in my life had I felt so helpless and alone. Fortunately, some other editors defended me and exposed the dubious nature of the accusations, my accusers community banned, and I was later vindicated.

    I asked an admin whether BLP applies to editors and was told it does not. All living persons, including people not associated with a BLP article, are protected, but not editors. That's awful. That explained what happened. Ever since then I have been reluctant to participate at dramaboards. They are not places where justice is served. I have never fully recovered from that experience. Before that, I never had issues with depression. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much for that post, Valjean. As someone who has long had depression myself, but not in any way as a result of Wikipedia, I am very moved by what you describe. The thought that anyone could even briefly consider suicide as a result of an experience at this website chills me to my core, and I hope everyone keeps it in mind whenever they interact with any of our noticeboards. I won't be so presumptuous as to hope that the essay I wrote will lessen the risk of something like that ever happening here again, but I do hope so. I also hope that you are getting all the medical help that you need; that's had a tremendous benefit for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the next step would be to reign in the de facto power of the WikiProjects. The Banner talk 09:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominations now open for the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections

    Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates in the 2022 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections. Nominations must be transcluded by 23:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC). Please note that there is a change to the process this year: per WP:ACERFC2022, questions may only be asked on the official questions pages after the nomination period is over. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting deleted articles to post their contents off-wiki

    Is deletion review needed to request the retrieval of deleted articles (e.g. by e-mail) not for the purpose of restoring the article on Wikipedia, but to post it on another wiki? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope, deletion review is only needed to restore deleted pages to mainspace. If you'd just like article text back to post elsewhere, you're welcome to post at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion or email an administrator individually. Many of us (myself included) would be happy to send you deleted article text, so long as it's not grossly inappropriate material (e.g. something deleted under CSD G10). Ajpolino (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Animal lover |666| 05:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So no inflammatory BLP material and copyvios right? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant policy is WP:Reusing Wikipedia content. Since the articles and page histories have been deleted, the considerations in WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline, shortcut WP:RUD) also apply: attribution must be provided explicitly, a link is not sufficient. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps page protection is warranted for the Aaron Mate BLP talk page

    I wanted to bring this to your attention, Administratiors. I fully realize that talk pages are not typically page protected, however, I have never read a talk page like this before. There ARE standards of decorum that should be upheld for talk pages, especially for BLPs. Yet the tone is like 4chan, but crueler. It is a cesspool of hate and malice directed at this poor soul because bad editors are allowing their own political and other biases/opinions to run wild. For example, I found 35 word counts of "journalist" and at least three sub-sections where editors challenged whether Mate should be described as a journalist, followed by vigorous WP:RS and WP:NPOV supported discussions, and resolution achieved. Yet yesterday another he's not a journalist sub section appeared and had to be addressed.

    Unsourced hate is directed toward Mate because (these are all examples on that talk page; I'm not being sardonic): "he writes for a publication that isn't sympathetic to Uighyurs", "he's just like Max Blumenthal", "Tablet says he's okay, so he must be a propagandist shill", "he's pro-Russia", "he's pro-Assad", "he's a propagandist because it pays better", "CounterPunch has included his work on occasion", "The Guardian UK says he's one of 28 bad guys that spread disinformation", "he's a Houthi apologist"! And of course, that he is a conspiracist. That he's left-wing is generally agreed upon. He's pro-Palestinian. I'm not left-wing. I'm not pro-Palestinian. Regardless, I can write with a neutral Wikipedia voice. Just because Zelenskyya kicked up a fuss and got Aaron and Max disinvited from some event doesn't mean that all impartiality must fly out the window. If Aaron is pro-Assad, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should use pejorative adjectives in describing his work. Please, will someone do something about this? I don't have the permissions to. FeralOink (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    When I look at this, I don't see anything that merits page protection. There are some heated discussions on the talk page, but I see nothing to indicate in the page history that it is the target of disruption or vandalism, or bad faith; nothing from the talk page has been removed or reverted, aside from archiving, in the last several weeks as far as I can see. If there's nothing worth reverting, then why do we need to protect it? If there are some diffs or examples of vandalism, disruption, or other problems that I have missed in combing through the page history, please post them here, but I see nothing in the page history that indicates that protection is warranted. --Jayron32 17:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are a few examples.
    ONE This thread is verging on a WP:BLP violation, where it is argued that "journalist" should be changed to "propagandist" despite having had the same discussion already, four times in a few months on the talk page, and now 48 mentions (up from 35, three days ago) of whether or not he is entitled to that title as his occupation.
    TWO derogatory claim is discussed ad infinitum, specifically, "a clearly derogatory claim about a living person requires far more rigorous and widespread sourcing than a single mention, which does not make the specific claim, in a document written by a charity, published by a campaign group, and mentioned only by a single news organisation".
    THREE Section head "This article is turning into a sewer": "There are countless examples of violations of the WP:BLP, WP:NPV and WP:RS policies here. It looks like a few activists have taken over this page and have inserted all sorts of defamatory language...." Yet it is continuing. I wouldn't call this merely "heated discussion".
    FOUR "the state that this talk page is in is horrendous", which then goes on to an argument between two editors accusing each other of possibly being Aaron Mate. One of these editors seems to be an extremely active advocate in favor of Mate (the "talk page clogger"), so that's a good point, and disturbing as well.
    FIVE In an attempt to get everyone to settle down, a nice administrator did this but it hasn't been effective: "1RR for all Syrian Civil War articles, in effect here, has been supplanted for the next month with a 72-hour 1RR, imposed as a discretionary sanction under the same Syrian Civil War sanction regime. Please stop reverting each other so much."
    SIX Certain editors repeatedly advocate for describing the BLP subject, a young leftist Jewish man, as a fascist in the lead of the article, see here for the most recent example and note similar a few days earlier here. Another editor refers to the BLP subject as "a tankie" twice. This is a problem. It is not merely heated discussion. The editor who used the term tankie started out calm, collected, and impartial but maybe he's getting exasperated with that talk page mess.
    I shouldn't have suggested page protection for a talk page, Jayron32. You're right about that. I do know that Wikipedia policies are being violated, and that the subject of the BLP is getting cranky about being defamed, or so he seems to be saying loudly on Twitter. I'll just avoid anything to do with the article from here on out and let y'all handle it.--FeralOink (talk) 08:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Try WP:BLPN, which is more designed to deal with actual BLP violations. People who frequent that noticeboard may have something more to say on the matter. I will note that not every claim of a BLP violation is always a BLP violation. Maybe some of these are, maybe some of these aren't. --Jayron32 17:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good idea! I didn't even know it existed. Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Review request re my unblock of Rathfelder

    There is consensus for Rathfelder to be community banned. There was initial support for topic bans, but as more information came to light, discussion moved towards a total ban. I do not object to the discussion being reopened or otherwise continued if further cleanup is needed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:41, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This morning, El C drew my attention to a piece on Wikipediocracy, criticising my recent decision to unblock Rathfelder, who I had blocked shortly beforehand for sockpuppetry and votestacking. There is some stuff in the piece that I was unaware of until now, and which might have made me respond differently had I known about them at the time. However, since I'm in the position of catching off-wiki flak for the decision, I feel that my judgment could be called into question on the best way to go forward - hence, I am passing the buck asking for a review.

    The background: I received an e-mail from an editor outlining their concerns that Rathfelder and Bigwig7 might be one and the same person, and pointing out multiple CfD discussions where they had overlapped. The concerns seemed credible, so I ran a check, and confirmed that they were being operated by the same person. Since they were obviously votestacking, I blocked, and notified the community at this noticeboard. A couple of days later, Rathfelder requested unblock, we had a discussion, and he agreed to accept TBans from categories and deletion discussions, and the withdrawal of his Autopatrolled flag (I felt that was needed since any articles he created would, by necessity, be uncategorised and hence would benefit from NPP review), and also a one-account restriction. Since the only inappropriate editing I was aware of was the use of multiple accounts in deletion discussions, I felt that this would be sufficient to unblock (preventative not punitive, etc).

    What I didn't know at the time: mainly using the Bigwig7 account, Rathfelder created the article Alex Scott-Samuel (he has also edited it with his main account). Now, Rathfelder is open about his real-life identity (public disclosure). Scott Samuel was the chair of a body, the Socialist Health Association, which Rathfelder had been director of. There was a clear conflict of interest there, which was not disclosed on either account; further, he used sources in the article in which he himself was quoted. I believe he alluded to this in his unblock request: I also used it a few times to edit controversial pages about living people who would recognise my name. That should have been a red flag for me, and I should have probed it before unblocking. To be honest, I think my eyes glided over it - it was a long unblock request, and I already thought I knew what the problem was - I missed it, mea culpa. I don't know whether there were other instances of COI editing.

    At this point, I would like the community to consider what the best course of action is - whether that be reinstating the block, warning, or nothing at all. I would also be grateful if an experienced uninvolved editor were to look over that article closely. Girth Summit (blether) 18:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) Ouch. That's a tough call man. First of all, let me say that I hold no fault with you. You've done everything right here, you acted in good faith and had appropriate empathy towards a user who themselves said things that any reasonable admin would have taken as reasonable conditions for an unblock. If someone is going to err one one side or the other, to err on the side of empathy will always be the proper call for me. Secondly, you've asked for outside eyes on a situation where you've clearly botched it up yourself. That's the proper course of action, and if more admins did that, Wikipedia would be a utopia of good governance. I'm not 100% sure I have the answers for how to proceed until I hear some input myself from other people. I've not fully made up my mind yet, but if we do decide to leave Rathfelder unblocked, I would impose an additional community restriction of a TBAN on ALL WP:BLP editing, broadly construed. They have proven themselves untrustworthy in that area, and any continued presence at Wikipedia (if they are not blocked or sitebanned outright) should be under some restrictions. --Jayron32 19:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I understand what I did and why it was wrong. I would like to have a chance to show that I have seen the error of my ways. Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      So are you saying that you previously didn't realize that using a sockpuppet to promote your side in a real-life dispute might be objectionable? Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I didnt see it like that. I didnt think I was promoting my side. I know this sounds stupid. I can only say I was in a stressful situation and clearly not thinking straight. And I did actually try to present the positive sides of Alex Scott-Samuel's work. It wasnt meant to be an attack page, and I dont think it reads like one. I made only a few minor edits to the Socialist Health Association article, only one of which I think really had a conflict of interest, after controversy broke out and I was sacked. I have kept away from both pages since and I will continue to do so. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      True, but I was attempting to be fair - Its mostly about Scott-Samuel's speech to the Labour Party Conference. Most of my edits to the SHA article were about its history, nothing to do with any conflict. Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The second half of that edit removes the reason for your dismissal and implies that it resulted in the loss of key financial support, which may be fair to you. NebY (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If you didn't think you were doing anything wrong in creating Alex Scott-Samuel, why did you use a sockpuppet to do it? – Joe (talk) 06:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think an unblock is unreasonable, but given the COI editing, and the apparent creation of an attack page on somebody else, a topic ban from all things Socialist Health Association and additionally a BLP ban would be appropriate. nableezy - 19:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      With the added socking and restoring very poor edits to a BLP he has a COI with, reinstate block. nableezy - 15:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are few "high crimes" on Wikipedia, but sockpupppetry to game consensus, and COI BLP editing to gain advantage in a real-life dispute, are two of them. Girth did nothing wrong given the information available at the time and hindsight is 20/20. My !vote is to reinstate a full indef block and let the editor pursue unblock avenues in the ordinary course like everyone else. Unblock conditions like TBANs etc can be handled in the ordinary course as well. Levivich (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discovery is all the more disappointing following my prompt on 7 November for Rathfelder to come clean if there was anything else to disclose. Given his history of vote-stacking on articles about health service–related organisations, I suggest that if there is to be an additional topic ban, then we should be considering a ban on health service–related articles rather than all BLPs. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      But I did disclose this. That is why I disclosed my personal history. And in my defence I have created or editted a lot of healthcare related articles but I have never done anything improper with any but these two where I was personally involved. Rathfelder (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I mean this in genuine good faith, but I think you have made your point. I don't think arguing here does you any favors. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I think they may be referring to another apparent sock account used to vote at a RfC [20] in which both your Rathfelder account and BigWig7 sockpuppet also voted. But that's just a guess. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quoting Fayenatic london, "we should be considering a ban on health service–related articles". Drmies (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - user:Harry Boardman's last 20 edits include the organizations rfc mentioned above by EnPassant, Alex Scott-Samuel and Socialist Health Association (edit summary:‎ Spelling/grammar/punctuation correction); Bigwig7 has this (edit summary:‎ Spelling/grammar/punctuation correction). Healthcare in Belgium has been edited by both Rathfelder and Boardman. 11 of the first 13 edits to Alex Scott-Samuel are by Bigwig7, Harry Boardman and Rathfelder. What are the chances? Oculi (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This addition to Alex Scott-Samuel of a thoroughly nasty phrase without quotation marks but with attribution to The Times (actually it was the Sunday Times)—so I am unable to check whether the phrase is even in the article cited—on 25 March 2019 by Bigwig7 is unacceptable. (It followed the addition of his being on a list in The Economist, with neither source being flagged as opinion articles in the edits.) And that was in our article, unchanged, when I edited it a little more than 24 hours ago. If those edits were made in the heat of emotion after dismissal, quite apart from that being a very good demonstration of why COI editing is wrong, I would have expected that human decency would suggest going back at some time during the next 3½ years, re-examining that biography of a living person, and changing at least that passage in wiki-voice. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Can find the source here, and it did indeed include that phrase, but it isnt any better. It is an editorial by Sarah Baxter, and it should have been attributed to her if it should have been included (and imo it should not have been). nableezy - 05:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Restored by Harry Boardman. (Harry Boardman was a folk singer from Manchester.) Oculi (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time, I did think you were a bit quick to accept Rathfelder's explanation at face value and unblock, Girth Summit. But that's nothing to criticise and you didn't have the full story at the time. But now we know, the indef needs to be restored. Levivich has summed it up well already, but years of deliberately manipulative socking and creating attack pages on your real-life political opponents is not something you come back from with a slap-on-the-wrist topic ban. And yes, Rathfelder's version of that article was an attack page, that described its (Jewish) subject as a ringleader in "antisemitic bullying" and "a swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist". I can't imagine we'd even be having this conversation about someone with a lower edit account. Like the Wikipediocracy writer, I'm also very suspicious of Harry Boardman and potentially more sockpuppets. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Joe and others that an indef should be restored, as I feel Rathfelder was unblocked under false pretenses. I further detail my reasoning in my follow up to the original notice I posted to GS' talk page last night: User_talk:Girth_Summit#WPO blog post: Rathfelder – "a good editor". Sorry, am writing in haste. Thanks. El_C 07:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since GS made it clear below that he is leaving the matter entirely to the community, meaning that the CU block is unlikely to be reinstated, and because I find a standard indef that any admin can undo insufficient — like many users below, I also support a community site ban (WP:CBAN). I should add that Rathfelder's comments since I've written the above did the very opposite of convincing me against this being the only viable outcome at this time. El_C 01:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes Harry Boardman was me. I'd rather forgotten about that. That was a very difficult period in my life which I had rather shut out. And I entirely agree that these conflicted edits are more serious than vote stacking. All I can say in my defence is that neither had much effect. I dont think any decision about categories was altered by my vote stacking. I did my best in the article by Scott-Samuel to be objective, but he was effectively my employer. I put in material about his career and achievements, and it was all referenced to respectable sources. I have put a lot of time and effort into wikipedia. These discreditable episodes are a very small part of what I have done, and my circumstances have changed. There is no reason to suppose that they would recur. I would see a complete block as an excessive punishment. I would hope to be given a chance to redeem myself. Rathfelder (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I was on the fence until this half admission, which I doubt Rathfelder would have disclosed if not for direct questioning. Time for a site ban. Note, I have no issue with Girth's unblocking under the information available at the time. This was an established user and no reason to question the disclosure. Star Mississippi 19:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site ban. I'm not really active here these days. But I think long-term "good" editors who abuse Wikipedia for their own ends are one of the project's most insidious problems, and I just have to offer my thoughts. Rathfelder now says "I did my best in the article by Scott-Samuel to be objective." No, he painted him in a bad light, while whitewashing content about himself, that much is clear. And used *three accounts* to keep it negative. Someone trying to be objective would have discussed it rather than edit war, and wouldn't have hidden their obvious COI. Then he says "These discreditable episodes are a very small part of what I have done..." I'm not seeing "episodes" here. I'm seeing Rathfelder socking to abuse consensus for years, right up until he was caught and blocked. And that has involved using at least three accounts, in some cases, to votestack discussions. And now we get gems like "I think I understand what I did and why it was wrong"! I'm generally pretty forgiving. But Rathfelder has acted as though he's superior to the community for so long, I think he should be removed from it until he can make a convincing case to be readmitted (after spending some time away). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep blocked we have much more useful editors banned off Wikipedia for similar activities with socks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site ban. Like Tenebrae, this is an abuse of the community processes. I echo Boing!. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site ban. Given all that has been revealed above, I don't think the community has much choice in the matter. Vote-stacking with socks is grounds for an indefinite block. Socking to create and maintain a conflict-of-interest BLP attack page alone would be grounds for a community ban. Combine the two, and add in the lack of disclosure of the Boardman account when asking for the block to be lifted, and the continued attempts here to minimise the significance of what has been done, and anything less would be untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site ban per Boing and AndyTheGrump. starship.paint (exalt) 15:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full Community Siteban - I'm unhappy this is happening, but it goes much deeper than what may be resolved with a topic ban from medial subjects. We've all been here long enough to know using sockpuppets to votestack is not ok and there is a serious breach of trust here. That combined with the COI editing puts it over the top for me. If Rathfelder would like to return at a later date, he may go through the usual avenues available. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a site ban or, failing that, an indefinite topic ban from BLPs, in addition to the restrictions he already has. I get a feeling, looking at his latest contributions, that he may have done some good work on categorizations. At the same time, the revenge editing, the lack of disclosure of another sock account (Harry Boardman), and the apparently false statements suggest that a site ban is the only appropriate solution. If he wants to appeal, he can follow the instructions at WP:UNBAN.
    Several of his statements are suspicious:
    • I was deceitful I dont think my bad behaviour had much effect. It was confined to the backstage area of categorisation discussions. [21] – The evidence in the above comments suggests that the misbehaviour was not restricted to category space;
    • I was in those cases very careful to use reputable sources and avoid bias. [22] – You created an attack page with content describing the subject as a "swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" [23];
    • I made only a few minor edits to the Socialist Health Association article, only one of which I think really had a conflict of interest [24] – No, you made 130 edits to this article, when including edits made by your socks. Many of them weren't minor;
    • I entirely agree that these conflicted edits are more serious than vote stacking. All I can say in my defence is that neither had much effect. [25] – Untrue. The subject of the article was reportedly very distressed;
    • But I dont know what TBans are. [26] – I find it incredible that an editor with almost 550,000 edits wouldn't know what "TBan" means.
    Finally, even if the WPO post contains inaccuracies, the evidence presented on-wiki clearly demonstrates that he needs, at the very least, these three topic bans. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site Ban I'm not sure why this is even up for discussion. No one is bigger than the project, and I don't care how much "good" was done, socking to vote stack, on top of having a COI negates all of that and then some. Also if someone is going to need multiple topic bans to even be allowed to edit, they shouldn't be editing period. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The reason it's up for discussion is set out at the top of the thread. I hope you can understand why I brought it here for discussion - I made a mistake, which has been publicly criticised on an off-wiki site, so any action I take now would be open to accusations of trying to cover my own arse. I want to step back from the situation entirely from an administrative angle and hand it over to the community. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 21:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]
      In any case, since 3X clearly does not apply, if an editor wants a site ban this needs to be up for discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site Ban from my reading of the above thread. The extension of discussion here, provides the editor considerations which are not afforded to every other blocked editor. The editor is free to seek an unblock on their own after some time has elapsed. Bruxton (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site ban per above discussion. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 22:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site ban - I hesitated between !voting for a site ban and simply restoring the indef block, but I think that the editor has abused the trust of the community too many times now in too short a period, and has stretched our AGF well past the breaking point. If he wants to return to editing, let him convince the entire community to give him another chance, rather than a single admin who may or may not be aware of the background of the case - that requires a CBAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site ban per BMK and Boing (good to see you again). Miniapolis 23:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site Ban per Levivich and others. This editor cannot be trusted. If they are reinstated with multiple topic bans, I don't trust them not to find another area in which to edit corruptly. The apology is of the "Mistakes were made" type. We would be making another mistake to reinstate this user. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Restoration of Indefinite Block to be treated as a CU block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Site Ban per all of the above. OrgoneBox (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Memphis 901 FC season

    Seems the article, got removed and deleted while at AfD. I am not sure what the process is here, if the AfD should be closed, or if restored. The article looks like it could have been speedy deleted anyway. Regards, Govvy (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was moved by its originator into draft space while still tagged for deletion, and is at Draft:2023 Memphis 901 FC season, where it is displaying an error message. My preference as nominator of the AFD would be for it to be moved back to article space to allow the AFD to run its course. Moving an article to draft space while it is tagged for AFD is an effort to game the system that I see from time to time, and the policies are less than clear on what to do in that situation. My own opinion is that moving an article that is tagged for deletion should be disallowed, but other editors have reasons that they understand. Someone else can figure out how we should handle this, since I seem to be in the minority in thinking that the move should be disallowed. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I screwed up and need admin assistance. I moved the draft back to mainspace so the AfD could finish, only to find that the AfD had been closed because the original move from fraftspace to mainspace was accidentally. So, I moved it back to draftspace, but now I can't find the version of of the article which has content. My apologies -- could someone please clean up after me? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have the right version inthe right space now. If someone could please delete Draft:2023 Memphis 901 FC season - bad I would appreciate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My thanks to @Explicit:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And @Iridescent: Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Case of WP:BULLY and WP:CPP I have trouble handling alone

    This is a content dispute. The OP is a new editor, having created their account about one month ago. There is no bullying or incivility on the part of the two reported editors. It is the OP who, through their impatience, is causing problems in reaching a resolution on the dispute. The OP should go back to the article Talk page, behave better, and not be so quick to report other users.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, I recently expanded the article Samuel Aba. You can compare the current version of the article with the one including my edits. The article uses arguments backed by two ancient sources to present one view, failing to mention a third ancient source that would discredit the view that's being pushed. more specifically, there are two ancient sources claiming that Samuel Aba was of Attilid descent through his father's line (a 13th-century work by Simon of Keza and a 14th-century manuscript), and one source that does not deny this but fails to report it (a 13th-century work by an anonymous writer, the so-called Anonymous).

    The article, as it is now, fails to mention one of the ancient source (Keza) while putting an emphasis on the source that does not mention the subject's Attilid descent, and (incidentally) highlights the fact that the source claiming Attilid descent was written a century after the source that does not mention this (Anonymous vs. the 14th-century manuscript).

    When I saw this I was surprised, so I edited the article, adding the missing part. But my edits were reverted by User:Borsoka. They justified their action with a WP:NOR. Other parts of this article are backed by primary sources, as most articles on this topic are, but ok, it made sense. So I spent quite a while to gather sources to back my addition and republished the deleted content. Borsoka, however, removed again my additions, as they kept on claiming I am "relying on a primary source".

    I again edited the page, adding a few templates to ask for more sources to back the part they don't want to delete (I don't disagree with it being in the article, but I felt it should have more citations, with quotes, since I couldn't check all the sources used therein and there are some mildly stretched/dubious sentences).

    My edits were reverted again however, this time by another user, Surtsicna, who justified their action with: That really does not look like improvement. Please use the talk page to explain your edit. Surprised and unable to see what they exactly want me to explain, and at this point honestly thinking that the whole thing doesn't make sense unless someone is willingly trying to hide a part of the story, I did as they asked, went to talk page and explained what I already explained.

    Surtsicna apparently gave up discussing after asking me to discuss (cf. 1 and 2), meanwhile the content stays removed of course, so I guess it's fine for them.

    Borsoka meanwhile keeps on talking about primary sources, now implying that the sources I used are "not reliable" either. I replied to them again, now starting to lose my cool a little bit.

    I don't know what's going on here, but I can't possibly explain it all unless there is some form of WP:CPP and/or WP:BULLY.

    As I finished to write this, I gave a look at the talk page and noticed that User:Borsoka had already tried to downplay/hide (whatever) the aforementioned part of the story. Giray Altay (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Giray Altay: You are required to notify Borsoka of this report per the instructions at the top of the page. I'd also suggest paring down your complaint as it's way too long.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Bbb23, I thought that pinging them here was enough... Ok, I will shorten it ASAP.--Giray Altay (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having now looked through the edits on the article and the Talk page, it looks like a content dispute that should remain on the article Talk page. I see nothing wrong with the conduct of Borsoka or Surtsicna, both of whom disagree with Giray Altay's edits. Giray Altay should go back to the talk page and be more patient with the process of reaching a resolution.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23 normally I would agree with you. That's the process. But I saw too many times disputes ending the wrong way because nobody cared. This is a kinda Balkanic related topic and I just can't stand some type of stuff.
    Why do you have to hide something from the article? Should I wait? Nobody'll care, and if they do they'll WP:Bully them out of the discussion again. Just give another look at the edits. How can you remove fundamental content backed by five reliable sources and claim "you are using a primary source", or "I don't see how this is an improvement"??
    Edit for whoever's reading, for whoever cares: I edited the article again, adding four more sources to state the obvious; what is willingly kept out. Now there 8 sources supporting a well-known fact.--Giray Altay (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) Giray Altay, just base your edits on modern secondary sources and then certainly someone will care, but they might not agree with you. Nobody is bullying you, but simply asking you to justify your edits. You know that your edit is contested, so you should not be reinstating any of it until the talk page discussion has come to a conclusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Unicode encoded pages and user pages

    Hanover Amenity is blocked as a sock of a community-banned editor, and isn't going to be unblocked. I feel like the continuation of the discussion after the fact is increasingly unlikely to make anyone happy, so at the risk of annoying one side or the other or both, I think it's best to just agree to disagree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hanover Amenity has created unicode encoded user/user talk pages of themselves, which may end up rendering stuff like using Twinkle or notifying this report of them useless if one is not too careful. This behaviour is exhibited at Talk:Franchise_Tax_Board_of_California_v._Hyatt_(2019)#Requested_move_10_November_2022 which they closed without waiting for further inputs. They had also created similarly unicode encoded pages and done copy and paste moves to affect the changes. Whilst I would like to engage this user like how I would have engaged any other closers over such closures on their talk pages, this editor's peculiar usage of unicode encoded user page and mainspace pages might need to be addressed first.

    Their user page:

    The unicode encoded (non-existent) user pages:

    On the RM discussion:

    – robertsky (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Notified at the user's own talk page Special:Permalink/1123048133. – robertsky (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In case anyone else was wondering what they were up to, they were alternating Latin and Cyrillic script characters. I've deleted the rogue userpages. The user talk page is not where it was. Some other cleanup is still needed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved it back. —Cryptic 14:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The copy-paste move at Franchise_Tax_Board_of_California_v._Hyatt_(2019) has been reverted and the partial-Cyrillic title has been deleted as G6 by Happy-melon. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 15:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cryptic: the talk page is still at the old title, could you fix that as well? Thanks, ansh.666 16:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that I'd moved the user talk page that zzuuzz mentioned back, but I've fixed Talk:Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019)→Talk:Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt now too. —Cryptic 17:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is User:Hanover Amenity/bio impersonating User:Randy Kryn? Or is that supposed to be an article draft? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that was a good faith article draft. Not impersonating. And by that point the issue had been resolved. I really don't see a reason for blocking just because an editor is working on an article draft, please reconsider (I don't need an article, that's not the point, and it's too soon anyway, but blocking someone for this seems excessive and not accepting a fellow Wikipedian in good faith). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear about it, Randy Kryn, they were blocked as a sockpuppet of Awolf58, who is banned, and has been impersonating you and others for I think most of this year. Frankly their obsession with you should be concerning. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I get the block, but what I'm saying is there was no reason to even check the account as a sockpuppet. There should be stricter criteria for checking for a sock other than a hunch. We've talked, and hopefully share a mutual respect for each others work (check the edits of this newly blocked account, good and productive edits, and nothing there to suspect a sock unless it is that anyone who talks to me or edits pages I do is an automatic suspect, which seems very unfair). Even knowing that this account is a sock I'd ask that admins consider reverting the ban and restore the good edits until and unless something outrageous happens which actually warrants such a cover-all approach. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can tell you that dedicating 190 edits to creating an obsessively detailed biography about you was a bit of a clue, although, we have dealt with so many sockpuppets that yes any new accounts interacting with you are now automatically suspicious. With the amount of nonsense this person has been up to, including the impersonation and harassment, and especially including the vandalism starting this thread, I don't see their ban being lifted any time soon. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My request was to reconsider the ban of this one particular account. It doesn't seem fair because the official criteria for opening a sockpuppet investigation doesn't include "interacting with user Randy Kryn". I don't know about coding or the specifics of what opened this thread, but the thread seemed to be completing itself and resolving until my name popped up. Not fair to the user or to me, and fairness should be in every Wikipedian's DNA. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Bans are applied to people, not accounts. You could argue that this is not the same person as Awolf58, but that would be incorrect. Does this person look like someone who should be unbanned? Not while they're keeping that up, they don't. Do they look worryingly obsessed with you? I'll leave that in your court, but hint: yes. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Missing the point. The identification of this named user only came under question because my name came up and (see above), someone asked if he was impersonating me, and that was answered in the affirmative when it was not true. It seems unfair that a ban was placed on this named user because of that, everything else is probable guesswork. Where's due process on something like this? Thanks for the concern, lots of dynamics between him and I that you and others are missing. He incorrectly believed until recently that I played a major role in his being banned in the first place, during his United States edits, giving him reason to be exceptionally an asshole because, mistaken about me being a negative influence in him getting banned and equally mistaken that I was a regular on the United States page when I seldom had edited it (he was banned, as I remember, for pretty much being way too enthusiastic while editing in his own style with almost all of his edits being pretty good, but then wall of texty like this when trying to defend himself) what happened next, and this is the good part, he found out about James Bevel. And he, like myself, and to be honest not that many others, if you love American history and how the nation evolved, when you find out about Bevel (especially if you've never even heard of him, but you're interested in an era-defining subject: the 1960s civil rights movement) it's like a huge WTf? This guy did what? You must be kidding me. And he saw that the editor who he imagined did him shit was a subject matter expert on Bevel but had pretty much not done any substantial edits on Bevel's article in what, seven, eights years, I don't even know, and did his Wikipedian ignore-all-rules Beastrage thing and came at me with an army of sockpuppets and Wikipedia-only threats trying to get me to edit and improve Bevel's page. Because Bevel's page deserves to be really something, packed with substantial information and the length of the pages of other great Americans in history, Washington, Madison, Lincoln, Dr. King, Franklin, those type of people. Thing is, I agree with him. I should be working more on the page. Although I have no intent to personally expand it to huge lengths, he's right about that. But as I've told him, sure, I think so too, but in my own time and thanks for putting my attention on it. We only disagree about the speed, and he kept on playing strange Wikipedia games, ruining my revert percentage in the process as one way of trying to force me. But that has kind of stopped after he found out that I actually was doing the opposite of what he thought during his initial ban. And I think he was writing an article about me not because of my personally, but because he realized that I am the historian who happened to tie-together Bevel's work, publish a few small things about it, and placed Rev. Bevel's accomplishments into their proper context within the literature of the field. By writing that article on a user page, a pretty incorrect article by the way which is what you often get from sources, he was honoring James Bevel, not Randy Kryn. For a long time I thought that doing that in a principled and accurate way was pretty important too. But kind of lost interest in the last eight or nine years until this fellow decided to remind me. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a lot of words to say that you want to unban someone because you liked their edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    ↑This↑ is spot on. HandThatFeeds was able to express in one short succinct sentence exactly what is wrongheaded about Randy Kryn's response to the block.-- Ponyobons mots 17:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello HandThatFeeds. Wrong, but thanks for chiming in. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Ghost of Kiev on a spree at WP:RPP in order to get ECP.

    I count 52 requests. Doug Weller talk 16:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgot - they were only told a short while ago about ECP. Doug Weller talk 16:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir,
    I am not "on a spree" in order to get ECP. I went through the (Category:Russo-Ukrainian War) and picked articles that looked like they should be restricted from editing by editors like me. I chose those articles intentionally: I excluded articles that do not have to do with the war closely, such as Good Evening (Where Are You From?) and Hydraulic warfare, because I don't think those are restricted from what was posted on my talk page. I then started to go through (Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine) before made copy edit on Skylar Kergil and removed section where someone had attacked the transgender musician because of Twitter.
    If you do not want me to request that so many articles be protected at one time, I can slow down or stop, but I did not do this with malice. I want to help Wikipedia be better, and I am sorry if I have made it worse by making too many requests for protection. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I have half a mind to remove the entire set of nominations as inappropriate. Little to no care was given to the nominations; for example, you nominated several under the rationale "Persistent vandalism", but where there is absolutely no evidence of vandalism. Also, policy says that ECP is not required for enforcing the Arbcom GS sanctions in the topic area. There's just WAY too many bad noms for me to weed through to find the ones that are appropriate. Please don't do anything like this again. When you dump this many requests at once, and where most of them don't have an appropriate rationale, it just makes extra work for admins to investigate all of the bad noms. --Jayron32 16:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry that this has created so much work and that I have harmed Wikipedia. I will be more careful in the future and will never again nominate a large number of pages for protection at once. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's okay; you're acting in good faith, but remember that real people, who are just volunteers like yourself have to do all of this work. If you have specific articles where there is a specific need for protection, nominate those, but rarely is preemptive protection used. Applying page protection as a preemptive measure is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia and is generally not allowed if applied solely for these reasons.. --Jayron32 17:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I went and removed the whole batch. After looking at more of them, there's just too many false positives to deal with. ECP is only necessary where disruption is active and ongoing, even the ArbCom remedy states "this restriction is preferably enforced through extended confirmed protection, though this is not required." (bold mine) It appears that Ghost of Kiev is trying to get the entire set of articles ECP all at once; this strains the resources of the admin corps and is not necessary, as the policy does not require it, especially not all at once. Let's focus on articles where there is conflict or disruption is actually actively happening. --Jayron32 17:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for removal of permissions

    Hi there! Please remove page mover, file mover, new page reviewer, pending changes reviewer, and rollbacker from this account. Thanks so much! 🥒 EpicPickle (they/them | talk) 17:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC being overwhelmed by meatpuppets?

    Not sure we are getting a real consensus at Talk:Iroquois#Meatpuppets. Not sure the best way forward here....

    editor interaction tool. Moxy- 19:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, for now, feel free to tag those users with the {{spa}} or {{canvassed}} tags. El_C 22:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What a surprise... Canvassing on Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/Haudenosaunee/comments/z09kmz/update_wiki_title_to_haudenosaunee/. The starter of the RFC has the same username as the reddit username of the starter of the thread. Jackattack1597 (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was on-wiki canvassing too, although they were subsequently informed of the canvass guidelines. That said, the RM isn't that overwhelmed yet, and it's pretty obvious who is familiar with en.wiki policies and guidelines and who has been blindly canvassed. Should be easy enough for a closer to sort out. CMD (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Indeed, I just posted at the RM-in-question. Looking it over, there certainly is puppetry occurring. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tagged two SPA accounts (the only SPAs in that discussion). Nythar (💬-🎃) 02:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    2022 Arbitration Committee elections: last day for nominations

    There are a little under 24 hours left for eligible editors to nominate themselves as candidates in the upcoming 2022 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections. Your nomination must be transcluded no later than 23:59 UTC on 22 November 2022; per WP:ACERFC2020, this is a hard deadline, and we may not be able to grant exceptions in the event of any technical issues. In this election there are 8 vacant seats to be filled for either a two-year or one-year term depending on the candidate's level of support. At the time I am writing this, 9 candidates have nominated themselves. Mz7 (talk) 00:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing by User:Uinko

    This user had made countless unsourced, disruptive, and ungrammatical edits over the past several months, and has been warned countless times. The user has also apparently made personal attacks in the past, and the response when I last reached out was passive aggressive at best. I think that a block is clearly warranted, and that these harmful edits be reverted. Cpotisch (talk) 11:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm seeing a mix of positive and negative edits, but very infrequent and over a considerable time. Not comfortable issuing blocks at present. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive political editing by User:RobertBanclair

    This user just started editing under this account within the last 24 hours, and so far all of their edits are to add political misinformation or unsourced claims to articles about the recent U.S. elections and current U.S. political candidates. They altered the title of a source in 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election to make it appear to report the opposite of what it really says. And although it's not definitive, their recent edits to that page are suspiciously similar to an IP user's previously-reverted edits to the same page a few days ago. SS451 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef'd for NOTHERE, though vandalism as well would have worked. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably a naughty mouse, but

    ... this (inconsequential, mostly) edit happened at a time when my laptop was closed and I wasn't editing. I was moving the mouse out of the way sometime around then ... and I really think it's just a case of a very unlikely couple of clicks (and rollback doesn't require any confirmation, so yes it's possible). This is the first time in 15 years and 120k+ edits that this has happened. No one has access to my account, and there's no way someone could have guessed my password. I'm just reporting this here to be super-careful ... if I've been hacked and this account starts going wild, someone please block me, but I really don't expect that. I'll keep an eye out for any unexplained edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're truly worried about a compromise, ask a checkuser to run a check on your account. It sounds unnecessary to me, but I'd be willing to do it if it calmed your anxieties. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not worried enough about a compromise to ask for anything, it seems very unlikely ... I'm just being super-cautious, which I don't think is a bad trait in an admin :) I'm just saying, if something really weird and unexpected happens, don't hesitate to block me (anyone), but it's probably nothing. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran the CU - we have to take compromises (especially admin compromises) seriously. Dank has only edited from one IP address today. So no compromise - feels like some kind of misclick (do you have a touchscreen Dank?). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, good to know. I do have a touchscreen but my laptop was probably closed at the time. I think my mouse is just being weird, I'll check into it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You shouldn't let your pet mouse near your computer. Indeed, mice generally can damage all sorts of things, e.g., spark plugs and telephone cables. Perhaps your mouse is upset with you because you haven't been feeding it enough or paying sufficient attention to them. Mice have feelings, you know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When I saw a thread about a naughty mouse, I thought someone else must have noticed this new account.Sometimes mice mean to cause trouble... Girth Summit (blether) 19:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC) [reply]

    Editor refusing to communicate

    I took care of this on ANI. Bishonen | tålk 08:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

    Angryskies is engaging in a slow edit war and refusing to communicate. Case in being Deloitte where editor has reinstated his post fives times in a month:

    Multiple attempts to communicate with the editor both through the edit summary and their own talk page with the editor just deleting without responding and then reinstating their post.

    I did bring this issue here 10 days ago. Was advised that I should make a further attempt to communicate. This was done and reverted without response.

    Editor has decided to describe his edits as Reverat vanadalism. After being being blocked in 2021, editor was warned against falsely accusing other editors of vandalism, something that has fallen on deaf ears. Zoumestein (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    A block of the individual, just might get some attention. GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How much "attention" do you feel like the 2021 block and warning, mentioned in the post you replied to, got? Begoon 14:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have just realised I have taken this to the wrong noticeboard. Please close with no further action. Zoumestein (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Panel close for the fundraiser banner RFC

    I've started a discussion at WT:VPR about the formation of a panel regarding the closure of the RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign. Interested parties should respond there rather than here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for removal from AWB CheckPage

    Hi there! Could my bot (DoggoBot) and I be removed from the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage, please? My bot is inactive and I no longer need access to AWB. Thanks so much! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. DanCherek (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    File:ParameswaraPortrait.jpg

    may i ask for the file description of File:ParameswaraPortrait.jpg? the last revision by the uploader. i suspect this image is not the uploader's own drawing, and plan to nominate it for deletion on commons. RZuo (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It was uploaded by user:L joo on 28 April 2006, at 04:09, with the description
    == Summary ==
A Parameswara portrait
== Licensing ==
{{PD-self}}
    -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that L joo's user page says they are an illustrator. It links their Geocities page, which is dead, but wayback has mirrored some of it here. Whether that seems like enough evidence to support the belief that they did in fact draw it themselves, I don't know. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 17:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A totally different comment is whether or not the illustration is actually useful to be included on the many many pages it's been inserted into. Honestly I don't think there's any value in it, it's something someone drew one day and adds zero understanding to any of the articles it's included in. Canterbury Tail talk 17:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    given these findings, i wont send it to deletion.
    has there been discussion on whether (wiki users') artists' impressions can be used in articles? RZuo (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they could, in principle, but when it's about imaginary portraits of historical personalities, they are almost always useless. WP:PORTRAIT (an essay) has some thoughts about it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:25, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what, I've just gone and removed all instances of it. It's someone's impression, no evidence it's based on any portrait, no provenance to the likeness. For all we know it's as accurate as a kids drawing on the fridge. As a result it carries zero encyclopaedic value. Canterbury Tail talk 19:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Double sinces

    {{Not around}} uses "since" when using any date parameter. In some protected user talk pages (e. g. User talk:Hephaestos), the date parameter has "since" in the date parameter. Thus, my request is to remove the word "since" from {{not around}}, for it makes (when the date parameter is "since January 2016"): "Example has not edited since since January 2016." (i. e., the word "since" is repeated). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The solution is not to remove "since" from the template, the solution is to not add "since" to the date when using the template. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hephaestos duplication removed, agree with BMK that updating the template is unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated claims of advertising+mass deletions

    Under the Wiki The Emperor (tarot card) a user, @Mr.Ollie has taken it upon himself to reduce the number of alternative references under the subcategory "Alternative decks", preferring to enter in "edit wars" rather than civil discussions.

    I am new to Wikipedia, so my first addition to this page did include an external backlink to the alternative deck reference. I have since then removed that external link, and made repeated attempts to explain this to Mr.Ollie, yet he prefers to undo changes without explanation, just the default comment "advert"

    After clearly explaining that my edit follows the exact same formatting as the previous contributions by @Thejeweledweevil on March 2018‎, Mr.Ollie has now removed multiple contributions in that subcategory under more subjective terms "clean out some nonnotable decks".


    Of the previous contributions he removed, one was based on Voodoo, another based on Mexican filmmaker Guillermo del Toro's work. He's intentionally removing decks that are non-traditional and ALTERNATIVE to the Ryder-Waite deck. This is a disservice to anyone new to tarot decks and are looking for alternative artwork that represents them.


    Thank you Pratherpublishing (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the first problem is the username you've chosen. You'll need to change that before anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically that's not an issue, though if they have connection with a "Prather Publishing", then they must declare any WP:COI they may have. That said, I can't find any Prather Publishing of any note on a google search, so that may just be something else. Masem (t) 02:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The misspelled user name probably prevented MrOllie from noticing this; I added the required notification to his talk.
    WHEN YOU POSTTO AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-shave
    —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WHEN ADDINGBIG RED WALLS OF SHAMEAMEND THE RHYME SCHEMEFOR {{PAGENAME}}Burma-shave—Cryptic 10:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone looking at this should also have a look at the contribs of 71.44.217.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Question re: removal of user page

    An en.wiki editor has a global user page, hosted on Meta, which is displayed on en.wiki, however the content of this userpage, in my opinion, violates WP:UP#GOALS in that it contains "Extensive discussion not related to Wikipedia." I've inquired of the user on their talk page, but they refuse to fix the problem. I could not nominate the page for deletion at MfD, so I WP:BOLDly created a local user page which contained all the contents of the global user page except for the violating material. This had the desired effect of blocking the global page from displaying here The editor in question asked for and received a deletion of the page I added, which once again allowed the violating material to be displayed on en.wiki.

    My question is, what is the best way to get a community discussion started on whether the editor's global uses page violates en.wiki policy and, if so, having it then blocked from displaying on en.wiki? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Meta page "Global user pages" says: "Your global user page should not contain content considered inappropriate on projects where it will be displayed" It seems, therefore, that there must be a local procedure to determine that appropriatness to the local project of the content of a global user page. Does anyone know what that procedure is? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Beyond My Ken, please explain what this is about. It is hard to answer a question this general with no idea of whose user page you are referring to. EdJohnston (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had to guess, based on recent logs, BMK is probably talking about User:Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123. SkyWarrior 03:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is correct. See this, and this for background, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    UAA backlog

    There are 18 bot-reported and 3 user-reported usernames awaiting review at WP:UAA, plus 6 user-reported items for accounts who haven't edited. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @LaundryPizza03: That's not really a serious backlog. As with AIV, urgent or obvious cases tend to be handled quickly and the bot produces a lot of false positives. (Not a criticism of the bot; it looks for usernames that match certain character strings and flags them for attention, but there are many innocuous uses for most of those strings.) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blanking inactive LTA pages

    Hello, I have been reviewing the subpages of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, blanking and marking as historical LTA pages like this that have been inactive for years. The material is still available in history if there is a need for it. From what I have seen, it is an acceptable practice to blank inactive LTA pages so they won't continue to exist as a shrine giving recognition to long gone vandals from years ago. This search shows 30 pages blanked this way from 2018 onwards excluding the 5 or so I blanked today.

    User:331dot asked me to post a notice about this since previously it was usually done by admins. I became interested in this task as it is somewhat related to MalnadachBot task 13 (approved following this) which is to blank warnings and other stale message from inactive IP talkpages. If there is no objections, I will continue with blanking and marking historical. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1123911826"