Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard |
---|
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.
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. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
|
Open tasks
V | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 2 | 151 | 0 | 153 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
RfD | 0 | 1 | 16 | 0 | 17 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
- 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 62 sockpuppet investigations
- 28 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 4 Fully-protected edit requests
- 7 Candidates for history merging
- 2 requests for RD1 redaction
- 94 elapsed requested moves
- 13 requested closures
- 100 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 21 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Hulged (Wahhid) unban request
Hello. Not sure why I'm here today, but let's start this off: Hulged (formerly known as Wahhid) was blocked on 30 March 2021 by Drmies (talk · contribs) as a sock of Wahhid, then banned per WP:3X. They had previously requested an unban back in November here in which the ban was unsuccessfully lifted. Now, it is the 24th of May, the date where Hulged can appeal once more. Below is the copy-pasted unban request from User talk:Hulged#Ban appeal. I hope I did this correctly. Best regards.
* Previous November AN appeal: Read here
Hello. I was blocked on English Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts in March 2021 (SPI case). Since then I have been active on other WMF managed wikis such as metawiki kswiki, simplewiki and Wikimedia Commons. I have already disclosed all the accounts here and on my November AN appeal. For clarity's sake, these were User:Wahhid, User:EditorThanos, User:Ulluly, User:Juslit, User:Ollipinno, User:TheHornbill, User:Majaple, User:Malihajan, User:Malliha and User:Dhonka. This is the last edit I have made to English Wikipedia. I appealed the Arbitration Committee in February this year but they told me to appeal in May. In my November appeal, I was told to appeal after 24 May. I requested Yamla to take this appeal to the AN on May 18 but they said no and I also thought that it is best to wait till 24. I have developed a keen interest in editing wikipedia again and have read the policies. I promise that I won't violate any policies and won't hurt wikipedia in any way. I may be seen with IDHT attitude but I have no intention to waste the precious time of the community. I have learned the lesson and I am willing to help in the development of this free online encyclopaedia.
If unbanned, I would like to be an active member of Wikiproject India, help in counter vandalism and AFC work.
I humbly ask the community to give me another chance. Hulged (talk) 12:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
— 3PPYB6 — TALK — CONTRIBS — 17:04, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support. The prior request didn't have a strong consensus (either way) and I'm willing to extend good faith here. --Yamla (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm curious to know why Hulged wanted to appeal on 18 May when they'd been told they needed to wait until 24 May. What was so urgent that couldn't wait another six days? Cordless Larry (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hulged's reply:
I'm not really sure I'm any the wiser. Surely it would have been easier to just be patient and wait another six days. I'll leave it there though. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Hi Cordless Larry. Being honest, I thought I might be unblocked per WP:SO#Variations. Hulged (talk) 09:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hulged's reply:
- Support As long as there hasn't been recent sock puppetry they should be given a second chance as their unban request seems convincing and also their edits to other wikis as well seem good for the most part and also they seem to be honest by admitting to the user of multiple accounts and also admitting the use of 3 non blocked accounts as well. Qwv (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I ran some CU checks. There's one account which is a possible match, but looking at the edit history, I'm pretty sure it's just a coincidence that two different people were using a similar device on the same IP range. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- Support per WP:STANDARDOFFER. They've been banned for a while. I'm seeing no compelling reason to avoid giving another chance. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Unblock request from Speedcuber1 (previously known as Reece the Hawk)
Open for a week without any support. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Speedcuber1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- Block log
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive969#Excessive, hasty deletion nominations by a new editor as Reece the Hawk
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive309#ReeceTheHawk Unblock/SO request 2019
- unblock request June 2021 as Reece the Hawk
- Speedcuber 1/Reece was blocked for disruption, particularly at WP:AN and was unblocked following an appeal to the Community in June 2021. (Looks like the 2019 appeals were not successful.) And reblocked not quite three months later for disruption and lost talk page access shortly thereafter. On May 25, 2022, requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #58791. Yamla noted no check user indication of socking. (I guess the checkuser fell off with the June 2021 unblocking.) I advised against any further posting at WP:AN or WP:ANI. I would further advise against any deletion nominations.
- Unblock request carried over--
I was blocked for disruptive editing to the admin noticeboard and making persistent posts there that i thought were ok at the time, but they were actually disruptive edits and i shouldn’t have posted as much as i did and shouldn’t have kept going back to that noticeboard to post about general things, as it was counterproductive. I was then blocked from my talk page as the edits i was making on there were wasting other editor’s time and weren’t productive, if i was unblocked the things i would do differently include possibly avoiding the noticeboards, as they were partly the reason why I was blocked in the first place, and I would also try my best to not make any disruptive edits and i would think before making edits to make sure the edit is generally good, productive, not disruptive and not an edit that would waste any other editor’s time. I will do this by going over it and thinking about the purpose of each edit.
The constructive edits i would make include going to random articles and linking key words or any important words, fixing any general mistakes such as punctuation mistakes or spelling mistakes, reverting vandalism, and also edits such as adding paragraphs to articles if i find any new info on that article that comes from a reliable source. Speedcuber (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC)- Oppose. This is not meaningfully different than the unblock request from June, 2021. That unblock request was granted, much to our later regret. Without a meaningful demonstration of months of constructive, trouble-free editing on another project, I'm not willing to support yet another chance for this editor, given how disruptive they consistently are. --Yamla (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose to me this reads like saying what they need to in order to be unblocked just because it has been six months and they can. I would prefer to see the "constructive edits" and no disruption on another project before we trust them to be productive here especially in light of
try my best to not make any disruptive edits
which inspires zero confidence. After they were blocked, they lost talk page and email access for being an utter nuisance and having an utter lack of clue. At minimum, pblock from Wikipedia space. Star Mississippi 16:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC) - Comment I too would like a clearer picture of the constructive edits @Speedcuber1: would make. A menu of things that need doing can be found here. There are millions of pages on Wikipedia that have nothing to do with admin boards. Please, select some and let us know so that we can know that unblocking you (again) will not be a mistake. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- Response to my request for a clear picture of constructive edits--
--Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Deepfriedokra, the things that I would focus on out of the 9 things in the open tasks page that you linked me would be fixing spelling and grammar, fixing wikilinks, checking and adding references, adding images, and improving lead sections. Speedcuber (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2022
- Response to my request for a clear picture of constructive edits--
- Oppose. I remember this editor well having interacted with them a few times around the project after their last unblock. I remember well the constant disruption, the attempts at playing admin, the constant "saying one thing then doing another", the constant over the top drama in response every minor incident, the constant lying about being "harrassed" or "bullied" every time they were criticised, the constant need to screw around with trivial rubbish, the constant changing their mind over literally everything, the constant need to be babysat etc. etc. etc. - their editing here was nothing but a time sink. This is the least committal unblock request I have ever read; they will be
possibly avoiding the noticeboards
? They say that they willtry my best to not make any disruptive edits
? Possibly, maybe trying to improve is not sufficient here, they exhausted the patience and goodwill of the community last time they had an unblock, I would expect to see some kind of actual commitments and probably some topic bans here. The edits they propose to make are, for the most part, extremely minor and frankly I don't think it's worth putting up with the constant disruption from this user for the sake of a few links, spelling fixes and a few anti-vandalism reverts. 192.76.8.78 (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Next steps on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement guidelines
- Cross-posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Next steps on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement guidelines
Hello all,
I’d like to share an update on the work on the Enforcement guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct.
In 2022 May, the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team completed a report on the 2022 March ratification vote about the guidelines. Voters cast votes from at least 137 communities. At least 650 participants added comments with their vote. A report is available on Meta-Wiki. (See full announcement)
Following the vote, the Community Affairs committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees asked that several areas be reviewed for improvements. A Revision Drafting Committee will refine the enforcement guidelines based on community feedback.
To help the Revisions committee, input from the community is requested. Visit the Meta-wiki pages (Enforcement Guidelines revision discussions, Policy text revision discussions) to provide thoughts for the new drafting committee. (See full announcement)
Let me know if you have any questions about these next steps. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have questions, but you're not gonna like em. Will this nonsense ever end? And what is even the point? El_C 13:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- PR exercise, I assume, to confidently ask for more (big) donation and continue to use it for everything but Wikipedia. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hey, Assume Goo Foundation! Also: 👴 stop bullying me! I'm just a silly little guy full with a-joyous whimsy! 👴 El_C 15:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- @El C the point is to craft a minimum set of expectations around behavior across any Wikimedia project you might go to. I am replying though because I'm curious what nonsense you're seeing - I can think of several different possible answers and just don't know how to read the comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 The main piece of nonsense was that horribly tone-deaf "race and ethnicity" sentence, so I'm pleased to see that's being addressed (I still have no idea WTF the person who wrote that was thinking). I opposed also because of the affirmation and training silliness for advanced rights holders (that's been mentioned as well), and the apparent lack of transparency or right of reply for those accused of infractions - clearly no-one there learnt anything from Framgate. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your perspective on what you found nonsense Black Kite. I remain curious what El C says because I suspect from the sentence construction it's something else. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I would surmise it was trying (perhaps badly) to address the issues raised, eg. [here]; do races exist as a matter of fact or of human construction, and what implications arise from those two poles with respect to proper/improper discrimination, see also, scientific racism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Endless revisions to an already overcomplicated and convoluted process. The worst part, obviously, is conflating between small, poorly-governed projects and the English Wikipedia, the Foundation's flagship project. Which erodes its agency and autonomy and self-governance. Finally, wrt to the English Wikipedia, again I ask: what is this solution in search of a problem even about? T&S and EMERGENCY seem to be working as intended. Why this time sink? El_C 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks El C, that's helpful. My #1 goal with the this revision is to improve the writing. There was a lot that should have been done before the vote, but was not allowed because there was a deadline to meet. I honestly don't think another revision is "endless" especially because the Board could have taken "yes" for an answer despite the serious concerns and shortcomings you and others have identified here. I'm glad we're revising again because what's in there now isn't good enough.As for why spend English Wikipedia editors time, everyone should come to their own answer and if your choice is not to participate I can understand why. as I participate because of a combination of a desire to see other projects be more successful and because there editors who feel English Wikipedia is broken and unable to self-govern and I want to make sure those voices aren't the only ones in the room. This isn't to say we're perfect - I think there are times that English Wikipedia acknowledges there's a problem and decides to avoid thinking about a solution because it's too hard - but there is a reason that so many other projects adopt our policies, guidelines, and procedures as their own. We're doing good work in the policy areas of the UCoC and making sure that good work can continue even as other projects increase their capacity matters to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I seriously do not understand the insistence that en.wiki should somehow be exempt from this. The whole "autonomy" angle seems misguided. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- I seriously look forward to the substance of your guidance, HandThatFeeds, when the thing is finally ratified in, I dunno, 2025...?
- Barkeep49, maybe you're in too deep. Or maybe I'm in too shallow. Personally, I'd probably have chosen non-engagement with this adventure. A fundamental characteristic of the Foundation is that they are, by design, out of touch (and certain recent hires straight out of the shady corporate world only serve to exacerbate this disconnect). BTW, are the Enforcement Officers still a thing? What social contract (un-loyalty pledge) will I have to sign? Will extremism at certain projects (above all else, at the Japanese Wikipedia) ever become a priority? Will there be another vote? And another vote after that? Will reductionism ala HandThatFeeds (above) rue the day? So many quenions. El_C 01:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really believe you'd have chosen non-engagement given that you've chosen to engage here and doing nothing would have been real easy @El C. In terms of what has changed - so far nothing. You can read about what has and will happen at my quasi-blog. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, EZ or not, I don't view my protest here as a form of engagement. Though I suppose you could say that I'm engaging against engagement. Obviously, as chief engager, you take issue with that, which I don't fault you for. It's a lot of work. And, yes, with the interest of the project, specifically, and the movement, in general, in mind — but I still think resistance would have been the better response to this weird and clumsy and alarming overreach that the UCoC represents for .en. El_C 02:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- At several points in the process I gave serious thought about what resistance would look like and the most obvious answer would be a FRAM like protest. But the issue is I think the enwiki community is more divided around UCoC than it was around FRAM in that our community has many who are firmly opposed - as you seem to be - but also substantial groups who are somewhat ambivalent for or against (which is where I find myself) and in favor. This would suggest some sort of protest would be more symbolic than effective and might have meant that we wouldn't get the current round of revisions we're getting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- That strikes me as counter-factual, because it didn't end up happening (i.e. you've engaged). Also, I'm not seeing a lot of support for it at .en, aside from process wonks who perhaps just enjoy doing process stuff. In any case, another WP:FRAM scenario is the concern of what might follow the finalized UCoC, rather than the actual process of drafting, revising and eventually ratifying it. But maybe it's too late and now we're stuck, for having engaged in what, to .en, is a needless exercise. El_C 13:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- At several points in the process I gave serious thought about what resistance would look like and the most obvious answer would be a FRAM like protest. But the issue is I think the enwiki community is more divided around UCoC than it was around FRAM in that our community has many who are firmly opposed - as you seem to be - but also substantial groups who are somewhat ambivalent for or against (which is where I find myself) and in favor. This would suggest some sort of protest would be more symbolic than effective and might have meant that we wouldn't get the current round of revisions we're getting. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep49, EZ or not, I don't view my protest here as a form of engagement. Though I suppose you could say that I'm engaging against engagement. Obviously, as chief engager, you take issue with that, which I don't fault you for. It's a lot of work. And, yes, with the interest of the project, specifically, and the movement, in general, in mind — but I still think resistance would have been the better response to this weird and clumsy and alarming overreach that the UCoC represents for .en. El_C 02:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really believe you'd have chosen non-engagement given that you've chosen to engage here and doing nothing would have been real easy @El C. In terms of what has changed - so far nothing. You can read about what has and will happen at my quasi-blog. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Endless revisions to an already overcomplicated and convoluted process. The worst part, obviously, is conflating between small, poorly-governed projects and the English Wikipedia, the Foundation's flagship project. Which erodes its agency and autonomy and self-governance. Finally, wrt to the English Wikipedia, again I ask: what is this solution in search of a problem even about? T&S and EMERGENCY seem to be working as intended. Why this time sink? El_C 19:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 The main piece of nonsense was that horribly tone-deaf "race and ethnicity" sentence, so I'm pleased to see that's being addressed (I still have no idea WTF the person who wrote that was thinking). I opposed also because of the affirmation and training silliness for advanced rights holders (that's been mentioned as well), and the apparent lack of transparency or right of reply for those accused of infractions - clearly no-one there learnt anything from Framgate. Black Kite (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- PR exercise, I assume, to confidently ask for more (big) donation and continue to use it for everything but Wikipedia. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's going to be very easy to weaponize the UCoC against en.wiki. I see colossal timesinks ahead of us.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- This Code of Conduct is going to be weaponized to drag editors who oppose groupthink before a non-representative kangaroo court where they have no real ability to defend themselves. We already have our own elected court (ArbCom). ArbCom is defective and frequently criticized, but it's ours. Why do we need a parallel structure that is directed by corporate climbers and clout-seekers who know less about our community than we do? Jehochman Talk 13:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because there should be a backup if ARBCOM goes off the rails (either too activist or does nothing in the face of real issues)? I personally feel that post-FRAM issues the place has gotten better. Previously I felt there were a fair number of "unblockables" who were managing to fly just below the radar on a regular basis. And I think "framgate" was what kicked things into a better place. So as much as I resent WMF stepping in, I think it was a net positive. That said, I'm opposed to the UCoC because I think it has far too much potential to move the needle too far. Things are, IMO, working pretty well right now and I think the expected value at en is a net negative with a non-trivial risk of a being a huge net negative. Hobit (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The thing passed multiple votes. WMF is still delaying its implementation and trying to address the objections raised by opposers. What a bunch of assholes, eh? Really shoving it down our throats, eh? A real power grab that involves listening and moving slowly and asking for input. This is what tyranny looks like!!!
Levivich 13:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eh. Passed, but do we know how many supported or opposed at en? What if 90 percent opposed? We do not know. We cannot know. We did not get to vote in each invidudal project like with the annual arbcom vote (which I'm sure the scrutineers could have managed). Instead, opaqueness and reductionism remains the order of the day. But at least Levivich feels included, so I guess there's that. El_C 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Suppose 90% of enwiki voters opposed it, but the measure still passed. What should the WMF do then? Exempt enwiki from the UCOC?
- What percentage of the UCOC drafting committees (plural, as I think there have been more than one, I've lost count) are made up of enwiki editors? Like 30%? 50%?
- Remember when people said that if the vote failed, the WMF would keep having the vote over until they got the result they wanted? Well, the vote passed, and they're still having the vote over. How does this fact fit into the conspiracy theories about the WMF's true motives here?
- All of these questions are rhetorical. Levivich 15:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Rhetorical quneions, I'm in. So, in that instance, they should indeed seriously re-think of adjusting or even exempting (which the process ought to have accounted for). But we don't know. That's the point. We could have had a grand total that would have also showed us individual project breakdowns. Still, I highly doubt it's a conspiracy. Probably just incompetence rather any sort of nefarious motive, though I suppose labeling this criticism as a "conspiracy theory" is a useful rhetorical device. El_C 15:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's nothing like a good old appeal to ridicule to muddy the waters and bury legitimate concerns about opacity and misguided (if well-intentioned) management. WaltCip-(talk) 16:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich the original enforcement guidelines drafting committee had roughly 3 out of 11 volunteers (myself, FULBERT, and MJL) who would identify primarily (or largely) as enwiki editors plus 1 staff member who is also an enwiki admin (out of 4). We only have 8 volunteers on the revision committee, with the same 3 enwiki editors (neither of the 2 staff are enwiki editors). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Rhetorical quneions, I'm in. So, in that instance, they should indeed seriously re-think of adjusting or even exempting (which the process ought to have accounted for). But we don't know. That's the point. We could have had a grand total that would have also showed us individual project breakdowns. Still, I highly doubt it's a conspiracy. Probably just incompetence rather any sort of nefarious motive, though I suppose labeling this criticism as a "conspiracy theory" is a useful rhetorical device. El_C 15:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Mathematically if 90% of enwiki voters opposed, then about 90% of the voters of the rest of the movement would have had to support it because enwiki voters made up just under half the electorate. 90% is just a ridiculously high number to suggest are opposed. You don't have 90% in this thread, which is clearly negative (Potentially opposed: El C, Used, Black Kite, Alanscottwalker, S Marshall, Jehochman, Hobit, Walt Clip; Potentially Support: That Hand, Levvich - that's 80% opposed). It is entirely possible enwiki voters did vote it down - it's somewhere between really unfortunate and unacceptable that the voting software is too antiquated to do this basic analysis - but if we did then realistically it's more likely to be 65% opposition max. But it's also possible we were closer to 50/50 or possible that enwiki narrowly approves when we're voting anonymously. We just don't know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Has the WMF considered running an enwiki only poll? The largest opposition to implementing this is likely to be from enwiki with the assumption that the majority of editors here oppose it, but if they can prove that assumption wrong then that issue would be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also doubt it's at 90 percent opposition, but I also also doubt it's 50/50. But, again, this is the problem: needing to rely on conjecture and anecdotal estimates falls short. And antiquated voting software notwithstanding, some or all of the votes could be held locally (as mentioned, I'm confident that'd be something the scrutineers could handle). Concludsion: No, no violent. I just want to ask him a quneion.
El_C 15:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know it's impossible to have multiple simultaneous votes right now so it would mean some sort of drawn out process to allow wiki to vote in sequence. When admin elections looked possible @Xaosflux did a whole bunch of work on things, so pinging him because I know he was exploring the possibility of whether it was technically possible to do a vote here on enwiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 not quite yet, but it would be trivial to create another poll that requires you to have some sort of enwiki suffrage if we wanted to judge only voters from enwiki that met it. I have no reason to think that @JSutherland (WMF): and team is lying about the results in collusion with the scrutineers. WMF staffers handle the decryption and tallying after stewards strike ineligible voters (the stewards can't tell what the vote is - they can just nullify it before it is counted). The "homewiki" (which is probably right for at least 70% of the entries) is listed here and shows enwiki for about 35% of the voters. About 2% of the voters were employees of WMF voting from their work accounts - so those are likely to be biased, but the overall % of them is not that high. enwiki certainly has many many more eligible voters, but we only had ~911 show up to vote. Why? I'm guessing a lot of it was "how should this thing that we already decided on deal with enforcement" was the presentation - not "Do you agree with this thing at all" - especially when the "this thing" requires hours of reading to have a good understanding of what you are commenting on. — xaosflux Talk 17:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure where you got the idea that I was questioning Joe or any of the scrutineers as this simply not the case. I think the vote tallys accurately reflect the will of those who voted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 apologies, I didn't mean to imply that, just that I don't think that a "local" secret ballot would fix any of the overall concerns from the threads above (because the "counting" part is really all that was blackboxed). I think one thing that the stats show we can probably agree on is that most active contributors didn't vote at all! — xaosflux Talk 13:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah the low project turnout is its own problem, but I think the issue that's most frustrating those here is the idea that we don't know how enwiki feels compared to the movement as a whole. So in that sense, a local votewiki instance would suffice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 oh sure, I'm just saying that doing that isn't dependent on managing the SecurePoll locally, it could still be a votewiki poll - just like our other enwiki polls we put on there. — xaosflux Talk 15:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. I just know that Joe, and others, spend a lot of time doing stuff to make those elections run. If it were, instead, something that could be managed locally that would give us a lot more ability to use volunteer (rather than staff time) to make things run. See the idea below of incorporating it into ACE which would be one way of solving that. Another would be to just ask if we could do a special election. I'd somewhat lean towards doing it at ACE just because we know turnout will be fairly good, though it does add some complexity to that election so I could understand why others would prefer to do it separately (if possible). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 oh sure, I'm just saying that doing that isn't dependent on managing the SecurePoll locally, it could still be a votewiki poll - just like our other enwiki polls we put on there. — xaosflux Talk 15:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah the low project turnout is its own problem, but I think the issue that's most frustrating those here is the idea that we don't know how enwiki feels compared to the movement as a whole. So in that sense, a local votewiki instance would suffice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 apologies, I didn't mean to imply that, just that I don't think that a "local" secret ballot would fix any of the overall concerns from the threads above (because the "counting" part is really all that was blackboxed). I think one thing that the stats show we can probably agree on is that most active contributors didn't vote at all! — xaosflux Talk 13:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure where you got the idea that I was questioning Joe or any of the scrutineers as this simply not the case. I think the vote tallys accurately reflect the will of those who voted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 not quite yet, but it would be trivial to create another poll that requires you to have some sort of enwiki suffrage if we wanted to judge only voters from enwiki that met it. I have no reason to think that @JSutherland (WMF): and team is lying about the results in collusion with the scrutineers. WMF staffers handle the decryption and tallying after stewards strike ineligible voters (the stewards can't tell what the vote is - they can just nullify it before it is counted). The "homewiki" (which is probably right for at least 70% of the entries) is listed here and shows enwiki for about 35% of the voters. About 2% of the voters were employees of WMF voting from their work accounts - so those are likely to be biased, but the overall % of them is not that high. enwiki certainly has many many more eligible voters, but we only had ~911 show up to vote. Why? I'm guessing a lot of it was "how should this thing that we already decided on deal with enforcement" was the presentation - not "Do you agree with this thing at all" - especially when the "this thing" requires hours of reading to have a good understanding of what you are commenting on. — xaosflux Talk 17:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know it's impossible to have multiple simultaneous votes right now so it would mean some sort of drawn out process to allow wiki to vote in sequence. When admin elections looked possible @Xaosflux did a whole bunch of work on things, so pinging him because I know he was exploring the possibility of whether it was technically possible to do a vote here on enwiki. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also doubt it's at 90 percent opposition, but I also also doubt it's 50/50. But, again, this is the problem: needing to rely on conjecture and anecdotal estimates falls short. And antiquated voting software notwithstanding, some or all of the votes could be held locally (as mentioned, I'm confident that'd be something the scrutineers could handle). Concludsion: No, no violent. I just want to ask him a quneion.
- Has the WMF considered running an enwiki only poll? The largest opposition to implementing this is likely to be from enwiki with the assumption that the majority of editors here oppose it, but if they can prove that assumption wrong then that issue would be addressed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eh. Passed, but do we know how many supported or opposed at en? What if 90 percent opposed? We do not know. We cannot know. We did not get to vote in each invidudal project like with the annual arbcom vote (which I'm sure the scrutineers could have managed). Instead, opaqueness and reductionism remains the order of the day. But at least Levivich feels included, so I guess there's that. El_C 14:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- The nuclear option would be to hold an en-wiki-wide vote of confidence in the UCoC using RfC format.—S Marshall T/C 08:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would hardly consider it a nucelar option if someone were to follow through on what xaos suggests above is possible and make it so we could hold an enwiki anonymous vote on the issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think this would be a good idea. I honestly don't have a clue where it would come out. Heck, I'm not certain what I'd vote. But I think it would be good to have the discussion that would likely accompany the vote. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also think this would be a good idea; it would allow us to discuss all of UCoC, rather than just its enforcement mechanism. BilledMammal (talk) 10:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Like. El_C 12:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- One idea that was suggested to me off-wiki is to tie it into ACE. Because we do approval voting for that, a worst case scenario would be to have "candidates" that would let ACE voters (which we know gets as big of a turnout on enwiki as anything) weigh in and would hopefully give us a good sense of where enwiki stands. We could even do two "candidates": one for the UCoC policy text (per Billed Mammal and El C above) and one for UCoC enforcement. The best case scenario would be separate questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd have expected to just have an RfC. I mean this is really a request for comments. I guess if we're worried about peer pressure something else might make sense. But as someone without a horse in this race, I think I'd learn more from an open vote than anything. But maybe it wouldn't give us what we want to know? Hobit (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Misunderstanding
There was a recent misunderstanding with one of the administrators about an abandoned draft nominated for speedy deletion. Then I found out today that the permission of autopatrolled was changed from permanent to temporary.--Sakiv (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Review of autopatrolled (Sakiv)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220608234349im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/Purple_arrow_down.svg/20px-Purple_arrow_down.svg.png)
- Sakiv (t · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools • sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · rollbacks · logs (blocks • rights • moves) · rfar · spi)
User:Sakiv, I assigned autopatrolled back in January 2020 and given the ping from your talk page, I went to have a look at your latest contributions. What I see are several new articles without any references. What's up with that? You would be aware that unreferenced articles is a no-no. Can you please let us know if you would like to do something about it? Because if this isn't rectified, autopatrolled would have to be removed. Schwede66 02:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've gone through a dozen articles now. I try not to leave any article without a source, but most of it is about seasons before 2010, so it takes more time.--Sakiv (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Based on the poor conduct I've highlighted on my talk page, I would advocate for revocation of
autoreviewer
as a minimum, with removal ofreviewer
being a distinct possibility for apparently not being able to distinguish vandalism from good-faith actions. I recognise, however, I should not be the one to do it based on his statement that I am engaging in harassment for criticism of conduct. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)- Schwede66 It seems that no action has been taken on this situation yet. (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- If someone really wants to follow up on this, this isn't the best forum - WP:AN can handle it as it requires an admin to change it, and it is about the behavior of a specific editor. — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sakiv, I've set autopatrolled to expire in late August 2022. At that point, or shortly before, please post at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled and somebody will review your latest contributions. For anything else, please take action as per xaosflux's suggestion if you consider this necessary. Schwede66 23:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding your complaint on my talk page, Sakiv:
- Please keep discussion in one place and don't start a new one elsewhere.
- I had looked at maybe five of your recent articles and, if my memory serves me right, three of them had no references. And that is totally incompatible with being autopatrolled. Since you asked about it on my talk page, at the time of my review, the following articles were unreferenced:
- Please add categories to Latvia national football team results (1991–2019)
- Please omit empty headings as I've done for you at 2022 WAFF Futsal Championship and many other articles I've just looked at; this is a frequent issue with your articles
- Please don't leave bare URLs behind, e.g. at 2022–23 S.S. Lazio season (and that's not the only article I had to tag)
- Many of the articles that I've looked at had a single reference only
- Regarding your note
I didn't create any articles lacking references after that notice
, I did not accuse you of doing so. I told you that you should never do that in the first instance and that I found 3 out of 5 unreferenced is a major red flag. When users do this, chances are they may continue with this, hence it is necessary to keep an eye on this. And now that I've had a closer look at a good number of articles, I find an issue with 1 out of 2. That is not good enough and for now, I shall remove autopatrolled. Please do come back at some point in the future (even the near future; say once you've created another two dozen articles) and ask for a review. And just a reminder what autopatrolled is for: this is a flag given to users who consistently create clean articles that do not require review by others. Please try and create clean articles. The rate at which you pump out new articles gives the appearance of a rushed job. I suggest you aim for more quality over quantity. - And regarding your note
The dispute with the administrator is not even related to Verification, but rather the nomination of pages for speedy deletion
, I have no idea who you refer to by "administrator". But regardless, you are right. The issues that I'm raising are totally independent of any other disputes that you may have; this is all about the requirements for meeting autopatrolled. Schwede66 01:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding your complaint on my talk page, Sakiv:
- Sakiv, I've set autopatrolled to expire in late August 2022. At that point, or shortly before, please post at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled and somebody will review your latest contributions. For anything else, please take action as per xaosflux's suggestion if you consider this necessary. Schwede66 23:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- If someone really wants to follow up on this, this isn't the best forum - WP:AN can handle it as it requires an admin to change it, and it is about the behavior of a specific editor. — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- Schwede66 It seems that no action has been taken on this situation yet. (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
- All of this wouldn't have happened if he hadn't pinged you on his talk page. I don't know what its purpose was but I feel like something inconvenient. I can't continue my work here feeling like everything I'm doing is bad and unwanted. This is not the atmosphere I want to work in. I am not the only one who creates articles that need some tags. This is expected from many. I have been an autopatrolled for more than two years and have not misused this permission. Your way of tracing my contributions is not convenient and indicates that I am disruptive not an active user for seven years. What happened today will be followed by actions on my part because I do not know what is happening. At first you convert the autopatroller to temporary and then revoke it completely. This is not encouraging at all to me.--Sakiv (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Autopatrolled is not for your benefit but for the benefit of reviewers. Autopatrolled articles essentially need to be "perfect" and if they need tags, then they do need some review, so autopatrolled is not appropriate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- You say:
everything I'm doing is bad and unwanted
. No, that is most certainly not the case. You add a lot of value. You create many new pages. That's all very commendable. But you focus on quantity over quality and it's not in line with the requirements of autopatrolled. It's still a most valuable contribution. It's just that it requires review by others. I suggest you slow down a bit, do a more thorough job, and you'll get autopatrolled back in no time. Schwede66 01:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- You say:
- Autopatrolled is not for your benefit but for the benefit of reviewers. Autopatrolled articles essentially need to be "perfect" and if they need tags, then they do need some review, so autopatrolled is not appropriate. Galobtter (pingó mió) 01:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Schwede66 said in his summary
discussed with user that unreferenced articles is a no-no and this has now been rectified; will review the situation in three months' time
. I don't know that happened afterwards.- Midnight Cop, created by an autopatroller, contains no sources since 26th.
- 2022 UEC European Track Championships, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
- 2022 Leinster Senior Hurling Championship Final, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
- Lot (fineness), created by an autopatroller, no citations.
- List of ports in Iran, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
- Sara Fernández Roldán, created by an autopatroller, no citations.
- Pierre Pasquier (colonial administrator), created by an autopatroller, no citations.
- I demand an explanation from @Schwede66: to my concern about what happened after the first action.--Sakiv (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. After you posted on my talk page (asking me to explain:
where are the articles without references?
), I took the time to have a closer look so that I could answer your query. That's when I discovered that the problem went further than what I had seen previously. Schwede66 02:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the Latvia results, I was busy developing the article and added the category minutes after your edit. I also filled in the URLs for the Lazio, Alaves and PSV articles minutes after your edit as well. Regarding section headings, these sections will be filled with information after a short period of time, and this is regular with many of my fellow editors. The bottom line is that I have responded to all your concerns and have not ignored them. We are here to cooperate and discuss and nothing has to be done quickly. I think it is a misunderstanding. My comment on your discussion page was before I realized that you just switched the autopatrolled from permanent to temporary. And I thought that the topic was related to the most recent articles after the notification.--Sakiv (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Administrator note moved from WT:PERM. — xaosflux Talk 14:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @Xaosflux:. It should have been moved from the start to share with other administrators. The permission has nothing to do with the abundance of articles I have created recently and I never focus on the quantity. I admit that I erred when I left several articles unsourced immediately upon their creation. The root of the problem is the nomination for speedy deletion of a draft that has not been edited for 6 months, but one of the administrators refused to delete. Then I asked him for an explanation. He said that the first nomination was considered an edit, and therefore the 6-month rule began anew.--Sakiv (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I shall comment to provide some context. Sdrqaz talks about a conduct issue above, and I suggest if anything, that is the substantive issue worthy of a discussion. In that context, Sdrqaz suggested
revocation of autoreviewer
(note that autoreviewer is an old name for autopatrolled) and to me, that did not make sense as it appeared to suggest a punitive measure, but we do not revoke permissions on that basis. As I originally granted autopatrolled in 2000 and was mentioned in the discussion, I checked whether Sakiv was still producing new articles of the required quality and I raised the issue of unreferenced articles. When Sakiv challenged me to explain where the unreferenced articles were, which I had to look up again (as I unfortunately didn't document it first time round) and as I looked at a much larger number of articles this time, I detected enough problems to conclude that autopatrolled is not justifiable. I'm unsure why Sakiv struggles with this so much, as it's been explained a few times by now what the purpose is of having the autopatrolled flag. - Which leaves the substantive issue of user conduct. I briefly looked at it and concluded that it's not something that I'm interested in. If others want to discuss it, please do. And given that I don't hang out at the drama boards, please ping me if I need to respond to anything. Schwede66 22:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did you read my reply? I understand that it is not a good idea to leave the article unsourced for any time whatsoever. I corrected these mistakes after the notice you placed on May 26th and have not created any article that lacks sources after that. Sakiv (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I did read your replies. Did you take in what I wrote above? There are a number of issues with your new pages, one of which being lack of references. But that is just one of the issues. It is fabulous that you can respond to requests quickly. However, the point of the autopatrolled flag is that your articles should be substantially "perfect" and if you need a prompt, then that requirement has not been met. Hence, I've removed autopatrolled. When you have created a couple of dozen new articles, please ask for a review of your work and we will then decide whether it is appropriate to assign autopatrolled to your account. But you knew that already as you've read all my responses, haven't you? Schwede66 23:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I wonder why others don't participate in the discussion. It seems that you have looked at the articles that have some errors but overlooked the huge amount of articles that deserve to be commended. I admit that I made a mistake and know that this will not happen again.--Sakiv (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's reasonable that autopatrolled was pulled in this circumstance. It also shouldn't bother you, as it has no actual effect on your editing. Some others will have to check your work, and if the concerns are addressed over the next few months, you'll likely get the flag back. I'm not seeing an issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Did you read my reply? I understand that it is not a good idea to leave the article unsourced for any time whatsoever. I corrected these mistakes after the notice you placed on May 26th and have not created any article that lacks sources after that. Sakiv (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- I shall comment to provide some context. Sdrqaz talks about a conduct issue above, and I suggest if anything, that is the substantive issue worthy of a discussion. In that context, Sdrqaz suggested
Looking at the articles they created in 2021, an absolutely stupid amount (I stopped counting at 30) of their pre-2010 "season" articles are unreferenced. I think Sakiv should forget about their hat collection until they've sorted out that mess. – 2.O.Boxing 08:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is clearly in Wikipedia for a long time and the administrator should have alerted me on my talk page instead of opening an open discussion to the community. There was no need for this comment by an uninvolved editor. The administrator felt compelled to do something after that. Since there has been no abuse of the permission such as unlawful copying and pasting, paid contribution without disclosure or creating biased articles.--Sakiv (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Creating unreferenced articles is an abuse of the permission. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you should also take action against several editors I have seen creating articles. These articles remained unreferenced for days.--Sakiv (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- That excuses your misuse of the permission? Literally nothing has changed in his you can edit, the only difference is other editors have to review your new articles. I'm not understanding the objection. You misused a permission, so now other editors have to check your new articles again, like a normal user. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think administrators should react to my concerns so why meddle in small matters that don't concern you. Do you know all the secrets of the encyclopedia? Did you know that this problem exists and is deep and should not be dealt with as if I were the only one who created a few articles that need references. I don't understand why you're getting involved and I didn't even react to your first response.--Sakiv (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- You said
I wonder why others don't participate in the discussion.
I assumed you were interested in what uninvolved editors thought of the situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- You said
- I think administrators should react to my concerns so why meddle in small matters that don't concern you. Do you know all the secrets of the encyclopedia? Did you know that this problem exists and is deep and should not be dealt with as if I were the only one who created a few articles that need references. I don't understand why you're getting involved and I didn't even react to your first response.--Sakiv (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- That excuses your misuse of the permission? Literally nothing has changed in his you can edit, the only difference is other editors have to review your new articles. I'm not understanding the objection. You misused a permission, so now other editors have to check your new articles again, like a normal user. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe you should also take action against several editors I have seen creating articles. These articles remained unreferenced for days.--Sakiv (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Creating unreferenced articles is an abuse of the permission. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think the misunderstanding is becoming more and more apparent. I thought that most of the articles I created about club seasons contain information that is difficult to question, especially since I did not create biographies without sources which is more grave. By the way, the articles of the football seasons have sections such as the overall record and results summary, and in these two sections there is a parameter for the sources and I often add a source, as it does not appear in the references. I thought this would help verification.
--Sakiv (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Astrology edit warring
Hi, there is currently a dispute going on between this version of the page and this version of the page. The former has been called "a slew of weasel-word-filled edits that gave false credibility to to the subject" but the reversion has removed a number of credible academic sources which discuss astrology as a form of cultural astronomy, as per Frances Yates, Clive Ruggles, Paul Feyerabend, and Nicholas J. Saunders:
- Ruggles, Clive L. N.; Saunders, Nicholas J. (1993), "The Study of Cultural Astronomy", in Ruggles, Clive L. N.; Saunders, Nicholas J. (eds.), Astronomies and Cultures, Niwot, CO: University Press of Colorado, pp. 1–31, ISBN 0-87081-319-6
- Beck, Roger (2006). Beck, Roger (ed.). A Brief History of Ancient Astrology. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470773772. ISBN 978-1405110747.
- Ruggles, Clive L.N. (16 Aug 2014). Ruggles, Clive L.N (ed.). Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy. New York: Springer. pp. 103–117. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6141-8. ISBN 978-1-4614-6140-1.
- Barton, Tamsyn (1994). Ancient Astrology. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-11029-7.
- Barton, Tamsyn (2002). Power and Knowledge: Astrology, Physiognomics, and Medicine Under the Roman Empire. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08852-1.
- Kidd, Ian James. "Why did Feyerabend defend astrology? Integrity, virtue, and the authority of science." Social Epistemology 30.4 (2016): 464-482.
I would like this conflict to be mediated if possible.
- Edit: Moving to requests for arbitration.
Thank you, --Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Diff of changes for reference. I must say I would expect many, many more citations for prove that Astrology has been scientifically proved both theoretically and experimentally. I'm going to post a notification at WP:FRINGE about this thread. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry WP:FTN not WP:FRINGE. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- When raising an issue about another user you are meant to notify them, I have done this for you. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I can't actually see any much in the way of evidence for an 'edit war'. Substantial changes had been made to the article. They have been reverted. A discussion on the talk page has ensued. Nobody (so far) seems to have done anything that merits starting a thread here. This looks like a content dispute, and admins don't arbitrate content disputes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @AndyTheGrump: This, as presented here, is indeed a textbook content dispute; although the editor complaining here has carefully left out a few elements which paint a different picture of their actions, namely:
- They initially made a very similar edit to the recent ones back in March ([1]).
- After they got reverted, there was a brief talk page discussion (Talk:Astrology#WP:NPOV,_on_the_pseudoscience); where there clearly was not a consensus in favour of the changes proposed by MCRIRE. Additional issues with the edits in question were pointed out also at Talk:Astrology#Stronger_statement_in_lead_on_Western_Astrology_lacking_empirical_credibility_needed.
- Eventually, the existing wording got restored ([2])
- Despite this, MCRIRE decided recently to reawaken this debate by restoring their preferred version despite all issues that had been highlighted with it and the lack of a consensus for it. This was promptly reverted when it was noticed.
- Now, after a bit more word salad on the talk page, given they don't seem to be getting their way, they've seemingly escalated this here for no good reason. This is either A) a lack of clue as to when to drop the stick or B) a more sinister attempt at strongarming the discussion by "reporting" those who have objected to their edits.
- In short, this looks like either A) slow-motion edit-warring by MCRIRE or B) a tendentious attempt to fill the article's lead with some unnecessary and dubious obfuscation (which also happens to be in direct contradiction with WP:ARB/PS). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Freeze (Kygo song)
The page about Kygo's song Freeze is a redirect page. But I don't think it should be that. It's a single released by Kygo, and all of his other singles have their own article. I can see in the redirect page's history that it was once an article about the song before someone changed it to redirect to the page Kygo discography. Can I remove the redirect revision and restore the article about the song Freeze or is that a bad edit? Karamellpudding1999 (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You’ve created the page. It can now take its chances in the choppy waters of article space. :) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
IP leaving linkspam in comments
Several IP addresses in the same New York City subnet
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.40
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.43
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.49
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.58
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.74
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.109
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.110
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.124
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.136
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.148
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.155
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.212
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.215
- Special:Contributions/172.58.236.247
- Special:Contributions/172.58.239.18
- Special:Contributions/172.58.239.32
- Special:Contributions/172.58.239.43
- Special:Contributions/172.58.239.64
- Special:Contributions/172.58.239.73
- Special:Contributions/172.58.239.98
- Special:Contributions/172.58.239.114
- Special:Contributions/172.58.239.121, maybe others
have been spamming pages related to the Baha'i Faith (Baháʼí Faith, Universal House of Justice, Political objections to the Baháʼí Faith) with linkspam in the comments and talk pages to anti-semitic conspiratorial blogs. Some edits are obvious vandalism (e.g. [3]) while some are inert edits with outrageous comments or linkspam in the edit summary (e.g. [4]). Talk page contributions are also vandalism.
I have been reverting them, but since they have been going on consistently for over a year, I'm seeking help here. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sheesh. Special:Contributions/172.58.236.40/22 - it has indeed been going on for a while. A range block is needed here I think, probably site-wide as they're hitting all sorts of different articles with this stuff - UBS, articles various Rothschilds. I don't have time to look at it in depth right now. Girth Summit (blether) 17:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I widened it out to the /21.I think that most of the logged out contribs from that range since January 2021 have been from one person, who has an interest in Switzerland, Iran, finance, corruption, and the Ba'Hai faith. Not all of their edits are problematic, but they often post conspiracy theory stuff, often antisemitic stuff, and they make the occasional personal attack. I'll try to put some example diffs together tomorrow, but I think that an anonblock on the /21 for a year would have little collateral, and is warranted, along with dome selectvive rev deletion of edit summaries and possibly edits. Happy to discuss if anyone thinks that's overkill. Girth Summit (blether) 19:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- A year sounds appropriate and matches how long they've been active. The page Baha'i Faith has been semi-protected twice in the last year, now looking back, they were both from this individual. If I'm reading this right, /20 should cover up to 255.255.240.0? Thanks for taking up the problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 20:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, some example diffs to illustrate what I'm seeing:
- Linkspam to YouTube
- Antisemtic linkspam
- A rant with some linkspam
- Linkspam to YouTube
- Weird rant
- Antisemtic linkspam
- Linkspam, insulting Baha'i faith
- Antisemtiic rant
- Conspiracy theory trolling
- Conspiracy theory trolling
- Anti Baha'i conspiracy theory trolling
- Insults to Baha'i
- Conspiracy theory YouTube linkspam
- There's plenty more. Again - would anyone object to a year long range block on the /21? Cuñado, the /21 is a subset within the /16, so it would only affect addresses beginning 172.58.x.x. All the edits I found came from within that range. Girth Summit (blether) 08:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, I don't see any downside to blocking the /21. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Black Kite. Looking at the block log, I see this isn't the first time this has happened - ST47 CU blocked the same range for a year in January 2020, which probably explains why the problematic diffs I'm seeing started up in January 2021. I've blocked for another year. Cuñado, if you see similar editing from a different range, or from an account, feel free to let me know and I'll take a look. Girth Summit (blether) 10:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, I don't see any downside to blocking the /21. Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).
|
|
- Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.
- Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
- The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.
- Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
- An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.
Lost the history in a messed up move HELP!
I think it’s because I started the move from the talk page. Talk:Sarray was meant to be a move from Talk:Sereee which has vanished entirely. It all went downhill from there. I managed to somehow get the talk page into the history of Sarray [5]. Although that version doesn’t have the permalink. When I make a mess I make a strange one. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Checking... Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like nothing is "lost" but that you merged the talk page in to the article. This is likely going to require a revision-by-revision review to sort out. — xaosflux Talk 18:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux yes and I feel terrible about it. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- [6] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's fixable - will just take time. Suggest that whomever volunteers for this protect all those pages while sorting it out. — xaosflux Talk 18:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux yes and I feel terrible about it. Doug Weller talk 18:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I’ve got the talk page history back where it should be - or most of it. I’ll go through the revisions again to check for any I may have missed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Missed a couple. Back to the grindstone... Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Malcolmxl5 really sorry. I think I must have been more fatigued than I thought I was, but that won’t happen again (doing tricky stuff while fatigued, I expect fatigue to be with me for a while). Doug Weller talk 19:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think it’s sorted now though I might have lost a couple of bot edits, hmm. Take care of yourself @Doug Weller. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think it’s sorted now though I might have lost a couple of bot edits, hmm. Take care of yourself @Doug Weller. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Malcolmxl5 really sorry. I think I must have been more fatigued than I thought I was, but that won’t happen again (doing tricky stuff while fatigued, I expect fatigue to be with me for a while). Doug Weller talk 19:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Missed a couple. Back to the grindstone... Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
GiantSnowman and a bad UPOL block
The block has been reversed by Samwalton9, and GiantSnowman has acknowledged the mistake.Administrators are reminded that anthroponyms vary widely across languages and cultures. To avoid the human-equivalent of the Scunthorpe problem, administrators should consider talking with editors before making a username block. GiantSnowman is further reminded of his active editing restriction and should be more careful with username blocks in the future. Any further concerns should be raised at WP:AE per the restriction text. — Wug·a·po·des 04:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few minutes ago, GiantSnowman blocked Brakshit23 on the basis that their name is a upol violation, at least 3 different users have inquired about this and informed them that this is not only heavy handed but an incorrect interpretation of WP:UPOL. Since then, GS has doubled down and I wanted to bring this to the community's attention as I think it's a bad block, at least for being a UPOL violation and would open up the door to blocking a lot of non-Western names based on our own ignorance (there are many Hindi names that contain some variation of "-shit" and are not in fact curse words or violations. There is no indication that the username was intended to be or is disruptive and a little bit of common sense should be applied. I have tried to reason with GS, as has Kinu and JBW but have been met with resistance. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- An example of how common this is: Akshit, Ashit, Bashit, Nashit, Rakshit and I could go on. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I saw the word 'Shit', googled 'Brak Shit' to see if it was genuine, it was not, so I blocked as per WP:DISRUPTNAME. If the user in question explains their name (something they have yet to do), I'm happy to unblock. If another admin wants to unblock, go for it. GiantSnowman 18:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- We shouldn't be requiring users whos names aren't actually disruptive or otherwise UPOL vios to explain their usernames based on our own ignorance of non-Western culture. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Respected Learned people of wikipedia. Don't want to disrespect anyone over here. This matter is changing its track.
- 1st my 2 articles got deleted after being reviewed successfully.. I can show you same pages with similar language but not gets deleted.
- 2nd if my name is concern mindwell. google it or use wiki for the refrence of my name. in Brakshit B stands for my last name and rakshit for my given name. this has no futher intention to harm any one, damage someone by any mean. if you are not able to get the name and its meaning that doesn't mean you just remove it at your will.
- Absolutely unacceptable Brakshit23 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Agree this is a bad block and the user should be unblocked. I can't see how this username would make "harmonious editing difficult or impossible". Sam Walton (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Per GiantSnowman's comment above, I have unblocked this user. We shouldn't require every user with this syllable in their name explain it before editing. Sam Walton (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Re "I saw the word 'Shit', googled 'Brak Shit' to see if it was genuine", try searching for "brakshit" without inserting a space. Rakshit appears to be a genuine name, and some people have the initial B. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of this now. GiantSnowman 19:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You were aware of it when you were told on the user talk page, but you refused to listen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was not aware when I made the block. I said I was happy for an unblock, and apologised. What else do you want from me? GiantSnowman 19:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You were aware when I told you on your talk page, the blocked users talk page, you were aware when Kinu and JBW told you but didn't back down until I brought it to AN - which required yet another administrator's review (and it shouldn't have, admins are not the be all end all of policy based discussions.) PRAXIDICAE💕 19:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- What do we want now, GS? What I'd like to see is some reassurance that in future you will listen when multiple people tell you you are wrong, and not just double down and refuse to budge until dragged to AN. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did listen and move to unblock, although
probablylater than I should have. This is AN, not ANI, and bringing it here was entirely unnecessary as the discussion elsewhere was not exhausted. GiantSnowman 19:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)- Your response here is indicative of a larger problem, you had three people, at minimum telling you that it was a bad block and your response was doubling down even more, not to mention it's factually inaccurate to say that you moved to unblock and this thread was useless, since it took this exact discussion for you to say that the unblock could be undone and still have failed to admit that you were incorrect and haven't reassured anyone that you'll be more cautious going forward, which as Levivich pointed out and later removed, was part of the restrictions of your arbcom case (which I wasn't aware of until this thread.) PRAXIDICAE💕 19:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, I did move to unblock after Ponyo's comment, but Samwalton9 had already unblocked. I've already apologised and I've already said I should have unblocked sooner. My 'doubling down' was genuinely nothing of the sort, I was merely trying (poorly) to explain why I had blocked. I should have unblocked before doing that. GiantSnowman 19:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's interesting, because Ponyo commented 3 minutes after you commented here, which contradicts your statement.
- I have no doubts it was an attempt at good faith (the blocking) but I do not think your responses were appropriate and it brings into question your judgement and ability to appropriately use tools. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Eh? Ponyo commented 19:55, I saw that and then moved to unblock but Sam Walton beat me to it, and I commented at 19:58 to state that. Stop trying to twist and mis-represent what happened. GiantSnowman 19:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, no, the diffs clearly show Ponyo commenting at 18:55, and you commenting here, with caveats no less at 18:53.
I saw the word 'Shit', googled 'Brak Shit' to see if it was genuine, it was not, so I blocked as per WP:DISRUPTNAME. If the user in question explains their name (something they have yet to do), I'm happy to unblock. If another admin wants to unblock, go for it. GiantSnowman 2:53 pm, Today (UTC−4)
,This is a really bad block GiantSnowman. It wasn't done in bad faith, but now that it has been explained that it's a common surname, please undo the block.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 2:55 pm, Today (UTC−4)
, so yet another example of you doubling down when you're wrong, or is it that you only listen to admins because that's the feeling I'm getting. And it doesn't address your violation of your restrictions imposed by arbcom. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)- Sorry, what are you trying to say/show here? The 18:53/19:53 comment by me was before Ponyo commented at 18:55/19:55, and was before I had realised I had messed up and moved to unblock. That is why my 18:53/19:53 comment is 'unblock if you want' and not 'I will unblock'. Like I have said, it was after Ponyo bluntly commented that I finally realised I had messed up and moved to unblock. I did not breach my restrictions and if you disagree feel free to haul me back to ARBCOM over this. GiantSnowman 19:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're still not getting it and you still haven't addressed my question about restrictions either. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, I get it fully - and like I say, I did not breach my restrictions. GiantSnowman 19:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
"He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings"
is there a carve-out for UPOL blocks? I don't see any interaction with the user at all until this edit which you informed them of the block. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)- There is a carve out for obvious vandalism. I understand that UPOL blocks of this nature are captured within that. If I had blocked 'fuckpoop69' would you have accused me of breach? GiantSnowman 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, but you didn't and your behavior and attitude after the block are the problem here, not to mention that if this is your interpretation of blatant disruption or vandalism as a username, I seriously have to question your judgement. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked purely because of the word 'shit', as I have explained many times - and you yourself have acknowledged that it was a good faith block. So why do you now change your mind to question my judgment in making the block? Question my judgment in not unblocking, for sure, I have already held my hands up and admitted I made a mistake in that. GiantSnowman 19:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, but you didn't and your behavior and attitude after the block are the problem here, not to mention that if this is your interpretation of blatant disruption or vandalism as a username, I seriously have to question your judgement. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is a carve out for obvious vandalism. I understand that UPOL blocks of this nature are captured within that. If I had blocked 'fuckpoop69' would you have accused me of breach? GiantSnowman 19:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, I get it fully - and like I say, I did not breach my restrictions. GiantSnowman 19:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're still not getting it and you still haven't addressed my question about restrictions either. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, what are you trying to say/show here? The 18:53/19:53 comment by me was before Ponyo commented at 18:55/19:55, and was before I had realised I had messed up and moved to unblock. That is why my 18:53/19:53 comment is 'unblock if you want' and not 'I will unblock'. Like I have said, it was after Ponyo bluntly commented that I finally realised I had messed up and moved to unblock. I did not breach my restrictions and if you disagree feel free to haul me back to ARBCOM over this. GiantSnowman 19:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Uh, no, the diffs clearly show Ponyo commenting at 18:55, and you commenting here, with caveats no less at 18:53.
- Eh? Ponyo commented 19:55, I saw that and then moved to unblock but Sam Walton beat me to it, and I commented at 19:58 to state that. Stop trying to twist and mis-represent what happened. GiantSnowman 19:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, I did move to unblock after Ponyo's comment, but Samwalton9 had already unblocked. I've already apologised and I've already said I should have unblocked sooner. My 'doubling down' was genuinely nothing of the sort, I was merely trying (poorly) to explain why I had blocked. I should have unblocked before doing that. GiantSnowman 19:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You listened only *after* this report was raised here, and after previously refusing to listen to multiple people on the user's talk page (and Ponyo's comment was after this AN report, and merely one of multiple telling you the same thing, the others which you argued with). This doesn't seem to be like you, GS - I don't associate you with the stubborn dismissal of your peers' concerns like this. Anyway, I'm going to go away now, and I suggest you might want to for a while too, and reflect on the way you have responded here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your response here is indicative of a larger problem, you had three people, at minimum telling you that it was a bad block and your response was doubling down even more, not to mention it's factually inaccurate to say that you moved to unblock and this thread was useless, since it took this exact discussion for you to say that the unblock could be undone and still have failed to admit that you were incorrect and haven't reassured anyone that you'll be more cautious going forward, which as Levivich pointed out and later removed, was part of the restrictions of your arbcom case (which I wasn't aware of until this thread.) PRAXIDICAE💕 19:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did listen and move to unblock, although
- Which is why I have opened this matter here as I don't think it's fully resolved - it shouldn't have taken an AN thread when GS had 3 editors, two of which are admins and all of which are in good standing telling GS it's a bad block, doubling down and then trying to put the onus on the blocked user to appeal. The whole thing is problematic. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was not aware when I made the block. I said I was happy for an unblock, and apologised. What else do you want from me? GiantSnowman 19:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You were aware of it when you were told on the user talk page, but you refused to listen. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Samwalton9 If I hadn't had to go offline to do some household chores I would have beaten you to it. Initially I thought this was an innocent mistake, and took it for granted that GiantSnowman would cheerfully revert the block as soon as it was pointed out to him, and give thanks for having been informed of the mistake, so that he could correct it. Instead, he took a line which I frankly regard as astonishing. His bizarre attempt now to pretend that he "was happy for an unblock", when anyone can see how he dug his heals in until he was brought to this noticeboard, makes it far worse. He made a mistake, instead of accepting that he had done so pretended it was no mistake and refused to correct it, and then when he found that he absolutely wasn't going to get his way pretended that he had accepted all along that it was a mistake. Totally ridiculous, and I'm afraid it doesn't give me confidence in him as an administrator. We all make mistakes, but not all of us play silly games instead of admitting that we've made mistakes. JBW (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I should have unblocked before I explained the reasons for the block, not after. However, saying I was trying to 'get my way' or 'playing silly games' is entirely bad faith. GiantSnowman 19:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- What you should have done, GS, was not carry on arguing after your error had been explained to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I should have unblocked before I explained the reasons for the block, not after. However, saying I was trying to 'get my way' or 'playing silly games' is entirely bad faith. GiantSnowman 19:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware of this now. GiantSnowman 19:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have to wonder what GiantSnowman would do to my friend with the surname Dikshit if she started editing Wikipedia under her real name. Please try to be a little more linguistically and culturally sensitive. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now that I am aware, obviously nothing. Expecting somebody to know every nuance of every culture is ridiculous. It is like 'Fanny', which is a common (if old fashioned) name in England but also slang for vagina (and buttocks in the USA I believe). If an admin blocked 'BigFanny22' in good faith, would you raise issue? Oh, and as I found out only when I travelled there, one of my real-life nicknames is slang for "masturbate" in another language. The same principal applies. GiantSnowman 20:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- People with such names get enough grief from ignorant thugs in English-speaking countries without Wikipedia administrators adding to it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You were informed by three different people though, so...your point, if there is one, is moot. PRAXIDICAE💕 20:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Now that I am aware, obviously nothing. Expecting somebody to know every nuance of every culture is ridiculous. It is like 'Fanny', which is a common (if old fashioned) name in England but also slang for vagina (and buttocks in the USA I believe). If an admin blocked 'BigFanny22' in good faith, would you raise issue? Oh, and as I found out only when I travelled there, one of my real-life nicknames is slang for "masturbate" in another language. The same principal applies. GiantSnowman 20:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm glad this was brought here, because I, too, agree it wouldn't have been resolved as quickly otherwise. Thanks to Praxidicae and everyone else who tried to explain GS's mistake to them. GiantSnowman, if you stopped digging and continuing to waste other editors' time, I think this thread should be closed, unless editors actually think GS should be punished for responding in the rather cringey way they did, on their talk page and here. I hope the message has now been received. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any need for any action to be taken against GS. Well, maybe that they should receive a WP:TROUT, which they must retrieve themselves from somewhere in North Lincolnshire. :) —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- You better watch out on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, GiantSnowsman: gian + man ≈ "evil savage". – Joe (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- GS, if you see "User:fuckpoop69", you should not block them, because of your restriction. Not only is a username violation not "obvious vandalism", it's not vandalism at all. The exception to your restriction isn't for "obvious blocks" or for "profanity". The reason that your restriction requires you to talk before blocking is to get you to talk before blocking because history shows you are not good at deciding when to block people, this being an excellent example of that. This guy posted to AN: if they needed to be blocked for their username, someone else will do it. Had you talked before blocking, you'd have learned this wasn't a username violation sooner, and we'd all have saved a lot of time. It took the combined efforts of like half a dozen people to fix your mistake and get you to see it. To avoid this time wasting, we have this restriction in place, which you have violated (and this isn't your first time). You're welcome for not dragging you to Arbcom. Instead of taking any such punitive actions, what I'm doing is talking to you first. So again to recap: next time you see someone who has a username you think is a violation, go to their talk page and ask them about it, instead of blocking. The next time you see anyone who needs to be blocked, just go to their talk page and talk to them first. Levivich 21:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- And another thing... I'm really dismayed by your "fuckpoop69" comment, because it shows you haven't learned the lesson about cultural sensitivity that you should be taking away from this: "fuckpoop" might actually be a real name in some culture, even if it's profanity in English. Similarly, although the number 69 has sexual connotations in your culture (and mine), it may not in all cultures. As an example, "88" means "heil Hitler" in some cultures and "good luck" in others. So "profanity in username" isn't really a great reason to block someone on sight without discussion. (And that's a general comment applicable to all admins.) Levivich 21:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- This looks like a variation of the Scunthorpe problem, though I rarely see it being done by a person. While I can sympathise with GS for the initial block, notwithstanding the points Levivich has raised about GS being under a restriction, due to cultural unfamiliarity with certain names, I cannot sympathise with the insistence in seemingly ignoring or otherwise not taking onboard good faith comments made by several members of the community. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- Here is the ArbCom case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman. I may comment further later. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Robert. Having looked at the remedies from the case, this does look like a clear cut violation of
1.2.2) He may not block an editor without first using at least three escalating messages and template warnings
as the first interaction between GS and Brakshit23 appears to be, unless I've missed it somewhere, the block notification. A quick glance at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions does not reveal that any of the sanctions have been rescinded. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Robert. Having looked at the remedies from the case, this does look like a clear cut violation of
request to edit a map
Hi. My name is Adam Smargon. My username on Wikipedia.org is Recycler1973.
I was recently browsing this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Collegiate_Hockey_Association
...and about one-third down the page, on the right side, are five thumbnails of maps of the United States. They are labeled:
A map of all ACHA D1 men's hockey teams // A map of all ACHA D2 men's hockey teams // A map of all ACHA D3 men's hockey teams // A map of all ACHA D1 women's hockey teams // A map of all ACHA D2 women's hockey teams
I looked at all five maps, and the third one -- "A map of all ACHA D3 men's hockey teams" -- can be found at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Collegiate_Hockey_Association#/media/File:ACHA_D3.png
and I noticed a slight typographical error. A school identified on the map at Tampa, Florida is identified as "Southern Florida."
That is an incorrect label. The full name of the school is the University of South Florida, and the proper abbreviation would be "South Florida", and not "Southern Florida."
I know, I know... why is a school not in South Florida [Miami/Fort Lauderdale] labeled "South Florida"? Read these two articles for a good explanation:
[1] https://www.thedailystampede.com/2011/8/24/2381670/heres-why-its-the-university-of-south-florida [2] https://www.tampabay.com/news/education/college/USF-works-to-remake-its-muddled-brand-Right-now-it-doesn-t-really-say-anything-_165934235/
Also, there is a law in Florida that states all four-year state-funded universities must have a name that includes the word "Florida" and the word "University." That's why the relatively-new four-year state-funded university in Fort Myers, which first started classes in 1997, is called Florida Gulf Coast University. The one in Miami is called Florida International University. (The University of Miami is a private school.)
Anyway, so that map needs to be edited... but I don't know who to contact, and I don't know HOW to contact the responsible person.
Can you help me? I hope so.
Thanks in advance! I love Wikipedia; I use it almost every day, and I have financially contributed to it. I hope to do so again.
Sincerely,
Adam Smargon // Southfield, Michigan USA // Recycler1973 (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Recycler1973: You've posted on the administrator's noticeboard, which is rather like going to the police station to order a burger. You probably want to go to the WP:HELPDESK or WP:VILLAGEPUMP instead for friendly requests. Anyway, I presume you mean commons:File:ACHA D3.png? It's not a locked map or anything. You can go download the map (link), edit it in your favorite image editor to remove "ern" from "Southern", and upload a new version of the map to Wikimedia Commons - your account should work fine over there too. Just click on the link that says "Upload a new version of this file" on the description page I linked. SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you need help editing the image, you can file a request at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab.— Diannaa (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've made the corrections to the PNG requested and uploaded them over the older file (along with another few mis-ID'ed schools). This is probably why many sports conference maps have moved to a blank map with universities overlaid on another layer, but at least the file wasn't hard to work with. Nate • (chatter) 23:07, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Please look out cross-wiki abuse and LTA User:米記123 sock DE and spam 13
Special:Contributions/116.48.104.0/24,please block it,thanks.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 10:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked by Sergecross73. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked. I've dealt with this spammer many times before. They're generally extremely easy to spot, so you can report them to me whenever you see them and I'll block them ASAP. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked. I've dealt with this spammer many times before. They're generally extremely easy to spot, so you can report them to me whenever you see them and I'll block them ASAP. Sergecross73 msg me 13:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Some IP range have been blocked for other admin,but I feel you can look out Special:Contributions/219.77.200.0/22,if this IP range have edit,you can blocked it.--MCC214#ex umbra in solem 14:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Hurricane Cindy tornado outbreak
Consensus was found to merge two months ago but wasn’t carried out. Can someone help out? 74.101.118.197 (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I guess Hurricanehink (who is familiar with the subject and who supported the merge) would be in a better position to help. M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Done ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
question
OP blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My question is, is Wikipedia: Arbitration Committee a threat outside the wiki?--Liyan baboo (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure what you mean by that, but the article that you linked to explains in details what it is. M.Bitton (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Don't threaten to sue people in any context and no one will mention WP:NLT. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not threaten anyone, they slandered me that I am a sock and I mentioned the user's wrong reasons and said I am not a sock, but the user said do not send any more messages and I announced that I will follow up after the inspection in the jury. USER send Message me That My account has been closed due to a legal threat. Liyan baboo (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, they told you not to post on their talk page, so you posted again to say you would sue them before arbcom. Don't do that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not threaten anyone, they slandered me that I am a sock and I mentioned the user's wrong reasons and said I am not a sock, but the user said do not send any more messages and I announced that I will follow up after the inspection in the jury. USER send Message me That My account has been closed due to a legal threat. Liyan baboo (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Can a Breitbart link be whitelisted?
How can I ask for a link to a Breitbart article to be whitelisted? I thought Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist would be the place for it, and posted a request there,[7] but that has now languished for nearly a week without reply. Perhaps the page isn't very closely watched. Is there a better place, or can anybody here help?
This is the issue: I added some material to Moms for Liberty a week ago, principally about the ideology of that group, making use of this new source. One point I (and the source) made was that right-wing media had welcomed Moms for Liberty soon after the group was incorporated, for instance The Rush Limbaugh Show, Naomi Wolf at Tucker Carlson Tonight, Breitbart News, and Newsmax. The Jeeded article in The New Republic, my source, provided links to the relevant articles/features in these conservative outlets, which I read and used. Those links were evidence that they had welcomed Moms for Liberty, and also threw an interesting light on how they had done so, I thought. They were examples of what I was talking about. However, Breitbart, perhaps the best-known of them, is blacklisted, so my attempt to publish its link was rejected. I don't believe the blacklist is intended to exclude the use of a Breitbart article as an example, but more to exclude it as a source for facts, since Breitbart is unreliable (duh). Bishonen | tålk 06:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC).
- @Bishonen, MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist? You could of course just skip the url. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure why I'd want to skip the url? It's interesting. Anyway, thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I think I'll have to rest up for a few days before engaging with the, well, I won't say hostile, but incredibly off-putting instructions on the whitelist talkpage. No, I will say hostile. Bishonen | tålk 09:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC).
- @Bishonen I meant skip the url parameter as part of your cite, but still cite the Breitbart-whatever with all the other cite-info you have. Not many people know this ;-), but url:s are not mandatory in WP-cites. Interested readers will have to make the effort to google the Breitbart article title. Though in this particular case, someone could see it like you are trying to cheat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bishonen@Gråbergs Gråa Sång this is my fault. I got confused about what I did and told Bish to go to the blacklist page instead of the whitlist page. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- What does the whitlist have to do with it? And feel free to add this response to your witlist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Gråbergs Gråa Sång see my request here Doug Weller talk 15:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- What does the whitlist have to do with it? And feel free to add this response to your witlist. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bishonen@Gråbergs Gråa Sång this is my fault. I got confused about what I did and told Bish to go to the blacklist page instead of the whitlist page. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Bishonen I meant skip the url parameter as part of your cite, but still cite the Breitbart-whatever with all the other cite-info you have. Not many people know this ;-), but url:s are not mandatory in WP-cites. Interested readers will have to make the effort to google the Breitbart article title. Though in this particular case, someone could see it like you are trying to cheat. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure why I'd want to skip the url? It's interesting. Anyway, thanks, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I think I'll have to rest up for a few days before engaging with the, well, I won't say hostile, but incredibly off-putting instructions on the whitelist talkpage. No, I will say hostile. Bishonen | tålk 09:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC).
Please redact this edit summary
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An IP vandalism only account left an obnoxious edit summary, could someone please disappear it? Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks Roy NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protection of Talk:Sex?
I've requested this in the past but was told that semi-protection of talk pages is only done in extreme cases. While there are more than a small handful of talk pages with such protection, I thought it would be best to open this matter to discussion for more admins than the one or two who might handle the request at RPP.
The current level of disruption and constant attention needed by editors to keep the blatant vandalism off the talk page (history) is actively impacting our ability to discuss and improve the article itself. For example, S Marshall's thread from almost two months ago has received no comments. I didn't even notice he had started it due to the IP defense permanently occupying the watchlist. Allowing IPs to edit this talk page is actively hurting the ability of Wikipedia to cover the topic and something must be done to address this. We all know that edit notices rarely prevent this kind of vandalism and FAQs won't do anything either. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 08:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do not believe we should be semi protecting talk pages just because IPs post childish crap at an average of maybe once or twice a week. As far I can see, most of the dumb stuff was reverted within a day or so. If you're missing out of stuff you may want to consider how you use talk pages. Ultimately if you're going to miss out on an important thread just because someone posted something else sometime after, this is likely to happen even without IP's posting dumb stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note that it's also not like all IP contributions are childish crap, e.g. Talk:Sex/Archive 11#No justification for blanket reversion and Talk:Sex/Archive_9#Philosophy of biology Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking through the history it's pretty clear these purile edits are annoyingly regular, and the page is an obvious vandalism target. However, as others have said, they are usually reverted very quickly. If this was an article with a semi-protection request I'd be minded to decline on the basis that the vandalism isn't frequent enough to warrant it - the childish edits are often days apart so it's not as if the page is being spammed several times a day. WP:RBI should suffice with this level of vandalism. WaggersTALK 09:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm confused what you mean by "If you're missing out of stuff you may want to consider how you use talk pages", Nil Einne. As far as I know the only way to keep track of what is going on in that talk page without seeing the IP posts would be to edit my watchlist filter to not see IP posts, which would be detrimental to my ability to engage with IPs in other talk pages or noticeboards. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ixtal: you can visit a talk page which interests you rather than just relying on your watch list. As I said your current method clearly isn't working. I don't really know what you're doing now but I guess you're only looking at the latest edit on your watchlist and deciding if it's worth checking out. But if so, even if we put aside the IPs, your current method means if editor A posts an important thread and then editor B posts an unimportant (but not off-topic/vandalistic) thread which you decide to ignore or modifies some header or archiving settings, or replies to an existing thread you've decided your not interested in or fixes a typo in a comment you've already read, or does any of the hundreds of other things you may ignore, you're going to miss the important thread unless other people participate in it (and so it eventually shows up in your watchlist, but that would be the same for these IP edits). Clearly the problem isn't IP's posting dumb stuff, but the way you're monitoring talk pages isn't working for you. You cannot assume only the latest edit to a talk page matters since there's always a chance there may be intervening edits you've missed. I mean even if you're checking you're watchlist 24/7 which in itself is not realistic, I assume you've not checking it every minute. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would add that putting that aside, if your watchlist is the only method that works for you you could always set up a bookmark or whatever to help you more easily limit what you see on your watchlist for certain pages, while not affecting what you see on others. Yes it means you will need to check your watchlist in two different ways and won't help with the problems I identified above, but so be it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, the watchlist is just one example it is disruptive to editors in a way that is not inherently visible just by looking at the talk page history. Sadly I'm not aware of tools that show percentage of IP edits that have been reverted by time period, as that would show the stark picture I've experienced editing that talk page. Per my last manual count, 82% of IP edits were reverted and 95% of IPs were vandals. If I had the time to count further to the last few years the data would be much worse due to outliers affecting the percentages less. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 17:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would add that putting that aside, if your watchlist is the only method that works for you you could always set up a bookmark or whatever to help you more easily limit what you see on your watchlist for certain pages, while not affecting what you see on others. Yes it means you will need to check your watchlist in two different ways and won't help with the problems I identified above, but so be it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ixtal: you can visit a talk page which interests you rather than just relying on your watch list. As I said your current method clearly isn't working. I don't really know what you're doing now but I guess you're only looking at the latest edit on your watchlist and deciding if it's worth checking out. But if so, even if we put aside the IPs, your current method means if editor A posts an important thread and then editor B posts an unimportant (but not off-topic/vandalistic) thread which you decide to ignore or modifies some header or archiving settings, or replies to an existing thread you've decided your not interested in or fixes a typo in a comment you've already read, or does any of the hundreds of other things you may ignore, you're going to miss the important thread unless other people participate in it (and so it eventually shows up in your watchlist, but that would be the same for these IP edits). Clearly the problem isn't IP's posting dumb stuff, but the way you're monitoring talk pages isn't working for you. You cannot assume only the latest edit to a talk page matters since there's always a chance there may be intervening edits you've missed. I mean even if you're checking you're watchlist 24/7 which in itself is not realistic, I assume you've not checking it every minute. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note that it's also not like all IP contributions are childish crap, e.g. Talk:Sex/Archive 11#No justification for blanket reversion and Talk:Sex/Archive_9#Philosophy of biology Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Is there a metric for extreme cases? If a talkpage were to be semi-protected, it should be Talk:List of country calling codes. As I have raised elsewhere, it's essentially a magnet (although I have no idea why) for people without good IT skills to post their emails and phone numbers. CMD (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's the sort of thing which IMO would likely qualify as an extreme case as it's more than just dumb vandalism but instead may require significant amount of work to deal with and carries a bigger risk. Likewise BLP violations are another area we have low tolerance of so Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput is protected although it seems Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput hasn't needed to be. Talk:Race and intelligence is also protected, I think a high risk of disruption often more than just silly vandalism (probably a combination of genuine racists and trolls and a lot of socks thrown in, combined with an area very few IPs are likely to participate productively in. Both of those are also covered by AE. There are case where too many dumb edits can result in semi protection but they tend to be with significantly more edits. E.g. Talk:Ahmadiyya Caliphate is one when the Google knowledge graph does something which annoys some people. And in the past Talk:Justin Bieber was another. I think a difference in both those two cases (Caliphate and Bieber) have from here is also that it seems more likely in those cases if the people couldn't work out how to post, they'd just give up, but in this case I sort of feel more of the people involved are nire likely to post it somewhere else on Wikipedia i.e. where not avoiding the problem but spreading it elsewhere. I should perhaps give a caveat to what I said above. Personally I don't see the need for protection at Talk:Sex. However I may be willing to defer to those guarding against the nonsense. If they feel it's causing too much wasted effort then maybe I'd support since ultimately they're the ones who have to deal with it. But I don't feel watchlist confusion is a good enough reason with the numbers IMO not being that high. Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Since April, 4 different administrators have explained WP:ATPROT to Ixtal who has so far refused to take "no" for an answer. Ixtal first requested protection on 12 April which was declined by MelanieN with a thorough explanation of her decision. After the request was denied, Ixtal brought up this idea on the article talk page where Johnuniq explained on 13 April that the disruption was not significant enough for protection. A month later Ixtal requested protection again on 10 May which I declined for the same reason as the previous two administrators have given. Ixtal asked me to reconsider and Tamzin explained ATPROT. In this thread, Nil has once again explained to Ixtal our policy on protecting talk pages. This seems like text-book WP:ADMINSHOPPING, and needs to stop immediately.For reference, since I declined protection in May there have been 5 reverted non-AC edits: reverted in 5 minutes, a gap of 11 days before a bogus edit request (not obvious vandalism) which remained for 3 days until an editor actioned the request by removing it. In that 3 day period there was an instance of obvious vandalism which was reverted in 4 minutes, a gap of 10 days before IP vandalism which was reverted in 4 minutes, and then one more the next day which was reverted in 10 minutes. That's the "exceptional" level of vandalism that is supposedly preventing editors from working on the article. In the month since I declined protection, an IP writes some random characters and is quickly reverted about once a week. Every edit since Ixtal started requesting protection in April fits in the first 50 edits; you can double check every administrator's work over the past 3 months of declines without even having to press "next page". I'd hesitate to even protect an article with this little disruption, let alone a talk page. — Wug·a·po·des 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- In an off-wiki discussion, I linked Ixtal to quarry:query/64473, the 113 (at the time) talkpage semis on this wiki. Ignoring a few very short-term protections that just happened to be in effect at that time, they fall into four categories: serious long-term BLPvio, often in DS areas (as discussed by Nil Einne; see also Talk:Chaz Bono, Talk:Anita Sarkeesian); serious long-term socking (Talk:Grawp, Talk:List_of_lighthouses_in_Macau); massive lightning rods for disruption (see again Nil; overlaps with category 1 a lot, also things like Talk:Macedonia naming dispute); and finally things that frankly shouldn't be protected (I unprotected Talk:California Valley Miwok Tribe after ascertaining from the history that the protecting admin had intended to protect the article; Talk:Puppy also jumps out as a good candidate for unprotection). The applicable category here would be Category 3, and in that category, we only have a few where the disruption isn't political or religious in nature (and isn't about a page title that confuses newbies, like Talk:Forum): Talk:Poop, Talk:Roblox, maybe a few others depending how you slice it.Ixtal, I think you're making a leap in your logic, assuming that this disruption is affecting constructive collaboration. Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has only been protected for 15 hours of its existence, and has been disrupted relentlessly by some, and there has nonetheless been robust discussion on that page. The sad truth at Talk:Sex is that people don't like writing about broad concepts, and like it even less when that concept is in a DS area. And the sadder truth, I guess, is that most people who are really interested in it have agendas to push and eventually get TBANned or indeffed. I don't think there's an easy solution to that; if there is one, it's not walling off the page from a large portion (majority?) of our editors. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Discussion about MalnadachBot
I'm honestly not sure where to cross-post this, but I wanted to grab a bigger audience and I'm not sure if WP:CENTRAL is a reasonable place for it, so I went with here even though it isn't an admin issue. Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#MalnadachBot and watchlists has a discussion about MalnadachBot and its impact on watchlists. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
John Shoffner
Today, while I was patrolling recent changes, I encountered an IP editor adding content to John Shoffner. Part of their edit summary, "I was present and witnessed what happened to Mr. Shoffner.", which set off an alarm for me. I reverted the edit suspecting a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. After the IP reverted my edit, Snowmanonahoe reverted the IP and left a message on the IP's talk page referencing the edit summary of one of their previous edits ("If she wishes to verify what happened she can FOIA the Air Force Academy."). Snowmanonahoe then left a second message on the IP's talk page. As of the time of my writing, one of the IP's restorations of the content on the article has not been reverted ([8]). I brought this to the Administrator's noticeboard because I felt that none of the other noticeboards were appropriate for this situation and I thought that an admin would be experienced enough to deal with this kind of content. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Update: SkyWarrior reverted the IP's latest edit and warned the user. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop and My Little Pony Fan) 20:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- To explain my edits: the content being added is unsourced, at least not to a reliable source, and is undoubtedly original research. Since the article is a biography of a living person, that content should (if not needs to) be removed until a reliable source can be found and added.
- I believe the correct course of action is to just keep removing the content until the content can be verified via a reliable source; additionally, since the article is a BLP, continued removal of the content is exempt from 3RR. And if need be, a short block for the IP editor who keeps adding the unsourced content (
although they seem to have stopped, so a block isn't really needed now...) SkyWarrior 20:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)- While I was going to point to WP:BLPN to handle, I do wonder if an admin should rev-del all material related to the school. It does not appear to be readily available elsewhere. Regardless, IP should be page blocked at minimum as this is not a one day occurence.Slywriter (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- Just noting that both a rev-del of the related material and a pblock against the IP have been done by Tazmin. I think this can be closed as resolved. SkyWarrior 00:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, got a phonecall just as I was doing that, and didn't have time to comment here. If any other admin would rather make it a siteblock, feel free, but I went with a pblock to avoid collateral damage and because it let me get away with a longer time period (1 year) than I could justify for a siteblock probably. Btw, SkyWarrior, em before zee in my name, not that I take any offense.
:)
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, got a phonecall just as I was doing that, and didn't have time to comment here. If any other admin would rather make it a siteblock, feel free, but I went with a pblock to avoid collateral damage and because it let me get away with a longer time period (1 year) than I could justify for a siteblock probably. Btw, SkyWarrior, em before zee in my name, not that I take any offense.
- Just noting that both a rev-del of the related material and a pblock against the IP have been done by Tazmin. I think this can be closed as resolved. SkyWarrior 00:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- While I was going to point to WP:BLPN to handle, I do wonder if an admin should rev-del all material related to the school. It does not appear to be readily available elsewhere. Regardless, IP should be page blocked at minimum as this is not a one day occurence.Slywriter (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
IP user removing content for no good reason
Feel free to re-open this if you talk to the user but aren't able to resolve things. If you do so, please remember to notify them of this thread. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This IP user has removed content from three articles for no good reason. X-Editor (talk) 03:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Really? I see one unexplained removal in December, but then two removals this month that appear to be based on objections to the sources being used. Maybe you should talk to them about it? You haven't commented on their talk to even notify them of this thread, let alone to discuss the matter with them before bringing it here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed]; (she/they) 03:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- One just said "spam" in reference to Jacobin, which is reliable per WP:RSP. The other critiqued a video game scholar without further explanation. These are not good reasonings for removing the sources. X-Editor (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe you should talk to them about it.
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- One just said "spam" in reference to Jacobin, which is reliable per WP:RSP. The other critiqued a video game scholar without further explanation. These are not good reasonings for removing the sources. X-Editor (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
CFD backlog
Category:Cable_game_shows has been in CFD since May 18 with a clear consensus to delete, yet has not been deleted yet. I've noticed a severe backlog in CFD compared to other XFDs, to the point that I've seen discussions linger for months and months and months. Can someone just please put this one out of its misery already, along with any other outstanding CFDs? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)