Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:AN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328
329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338
Incidents (archives, search)
1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075
1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433
434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287
288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297
Other links

Open tasks[edit]

XFD backlog
V Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
CfD 0 1 61 83 145
TfD 0 0 0 6 6
MfD 0 0 6 11 17
FfD 0 0 44 12 56
AfD 0 0 0 11 11

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (31 out of 3518 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Alexander Lukashenko 2021-11-28 07:19 indefinite move Persistent vandalism Cwmhiraeth
Nicaragua at major beauty pageants 2021-11-28 04:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
User:B-bot/STOP 2021-11-28 00:59 indefinite edit Apparently autoconfirmed isn't enough. Nobody who isn't extended autoconfirmed should be doing this. B
Ad Fontes Media 2021-11-27 21:41 2021-12-04 21:41 edit Slow-motion edit warring. Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Valereee
MichaelDabhi 2021-11-27 21:21 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Repeatedly recreated under a variety of different names Liz
Sid Ghegadmal 2021-11-27 19:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Repeatedly recreated under a variety of different names by sockpuppets Liz
Siddhant Ghegadmal (Indian Model) 2021-11-27 19:10 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Repeatedly recreated under a variety of different names by sockpuppets Liz
Draft:Siddhant Ghegadmal 2021-11-27 19:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Template:Talk page header 2021-11-27 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Tiger versus lion 2021-11-26 22:46 2022-11-26 22:45 edit BusterD
Palestinian citizens of Israel 2021-11-26 22:36 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page Euryalus
Module:Political party/P 2021-11-26 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3914 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Module:Draft topics 2021-11-26 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2558 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Module:Political party/A 2021-11-26 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3077 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Draft topics 2021-11-26 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2556 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Gopal (caste) 2021-11-26 14:02 2022-11-26 14:02 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: WP:CASTE RegentsPark
Rajput 2021-11-25 19:52 2022-04-06 22:30 edit Ponyo
Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC topic map.json 2021-11-25 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Module:GHS phrases 2021-11-25 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2717 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Module:GHS phrases/data 2021-11-25 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2718 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Module:AfC topic 2021-11-25 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2512 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Module:Chem2/styles.css 2021-11-25 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2566 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Chembox PPhrases 2021-11-25 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2536 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:AfC topic 2021-11-25 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2509 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Anshuman 2021-11-25 16:40 2022-11-25 16:40 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
Wolf's Fang Runway 2021-11-24 21:57 indefinite create Maile66
Draft:Jean Charles Zakaria 2021-11-24 20:30 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Template:Deadlink 2021-11-24 17:59 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2552 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:P-phrases/text 2021-11-24 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2506 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
2021 Jerusalem shooting 2021-11-24 12:49 indefinite edit,move New editors are prohibited from editing this Arab–Israeli conflict related page Ymblanter
User:Favonian/PWA 2021-11-24 11:58 indefinite edit,move User request within own user space Favonian

Appeal of topic ban for Paul Krugman for User:Deicas[edit]

After a week of discussion it's clear there's zero support for removal of the topic ban. Instead, there's consensus for an indefinite block for disruptive editing, wikilawyering, chronolarceny, aggravated assault of deceased horses with a stick, and failure to procure a clue. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

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

@Deicas would like to appeal his 2013 topic ban for editing the article on Paul Krugman. Deicas (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Please link to where the topic ban was discussed and address whatever the concerns raised there were. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
So you were editing the article and the talk page today, aware that you were topic banned from the article? Paul Erik caught it, they might know more about the circumstances. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq and Muboshgu: Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782#PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I also saw on Decias's talk page that they claimed to believe that the topic ban was temporary, not indefinite, which would explain editing the page before being corrected. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Deicas has now been blocked by User:Acroterion for making personal attacks. I think this appeal is unlikely to succeed. The same type of behaviour documented in the 2013 topic ban (see User:Calton's links in particular) is now occurring across various articles and talk pages Talk:George Floyd, Talk:Brookings Institution, Talk:Paul Krugman. The user does not appear to understand the feedback that countless editors have been offering, both in 2013 and recently. An indef likely would save everyone a lot of time, sorry to say. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree, an indef block is a lot more likely at this point than the topic ban being lifted. In particular in the incident which led to the block Deicas added something which is at the very least problematic from a BLP standpoint [1], added it back when it was reverted [2], and then took a very confrontational attitude to the resulting talk page discussion, culminating in an explicit accusation of bad faith. Other recent talk page discussions e.g. here show the same pattern. Hut 8.5 13:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I've placed a second block, since Deicas has returned to the same pattern of antagonism aimed at other editors after the first block expired. They're now demanding that the block be lifted so they can make a complaint at ANI. Acroterion (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Based on their conduct on their user talkpage, at Talk:Brookings Institution, and at Talk:DE, I recommend that the topic ban remain, and maybe be broadened, or else follow the developing consensus for an indefinite block - there is no change in their conduct from 2013. They seem to be under the impression that if they make a particular set of demands, other editors will compelled to do as they wish, they will be immune to criticism, and the editors they see as antagonists will be sanctioned. Their repeated demands that editors respond to a set of scripted questions or demands for retraction, with claims that not responding as they wish is disruptive or defamatory, have occupied the whole of their recent editing. Talk:Deicas: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Talk:Brookings Institution: [8] [9] [10] [11] and most recently [12]. Talk:DE: [13] [14] [15] Acroterion (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
For the sake of cutting off a potentially endless series of wikilawyered appeals, I'm recommending an indefinite community ban, with no possibility of review for at least a year. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
More of the same behavior. I'd support an indef block until they show some awareness of the issues with their editing. I wouldn't leap to a cban yet, per WP:ROPE. If they address the issues with their editing, commit to improve and still have the same editing problems then I'd support a cban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I've been extending rope for the past week, and there is no improvement since they were first topic-banned in 2013. I see no evidence that there will ever be a change. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, how I see it playing out is they get indeffed, show zero clue, and end up having their talk page access revoked rather than any unblock happening. I'm just wary of going straight to a cban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I have not had any success in persuading @Acroterion to quote my specific statements whence he justifies the the two blocks that he imposed on me. I've requested this evidence from @Acroterion repeatedly and @Acroterion has refused to provide it (diffs available on request). Absent knowledge of the specific statements, it is difficult for me to address the what I believe to be the impropriety of @Acroterion's bans.
@Acroterion's repeated refusals to provide the requested information are inconsistent with my understanding of his duties as a Wikipedia administrator.
As understand the matter, @ Acroterion's actions were due to his objections  to my well-evidenced assertions that @SPECIFICO was violating WP:DE by ""repeatedly disregard[ing] other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits".  At no time during this dispute, to my knowledge, did @Acroterion attempt to address @SPECIFICO's repeated disregard for my  "questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits".
Deicas (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Well that ain't it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I have browsed some of their recent edits and I agree with the summaries above -- the pattern seems universal, and not at all affected by the 72-hour block. I would support an indefinite block. --JBL (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. This manner of discussion at Talk:George Floyd, both before and after the 72-hour block, and then refusing to drop the stick here is particularly concerning. Generalrelative (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Generalrelative: Per the Talk:George Floyd that you reference. Insofar as I understand Wikipedia policy, a demand to "drop the stick" is not a policy-based justification for deleting content from an article. Do i miss understand policy?
As to the "refusing to drop the stick here is particularly concerning" — I refer you to my comments here — User talk:Drmies. Nb. "Closing the discussion is disruptive and is harmful to the process of obtaining consensus through discussion. [ WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS) "
It is my understanding that a demand to "drop the stick" is not appropriate until a content dispute has been a resolve at the appropriate notice board(s). Am I misunderstanding the dispute resolution process?
Deicas (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The endless wikilawyering continues; there's more of it on my talk page, following what I thought was an act of mercy on Talk:George Floyd. I don't understand how they didn't realize that an indef block (or a community ban? take your pick) was not going to be the inevitable outcome of this kind of appeal. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Update: Deicas has 190 article edits. A quarter of them are on Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation, now a redirect despite Deicas's 11 edits to the AfD and 18 edits to the talk page, and on Paul Krugman, from which they are topic-banned (and they made 97 edits to the Krugman talk page). I am trying to ascertain where the positive edits are. I now fully support an indef block. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Deny the removal of the topic ban, because obviously. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support indef block and revoking their access to their talk page per the many well-argued comments supporting the necessity of such a sanction. It's the only and necessary way to protect the project from all the wikilawyering in multiple venues. It's all a huge timesink. -- Valjean (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Deicas (talk · contribs) continues with WP:IDHT behavior at BLPN which concerns this edit at Brookings Institution#Notable scholars. If I counted correctly, that section shows 19 notable scholars, most with a job description. The result of the disputed edit is that the last scholar has no job description other than "indicted Steele dossier source". Recent issues discussed at their talk start at User talk:Deicas#Paul Krugman and follow, with two recent blocks and an unblock request which I declined. I will post at their talk to remind them of this discussion and that it may conclude with an indefinite block or even a community ban, and that now would be a good time to review the discussions at various pages and state here whether any change in approach would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Standard offer : ElijahPepe[edit]

ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) was indefinitely blocked for generally being disruptive, particularly for edit-warring on Living with Yourself and lashing out at those who disagreed with him. It's been two years since the block, and he claims to have been doing productive editing on another wiki elsewhere on the internet (the URL in question, does not work for me, so I'm not sure how I can prove that) and has had a go at rewriting npm (software) on his talk page. Unlike the behaviour that got him blocked, he has been patiently sitting out the block (unless checkusers can show otherwise) and I think we should just let the standard offer play out. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm often inclined to offer good faith on users who are genuinely following WP:SO, per WP:ROPE. My one question is that you say he's been working on the npm article, but I only see that he copied the information in January, 2021, but I don't see any further edits to it. Not really a deal-breaker; if he's given an allocution and is willing to play by the rules, I have no major issues letting him back. --Jayron32 17:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't catch that, thanks, but I think as long as he doesn't break 3RR while lobbing personal attacks at the other party, and there's been no socking, unblocking looks like a net positive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
In the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, a second chance should be given. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
No objection to a second chance, as long as we don't suspect there's been socking. —valereee (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Two years is more than enough time. It would've been even better if they made some edits on other projects in the meanwhile, but I see no reason to object an unblock. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 20:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging User:ST47 - the blocking admin - to see if they have a strong opinion either way. WaggersTALK 15:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Benchu937711[edit]

User blocked. WaggersTALK 15:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Five times in the past year, this user has edited to Daylight saving time in the United States to remove past dates, including twice in the past day with edit summaries "Anyone found to revert this edit will have their account terminated. Do not vandalize this article and revert this considering that outdated dates are not necessary" and "Do not change my edits We do not need past dates. This is your only warning. If you do so you are considered doing vandalism which can result in actions being taken aganist your account." No discussion on talk page, and seeing how many of [their edits have been reverted, I believe WP:NOTHERE applies. User previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1076#Disruptive_removal_of_content. Reywas92Talk 16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Blocked for disruptive edits. I think there is a CIR issue as well, but I don't have time to investigate for that and don't see the purpose. Dennis Brown - 17:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elmar Baxşəliyev re-blocked for copyright violations, 28 recent articles remain[edit]

I have been notified about the first article in this list, which is a direct translation of , page 60, "105. Аrаtəpə nеkrоpоlu", and thus a copyright violation. Other articles may be unattributed translations of their azwiki counterparts (linked via Wikidata). The user had been blocked for this behavior before.

I can't check all these articles for translation copyright violations. I'd personally be in favor of deleting them all via Special:Nuke/Elmar Baxşəliyev, but I expect opposition to this idea, so here's the list of work caused by not doing this. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

These articles are new enough to not have talk pages. I would support nuking them. Nothing to be gained by wasting contributor time checking them before deleting them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel like checking them all either, but I can at least say this much: The necropolis articles were pretty much identical on the German and the English WP, and I checked the Billava one yesterday before it got deleted: Google Translate did a lousy job of translating from the original language, but it was quite clear that that was a copyvio from that source. -- (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: As the user's name matches the author of the sources from which all the copyrighted content was apparently translated and pasted in, did anyone ask the user if these sources were written by them and pointing out that they still were unable to use their own writing on Wikipedia unless properly licenced? I suspect this is the situation here - not that it excuses anything, of course. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The last name being identical, this question has indeed been raised on the user's talk page on the German Wikipedia. The problem is that he apparently does not understand a word of German, so it's absolutely no use trying to communicate with him. His machine generated replies keep being something like "Thank you for your comment, I will try to watch my grammar better in the future".
FYI, he has also been banned on Commons several times for uploading copyrighted material. He has now been using material uploaded by another (??) user that looks very much like copyrighted material to me too. -- (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for that explanation. What a shame. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, it would convert a "copyright violation" to a "violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy", I guess. To me personally, that does make an important difference especially when determining how problematic the behavior is, and how strict the response needs to be. I wasn't aware of this; I thought I had compared the names and didn't notice a similarity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, we simply don't know what the relationship between the author of that source and this user is. They might be father and son, or brothers, or just two people who happen to have the same last name. Or it might be himself, using a different first name on Wikipedia, for whatever reason. -- (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • If anyone is doing any clean-up on these, please add "in Azerbaijan" to the first line, which he never did! Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Last time I blocked him it was for copying from English sources. Communication was difficult but I did think that the message got through eventually. At a guess, what's happened here is that he didn't realise translations were also covered by copyright, or that he assumed (correctly?) that it was fine to translate his own work from another source. I don't think we should nuke all these without some more investigation. Chalcolithic culture of Nakhchivan, for example, cites multiple sources. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for posting this here ToBeFree. I'll look into these like a CCI Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 17:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request[edit]

User:Whatsupkarren contacted me off-wiki with an unblock request. They are a cu-confirmed sock of User:Tariq afflaq , who in turn is banned under WP:3X. I am forwarding their statement from their talk page. They state that they no longer have the password to the User:Tariq afflaq account, so I told them to use User talk:Whatsupkarren. I'm posting this here as a clerical procedure since they can't post directly to this page; I offer no opinion on whether they should be unblocked or not.


My salutations, After more than 6 months, I would like to appeal my ban, I didn’t use any account for editing in any way on English Wikipedia, I’m not using any account on Wikipedia other than this one, and have no intention of creating any others. and would like to apologize for all my previous actions.

I will describe what happened to me: I was first blocked for a few hours for edit warring and failing to gain consensus on a major change, I was totally unaware of any wiki policy, didn’t know what's sockpuppetry, ( I must say that the blame is on me for not familiarizing myself with wiki policies ), I'm not saying that it's simply because of me being unaware of the policies, I repeat that I take responsibility for my actions, When my original account Tariq afflaq was blocked, I immediately created a sock ( George51725w5218 ) and came to the same talk page that I was talking in and provided some sources to support my claim ( again I wasn’t familiar with WP:SOCK ) then I was blocked, at first my actions weren’t intended to break the rules I didn’t know them, I did later and continued being abusive and I own up to it, I was extremely arrogant, and I think the ban was very needed to me, it taught me a hard lesson, and I genuinely promise to avoid the behavior that led me to be blocked/banned. I understand what I was blocked/banned for, sockpuppetry ( I should not create and use account(s) to avoid sanctions, mislead etc even if justified ), Edit warring: (Disagreements should be resolved through discussion & no POV pushing, also when I’m reverted, I must follow the standard process WP:BRD and try to seek agreement from other editor or WP:consensus, etc), gaming the system, using improper language ( I promise that I’ll remain civil, polite, courteous when interacting with other editors, via edit summaries, talk page etc, and I will refrain from responding in a hostile manner when concerns are raised, and I’ll never cause damage or disruption again Regarding my activities in the last six months: I’ve created more than 50 articles on Arabic and French Wikipedias, if you want to see the full list please tell me.

I think the ban is no longer needed because I understand what I was blocked for and I will not do it again, I promise that I will only contribute positively and follow all Wikipedia policies, and I’ll make useful contributions, especially in articles about the Near Eastern History and culture, I hope this appeal addresses all of your concerns. thank you. Whatsupkarren (talk) 2:19 pm, Today (UTC−5)

-- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This user was an extremely disruptive editor from earlier this year. Their unblock request mentions only a couple other sockpuppets, Tariq afflaq and George51725w5218, but it does not convey the fact that they have actually created an inordinate amount of sockpuppets deliberately to evade scrutiny: see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tariq afflaq for the 16 confirmed sockpuppets and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tariq afflaq for 2 more suspected ones.
  • Many of the other 16 accounts have activity centered around changing the nationality of various biographical subjects to Syrian, see e.g. [18][19][20][21]—it seems that this was their goal for evading scrutiny. In short, it is clear to me that this is someone who previously made very calculated, intentional efforts to deceive this community by creating a large number of sockpuppets, and regrettably, their apology less than eight months later is not sufficient to convince me that they will be a net positive to this encyclopedia if they return. If the community does want to extend leniency to this user, I would strongly suggest also attaching some unblock conditions, e.g. a topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed. Mz7 (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The conduct detailed above is too egregiously deceptive and and WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE. Multiple sock puppets? Threatening to hack someone's off-Wiki social media? Attempting to pretend to be another user in an effort to discredit them? Outrageous. Trust destroyed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Addendum I note the request begins with, "I will describe what happened to me." That strikes me as showing this is a wholly self-serving request. No concern or even recognition that "what happened" was to the community is evident. No consideration is offered as to what benefit the community might derive from unblocking this user. The perpetrator has presented himself as the victim. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Unban request from Hulged (Wahhid)[edit]

Ban remains in effect. Although there was some support for lifting the ban, there was no firm consensus. Hulged/Wahhid is free to contest the ban once six months have passed, no sooner than 2022-05-24. --Yamla (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Hulged, who appears to be banned under WP:3X originally as Wahhid, is requesting their ban be lifted. The block on both accounts was placed by Drmies and the de-facto ban was noted by Blablubbs. You can see the sockpuppet investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wahhid/Archive and with my checkuser glasses, I see no recent evidence of block evasion. Their request follows. --Yamla (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Please assume good faith while reading this. I am Hulged and I am making unblock request after a good time editing on simplewiki, commonswiki where I am autopatroller, kswiki, metawiki and other non-wikimedia wikis like Miraheze. Few months ago, I was blocked for using the VOA's. Looking at the policies, I understand this wasn’t acceptable and that warranted a block. I understood why am I blocked. I will never use multiple accounts abusively again, including using VOA accounts and WP:GHBH accounts. I'll focus on the work I used to do previously like content creation, counter vandalism and AFC work (if I'll be given access again). I have previously declared all the accounts that I've used before but for clarity's sake these are Wahhid, EditorThanos, TheHornbill, Ollipinno, Juslit, Ulluly. But I would like to be as honest as I am IRL; I've created 4 other accounts – Dhonka, Majaple, Malihajan and Malliha and there have been nearly 6 months since I created these accounts and I have made 2 edits (here and here) from these accounts. Thank you for reading. --Hulged (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Hulged appealed the block to ArbCom in April 2021, which was declined largely on the grounds of recent socking. In such cases, we generally ask that appellants wait at least six months before attempting another appeal. However, Hulged appealed again about two weeks after the initial appeal, which was summarily declined. Hulged then appealed in early August 2021; this appeal was quickly declined as well based on a combination of concerns, mostly IDHT and it not yet being October, and this point, the clock was reset to another six months (eligible in February 2022). There was again an appeal at the end of August, and then at the end of October. ArbCom decisions like such don't preclude the community from reversing the ban now, but I think this information is of interest. ArbCom is at a point where we don't respond to further emails from this user on the matter largely because of IDHT issues. Maxim(talk) 19:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    Youch. Thanks for the additional context. I was not aware of this. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm far too soft (and am unlikely to have to deal with the fallout) but I suspect this person will be a net positive if restored based on their work on other Wikis. But I'll defer to folks with more experience with similar issues and this specific person. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support - Their contributions to other Wikimedia projects is enough to convince me that their return will be a net positive. Although their IDHT behaviour as pointed out by Maxim is concerning. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 22:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Just another timesink. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, as they have made substantial crosswiki contributions.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Maxim, waste of our time. Sandstein 07:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Maxim. Forum shopping like this shouldn't be encouraged. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Maxim and Joe. We should not be encouraging forum shopping and given their interactions with ArbCom it appears that this user will simply waste the community’s precious time. firefly ( t · c ) 10:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Although I don't doubt their commitment towards not abusing further multiple accounts, the information raised by Maxim about their appeals to ArbCom does give me pause. For context, I was the adopter of Hulged before sockpuppetry was found. Their cross-wiki contributions do suggest that this user will, if unblocked, be likely a net positive for the community. However, I do understand and partly share the concerns raised by the oppose voters. On the balance of the information given I am supporting an unban because I feel that, due to this user's constructive contributions on other wikis, giving them a second chance is more likely to benefit the encyclopedia than harm it. However, if the community decides to unban I would like to see it as a last chance. I would also be willing to adopt again Hulged if they are unbanned. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Query @Hulged: I am interested in hearing your response to the issues raised in your past appeals by ARBCOM. My reading of it makes me concerned that even if you don't abuse multiple accounts again, you won't react well in the event of differing issues arising - an "I don't hear you" attitude is dangerous in any discussion. Your cross-wiki work makes me willing to ask you for your thoughts. I'll watchlist your talk page and copy across any relevant answer. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    • The response:' Hi Nosebagbear. Everything Maxim said is true. The first appeal was declined on the grounds on recent socking and I was told to adhere to the standard offer. I created other accounts in ending May - starting June. Yet in my June appeal, I was cought socking again although I didn't made too many contributions using those accounts and they are already revealed in my AN appeal.
      Then, I started to help out on meta, simple and other wikis. I appealed in August mainly because I though my behavior has changed and I can be eligible to be unblocked under WP:Standard offer#Variations but that appeal was declined again. Two months later (in October), I made another appeal (this too on the grounds of WP:SO#Variations) but they didn't replied and I thought they might be busy with the ACE2021. So, I headed over to AN with my appeal. I was operating in good faith and I never meant to behave in IDHT attitude or being disruptive. I was just hoping for the best of Wikipedia. Though for the future reference, I will surely avoid the IDHT/disruptive behavior. --Hulged (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I state this with the general intention of clarifying the timeline (and specifically, to comment on "they didn't replied"): ArbCom replied/commented on 5 Aug that further appeals would not be considered before Feb 2022. This was reiterated in a reply following a 30 Aug appeal, in which we also specified that further appeals before that time would be ignored. Thus, only their 28 Oct appeal was ignored.
        That being said, if the community feels that the somewhat overzealous attempts at appealing to ArbCom are worth overlooking, I have no issues with that; personally the socking was my largest concern, which seems to have abated. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Anyone that needs a policy that explains VOAs are bad should not be editing here. Tiderolls 12:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think it's likely that the user will repeat the mistake that got them blocked (i.e. sockpuppetry). Their contributions to places like simplewiki look productive and suggest that the user can be a net positive. They can be blocked again if there are any future IDHT concerns. On an unrelated note, why was arbcom considering an unblock request if they were 3X banned - do they have the power to overturn such bans? Pahunkat (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Handling of ban appeals. As this block is labelled as a CU block, that part can be reviewed by ArbCom. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Maxim and IDHT concerns. I'm not seeing enough reform to override the reset of the block. If the situation is the same in Feb, count me as a support. Buffs (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I have taken the trouble to report my case from Meta-wiki here, the articles related to international actors or actresses that I have recently edited was that when I realized that I was separating the terms for example; "voice actor" covered all the work as an actor and even changed and improved most articles of celebrities who had already obtained citizenship before (I mean a certain Peter Wingfield) or that Japanese voice actors had already appeared in series and drama films (for example Mao Ichimichi, Mamoru Miyano or Aoi Yūki) the fact that the occupations that you gather in Wikidata goes only first, not everything, because in the short description there it says so, but I notified you on your discussion page in Wikidata about the same theme and kept hinting that I'm only still guided by the first occupation mentioned in both articles, which was the wrong approach ad normal, she decided to behave like that in that way by treating me like an IP vandal that I am and I am not true. Xezbeth keeps reverting all my edits both here and on Wikidata itself (For example: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97) and even threatened to block all my IPs that I use because, according to her, nothing else here I vandalize by just correcting all the mess that those same IPs of unknown origin that they did during that time If I did not do anything vandalism, what I could not say is that she had to revert the last stable version most of the article that always separated the occupations of the actors and follow the example of abiding by what it said in the short description about inclusion of biographical data do not put them all together, it is uncomfortable for me also I do not understand anything about it. (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

This really belongs at ANI, but I've notified Xezbeth for the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@: That cannot be, she should see my non-vandalism current review before reversing the amount of articles that I have altered on international voice actors (including Japan) which is why I wanted to separate the two professions that I used to confuse, I mean to this and it is also in Wikidata here but it is also not vandalized because of the edit filter that was detected when it was triggered. (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Failed login attempts[edit]

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

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

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

Closing overdue AFD[edit]

done 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Could any capable sysop be so kind as to assist in closing this AFD? It has been opened since Nov 2 & was brought to my attention by my colleague Cordless Larry who noted that this revert I made might be the reason it hasn’t been closed accordingly yet. I’d appreciate it , if any one of you all capable hands could be of help here. Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Mass killings under communist regimes content resolution[edit]

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

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

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

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

Given the massive offsite canvassing generated by among others, Fox News, Larry Sanger and Reddit, who, by and large, are voting for keep, I support Rosguill's call for a panel close to properly assess the consensus. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this is going to require a panel verdict it's far too contentious for a single person close and I'd be super wary of a WP:SNOW close of a discussion that has attracted what seems like pro-keep canvassing. Although I note that it only opened 2 days ago so we can probably wait. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What is the likelihood that a closer (single person or panel) will go through the entire discussion on that page? Will it be helpful to let that AfD grow longer? I think we might need a different sort of mechanism to deal with this beast. Consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. Before the RfC happened, there was a long and moderated discussion (Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion) that broke down a big issue into smaller, more easily understandable, chunks. Something similar might be needed here.VR talk 23:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I think it's highly likely. Levivich 01:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I've been following this discussion since it started at DRN. At this point I'm not sure that makes me more qualified or less qualified to be on the panel. signed, Rosguill talk 01:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have been a part of a panel close for an AfD before so I don't think it's inappropriate in all situations. But I do want to note that on its own a sprawling discussion can just mean that a panel of admins spend time a lot of time reading it and writing a closing statment, rather than one. From my quick read of the situation it's sprawling but not requiring such nuance that it needs a panel to close for legitimacy. Could a single admin close get appealed to DRV? Sure. Would a panel close make an appeal less likely? Maybe. But maybe not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    I spent a slug of time reading through the AfD yesterday, and I tend to agree. Now, it's true that I'm a fairly inexperienced editor, and your world frightens and confuses me. Ladies and gentleman, I'm just a simple caveman, but it's pretty clear that, even after ignoring obvious canvassing and cutting keeps in half on top of that, it's still either keep or no consensus. I get that it's probably going to end up going to DRV to reach the same result with even more time wasted if three admins with half a million combined edits and 25 years of experience don't do a panel close. At least at DRV it'll be the same six people that went back and forth at the AfD wasting their time before the inevitable endorse, rather than wasting the time of a team of admins. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    Given the coverage off-wiki, I'd think it'd be better to have a panel in this instance as a single closer may become a focus of attention. Although I do agree that a single closer could competently do it, and that a single closer would save a lot of time, I wouldn't ask any one volunteer to put themselves on the spot like this. (A panel can mean one person writes it and others endorse it, in my opinion.) Levivich 02:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    My impression is than, in part due to off-wiki canvassing, we have a situation when a simple counting of votes gives an overwhelming keep, whereas once one starts looking at the arguments, the keep is not so overwhelming (it might be still keep, but definitely not snow keep). In this situation, a single administrator who would come up with any close but keep (even conditional keep or whatever) would be with a certainty accused in a supervote, the article would go to DRV, and, depending on some circumstances, the admin can be taken to ArbCom (unlikely to be desysopped just for this close, but still not an extremely pleasant situation). The panel is unlikely to be accused in a supervote, and thus has a bit more freedom to close the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • If not necessary, I can't see how a panel would hurt. Either way, the close is going to be endlessly re-litigated at DRV etc., no doubt about it.
Another question is when to close it. The discussion started on the 22nd and, although it wasn't logged until the 25th, with more than 100 !votes so far and the off-wiki canvassing only getting worse, I can't see how letting it run another three days is going to help anyone. I think we should put {{Closing}} on it tomorrow and assemble a panel. – Joe (talk) 08:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree, there is no need to wait for eight extra days.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


Duplicate post at ANI#User:ManaliJain, which is the more appropriate venue for this kind of issue. (non-admin closure) Rummskartoffel 16:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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

There is an issue with respect to this account user. It seems they are following WP: OWN and WP: COI in the article Ankit Gupta. They are constantly inserting unreliable sources such as "the bulletin times" as these [22] & [23] in the subject's article. When someone is removing them saying they are unreliable, they are being adamant to have these sources in the subject's article and constantly reverting the other editors edits giving a vague and invalid reason Unconstructive and disruptive editing. Plus, they have inserted the same unreliable sources twice or thrice in the article. They're not even allowing the others to remove the extra unwanted unreliable sources and improve the article. Please check all the diffs between: [24] and [25]. Can someone please stop them from constantly causing WP:OWN & WP:COI type of editing in Ankit Gupta. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Likely case of block evasion[edit]

The IP address has recently made several unsourced changes to Cuba-related articles, changes which are identical to those made by the Inversiveskills2021 and their socks. Perhaps not so coincidentally, the IP had an upsurge in edits immediately after Inversiveskills2021 and their socks were blocked. Seems like a very likely case of block evasion to me, requesting immediate action. CentreLeftRight 07:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@CentreLeftRight: I have blocked the IP address for three months. As you may have seen, another administrator had blocked it for a short while, but that was ineffective, as one could expect for a persistent disruptive sockpuppeteer such as this one. JBW (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Appeal for change of restrictions[edit]

Withdrawn by OP. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

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

This is a request for an alteration to my current editing restrictions. I would like for the first part of my restrictions to be amended to "The C of E is banned from proposing DYKs on topics related to politics on the Island of Ireland and LGBTQ topics". The reason I ask is that I recognise my behaviour in the past was inflammatory and I was engaging in being provocative on some controversial topics just for my own amusement, which I now realise I was wrong about and I apologise for this. I recognise the hurt I caused editors and for that I too apologise.

I would like to have the chance to prove I have reformed by a minor loosening of the restrictions to demonstrate the change and maturity that has come on since the restrictions were imposed. I recognise that editors might not be willing to trust me on Irish topics for the moment, but I would like the chance to be able to propose DYKs based on British legislation and Christian churches and hymns again which I am currently unable to do. I will be willing to submit to an immediate recall of restrictions in 6 months if at any point, any admin feels I have crossed the line. Thank you for your consideration. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

    • As I explained in the nominations, It's a historical piece of music yes with an abhorrant title but it is a revealing snippet of life in America back then. It wasn't there to be provocative. I even made sure I watered down the mentions in the article (only in the lead sentence) and proposed alt hooks without mentioning that word. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Per WP:ROPE, I may be willing to see a voluntary mentorship option. If C of E can find a sponsor who will independently review their main page nominations for appropriateness before they are posted, then perhaps we have a path forward for loosening restrictions. To be clear, I am in no way volunteering for such a role, but some kind of "supervised release" may be a path forward here, if someone wants to take this on. --Jayron32 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Joe Roe, and the reply below that. If you don't understand what stirring the pot is, you don't need to be submitting for anything on the front page. As Jayron32 said in the previous failed appeal, they have "spent years conducting breaching experiments designed to get provocative content on the main page" and the Watermelon song is just more proof of that. Since the purpose of a sanction isn't to benefit the individual, but to restore order to the community, it is a no brainer to keep the current restriction, perhaps indefinitely, as the reply above clearly shows that breaching is either in their nature, or they lack good judgement overall. Either way, we don't need the hassles on the front page. Dennis Brown - 14:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose especially in light of the request to nominate topics on legislation. Given that one of the more deliberately-provocative nominations that led to these restrictions was about a piece of legislation, I'm not confident that even limiting it to British entries wouldn't be an out for further disruption. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 14:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Grapple X: With respect, that wasn't legislation. That was a court case. But if I am granted the opportunity to prove I have changed, that particular kind of article would still be covered under the amended restrictions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Joe and Dennis. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Joe, I would have been more likely to support had it not been for that egregious bit of nonsense which showed that nothing whatsoever had been learned (and I suggested a possible relaxation last time). Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Joe & Grapple, perhaps another six months of keeping your nose clean and try again? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Fine, I see where this is going. I am disappointed but I see I have no choice but to withdraw my request here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI archive fix[edit]

Hi, just hoping someone could help out figure out/fix what is currently wrong on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084 that I am unable to determine myself.

Something occurred between this edit and this edit that caused a whole bunch of mess up to be in a closed topic together, from 'Babydoll9799' to 'Christopher1968 - communication problems'

Any help fixing this would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I found an unclosed nowiki tag. Closed and the rest of the markup is good now. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I think I found what happened. The BabyDoll discussion had an open nowiki tag on it which went undetected by the markup software until another archived discussion was added that had nowiki tags again. This caused the markup stuff to go wonky as it appears the routine that would stall out on an unclosed tag was restarted again, causing the previously unclosed tag to cause problems. At first I thought it was an error with the bot but I now think not. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:UAA[edit]

The page is rapidly filling up, HBC AIV helperbot5 dutifully posted a notice, but to no avail... So... Pretty please with a cherry on top? Kleuske (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The backlog has been cleared. Cullen328 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion - deleted previously via AFD[edit]

I normally wouldn't post this here, but I tagged novaPDF and DexOS for speedy deletion as G4 over 24 hours ago. It would be helpful to know if I need to take these two articles to AfD instead. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • SL93, I don't really think the current versions are identical to the deleted ones, so I removed your tags. Fun fact--from a quick look it seems like the deleted versions were actually better than the current ones... Drmies (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for an uninvolved administrator to close a discussion[edit]

WP:ANI#TBAN proposal: The Pollster - consensus seems clear. Cullen328 (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Having a look now. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Topic ban implemented. Thanks, Euryalus. Cullen328 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Arshad Khan (writer/director , India)[edit]

The article got moved too Arshad Khan (Indian filmmaker) while under AfD. Can a move rights or admin reverse that thanks. Govvy (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

hmm, another article was reverted last time this happened, I am confused now. Govvy (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

User "ZaniGiovanni" canvassing on Wiki, trying to push his POV[edit]

If you look at his total contributions, this user is not in Wikipedia to enrich it, but to push Armenian point of view.

Currently he is engaged in edit war with me over Bernard Lewis page. There was an arbitrarily cut quote from Bernard Lewis, so I included the whole quote which takes 30 seconds to read in total. And user is constantly reverting it saying it has "copyright" or that it's "long". He's also been warned in the past about edit warring and finding himself too much in Admins notice board.

And I think this user is also his account, "fighting" and edit warring on the same pages: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The IP has not notified either user. They are also clearly edit-warring, but, unfortunately, none of the editors reverting the IP has seen fit to warn the IP. I have done so but simultaneously with the IP's latest revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The IP's response to my warning was unacceptable, and I've blocked them for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Bruce Majors and his possible sockpuppets attempting to push fake news and POV onto pages[edit]

2021 United States Capitol attack and Shooting of Ashli Babbitt, hes attempting to put in fake news of "antifa blm and fbi/capitol police involvement in the capitol attack", aswell as putting his own POV and a "documentary" about the attack, he also apparently has a sockpuppet called BrucePowell, and i bet that hes gonna use it to circumvent his block on the page Enrique Tarrio, one thing that made me quite suspecious about his account is the fact that he came back after 10-12 YEARS, that is quite suspicious. EpicWikiLad (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

He has (if he is a sock]) [[26]]. I came here after leaving an edit war notice on his talk page. its clear he is POV pushing and has not attempted to make any kind of justification for his edits at talk. I am getting a string not here vibe.Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
And maybe socking [[27]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven and several other editors do not want links to new documentaries with new footage and new interviews with Ashli Babbitt, her husband, people jailed for being at the January 6 rally (including those who were not even in the Capitol). Since they want a tailored and fabricated narrative of the events, with only what they think will be the ultimate historical "view" of it, their "editing" activity invalidates wikipedia as a source of information. This Pravda level of memory holing deserves attention by journalists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePowell (talkcontribs) 16:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

That does not excuse socking or edit warring. May I ask do you have a wp:coi with the video? And the above is a clear indication of not here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of 'new documentaries', regardless of their subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Block the sock & its sock-master, who was away (or was he) for nearly 10 years. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Blocked both plus a "Brucemajors" who made this interesting edit[28]. Doug Weller talk 17:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Spicy! 🥴 — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern about admin at Alpha Motor Corporation Page[edit]

Alpha Motor Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alpha Motor Corporation page was started by WaddlesJP13. Several information on that page was false and edits were made however any edits made were rejected by admin JBW, The Alternate Maco and WaddlesJP13. They falsely accused sock and spam to protect page from further edits. The edits made also cited references and those references and edits were also deleted by admin JBW. It is apparent that JBW, The Alternate Maco, and WaddlesJP13 are blocking edits specific to a false narrative of the company and then citing reference which reference has no mention of this statement or wording. As a admin JBW has most recently protected this page until February 2022 based on a false accusation of dodging a block as if he owns Wikipedia and the Article on Alpha Motor Corporation. This action in itself is against the foundation of Wikipedia. Please review as this is blatant Admin abuse. (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • The above is likely a block-evading sock. That said, the source doesn't support the relationship indicated (though it seems darn likely that the statement is more-or-less true). I've started a discussion on the talk page. I'm not seeing any sourced material removed by anyone other than by those who appear to be from/related to Alpha Motor. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
This dispute seems to be mainly focused on the linking of this company to another company, Neuron EV, based at exactly the same office (not just the same building, the same actual office suite) according to this source. According to the source, the founder of Alpha was an executive at Neuron; their website followed a similar design, Alpha was launched just as Neuron was being disbanded etc. and yet Alpha have put out numerous statements denying any link between the two companies. It seems we have a sock who is intent on removing that information from the article - initially as User:Alphamotorcorporation and then several subsequent accounts. On that basis I'd say the protection looks reasonable.
One thing I would note though is that the text in the WP article actually calls Alpha a "successor" to Neuron, a word that isn't used in the source. From what I can tell from a quick search, Neuron EV is still trading. Despite Alpha's protestations it seems correct to say the companies are very clearly linked to one another but I think use of the word "successor" isn't quite right. But I don't see anything amiss in the reverts, blocks and protection that have been used here. WaggersTALK 15:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Agreed on all counts. Hobit (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm just going to drop by and say that I checked the locations of these IP editors and they are all based out of Southern California and likely work for Alpha Motor Corporation, and are trying to remove anything that potentially damages the company's reputation. Maybe 'successor' wasn't the best word in the dictionary to use but clearly there's a relation between Alpha and Neuron with its executives, websites, headquarters, etc., and it looks like the socks/COI editors are trying to sneakily remove that claim for whatever reason. There is a lot more lore to this company, including scam claims and the 'Icon' model that was basically completely erased from the website. Waddles Gobbles 🍂 🦃 16:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The word "successor" may not be ideal. If the cited source is correct then the one company was set up by the same people, or some of the same people, who had been responsible for the other company, in order to carry on similar business after the original company was no longer operating, and that relationship can reasonably be described as being a "successor" company, but on the other hand the word could be interpreted as implying a legal connection as a continuation of the same business, which probably is not the case. Therefore, it would probably be a good idea for someone to substitute an alternative form of wording which conveys essentially the same information in a less ambiguous form. I don't see that as a substantial problem. However, as far as the blocks and page protection are concerned, it is perfectly clear that what we are dealing with is someone editing on behalf of the company (the first account was named Alphamotorcorporation) in order to remove information unfavourable to the company, and who on being blocked has shifted to other accounts and then, when they were blocked, to IP editing. The editor has been acting in violation of the guideline on conflict of interest, the policies on neutral point of view, use of multiple accounts, and block-evasion, and the Wikimedia Foundation's requirement for disclosure of paid editing. The editor has been informed of the relevant issues regarding conflict of interest, and told how to request an unblock. If they choose to ignore that information, and instead keep evading the block, they will find that their accounts and IP addresses keep getting blocked. Contrary to what they evidently think, far from being "against the foundation of Wikipedia" or "Admin Abuse", that is plain and simple implementation of Wikipedia policies. JBW (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • To make my position on this clear, (in all due respect) I couldn't give a rats about the content dispute, hence I'll keep out of that. On the other hand I do give a rats about blatant COI editing, corporate whitewashing, sockpuppetry and block evasion. Honestly, if Alpha motors corporation wants to improve their corporate image, they could start by avoiding this sort of carry-on. I rather think that WP:GRIEF applies quite aptly here, Alpha needs to just move on to the last stage. Mako001 (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - When an IP address complains about administrator abuse, regular editors usually only read the report to see if a block is in order. In this case, the IP has been blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

User safeguarding controversial web page?[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Ivana Alawi[edit]

Hi! I am in a editing conflict with User:Carl Francis. First, he always revert my edits in Ivana Alawi, can anyone tell what is my mistake there, I've only abbreviated the ref. column in the filmography table of the article, because it is in the WP:ACTOR, but this editor always reverts my edits. Can anyone explain this? I thought Wikipedia is for collaboration. Even all featured articles in WP:ACTOR are have abbreviated Ref. Please clarify the rule of Wikipedia, I'm just following the rule but why this editor keeps reverting my edits. Second, in WP:ACTOR allows rowspan in filmography table, this user dont allow it, can anyone also explain this? Third, the standard use of how to reference is not followed in pages where he editing, like Ivana Alawi too... I tried to fix the reference section, like the reference section in other pages and just put reflist template, because it's hard to cite a source in that page, but this user reverted it. I think he owning all the article he created.—It'sCtrlwikitalk • 00:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  • WP:BRD is your friend. You added a format change twice, it was reverted. Since you are making the change from a stable edit, it is up to you to explain and get consensus on the talk page. Neither of you has used the talk page. In short, this isn't an admin issue, it is an editing issue, so take it to the talk page of the article, not here. Dennis Brown - 01:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Global ban for 1Goldberg2[edit]

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