Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Wikipedia:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
CfD	0	0	0	1	1
TfD	0	0	0	6	6
MfD	0	0	2	1	3
FfD	0	0	1	13	14
RfD	0	0	16	27	43
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 4 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 11 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 30 sockpuppet investigations
• 26 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 58 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 22 requested closures
• 57 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 7 Copyright problems

ZebulonMorn

Hi, ZebulonMorn (talk · contribs) has ignored continual warnings on a range of topics (manual of style in military icons, minor edit purpose, citing sources, and more recently has ignored consensus on a NPOV on a BLP article). Request admin intervention. --Engineerchange (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Engineerchange: can you provide the community with examples linked with WP:DIF's? Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: Some examples:

- Manual of style on military icons: [1], [2], [3], [4] (each of these edits are after the last warning on their talk page on Nov 29)

- Minor edit tag: [5], [6], [7], [8] (each from the last couple days)

- NPOV about BLP: [9], [10], [11] (user ignored feedback on their talk page and the page's talk page and has continued edit warring)

- not citing sources or adding info w/o support: [12], [13], [14], [15]

Hope this helps, --Engineerchange (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've made several changes to the articles ZM's added to. I would concur that this is POV pushing and it appears he opposes this Sheriff. I have no strong opinions on this individual, but at least some of the claims that he's made are not supported by WP:RS and are in violation of that policy as well as WP:BLP. If it continues, a block to get the point across would be appropriate. Buffs (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  ZM has continued to add negative/defamatory material about this individual against the general consensus of the editors involved. At this point, ZM, you need to use the talk page to come to a consensus. Otherwise, I support WP:PARTIALBLOCK as suggested by Deepfriedokra for further edits on this page. In addition, ZM has uploaded a CLEARLY copyrighted image straight from twitter and released it under a false license. At this point, ZM's attempt seems to be to besmirch the sheriff (no idea on the motive here). In Any case, a full block would be acceptable as well under WP:NOTHERE. Buffs (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Buffs: I obviously don't know ZM's personal motivations, but for a history of the threats and attacks made against Chitwood during his tenure, please see [16][17][18]. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• My inclination is a WP:PARTIALBLOCK from article space that can be unblocked if they answer here.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Hey! I'm getting in touch with you about a notice. Editing pages is pretty easy, but I'm still figuring out how to navigate the rest, so I'm sorry I put it in the talk page first. I've seen notices and some complaints, so first I should say nothing is intentionally nefarious. As far as the military edits go, I've figured that out, based on MOS:ICONDECORATION and MOS:FLAGCRUFT, so I've since ceased. I'm originally from Volusia and still technically have my residency there, so I do feel responsible and knowledgeable about the topics, however, after overwhelming pushback, I was clearly wrong. I don't work for any politicians nor am I associated with any, but there are people I find interesting and think have made an impact locally and should be included, but I get that requires a certain threshold and I was turned down. I'm not trying to get anyone in trouble or get myself blocked. Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy until the past few days or so and I haven't had any serious issues that I'm aware of since. I've made many edits since and most have been checked by Eyer. Happy to answer anything else if needed! ZebulonMorn (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Two questions for ZebulonMorn: 1) Do you have any personal connection to John Flemm (who you wrote a draft about which you then blanked and for some reason moved to Draft:John) or any other politicians in Volusia County, Florida? 2) Is there a reason that your userpage largely copies Eyer's, including the userbox saying how long you've been an editor? (This isn't an accusation of anything against Eyer, to be clear.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Something about mimicry and flattery, I guess? I'm curious to hear @ZebulonMorn's answer, too. —Eyer (he/him) If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message. 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  @ZebulonMorn, I don't see an answer to Tamzin's question about your userpage? -- asilvering (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Noting I have declined G7 on the draft because it is relevant to ongoing discussion here. No objection to G7 once discussion concludes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not an admin, but I was involved in previous discussions on the person's talk page, so is it acceptable for me to comment?

  The user in question has now deleted all past discussions on their talk page. I agree with above complaints that the user should at least be subjected to a partial block from editing articles about any Central Florida government officials. While Chitwood is the most egregious case, this user's entire edit history involves similar types of edits using unreliable sources in order to commit violations of WP:LP. The Chitwood article is not the only problem here, with this same user pushing a POV in the following edit [19] (a "minor" edit?) which had already been removed and reverted [20]. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 02:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would concur. Buffs (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

My issues with ZM have been his lack of edit summaries and the unwillingness to engage in discussion with multiple editors who warned him on his talk page, which recently appeared as this until he scrubbed the content without responding. Just today, he made this "minor edit"[21] under his own self-stated rationale that "Ignore all rules was the tongue-in-cheek philosophy" that he was editing, under, supposedly "until the past few days" but it never should have come this far.

@ZebulonMorn has made a lot of messes for other editors to clean up, which he is unwilling even to talk about, let alone go back and fix, even after being asked multiple times to fix his mistakes. A Full Block is warranted. BBQboffin^{grill me} 03:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was unclear on the use of "minor edit', I really didn't think it was too far, but I know better know. As far as that edit is concerned, was any of the information improperly sourced or unimportant? It hasn't been edited other than de-capitalization. I thought it was a good contribution that was similar other information under different offices. I'm really not trying to create "a lot of messes", I'm genuinely trying to contribute. As far as the engaging, that's my bad. I was still learning to figure out how to navigate wiki, but I've gotten better now. I'm not "unwilling" to talk though, I was trying to respond on talk pages for a couple days before I figured out this was the correct location, again my bad. I think a full block seems extreme, but that's not for me to decide. ZebulonMorn (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And, as I posted on your talk page before you ignored my comment and deleted it, please review our policies such as WP:OVERLINK. In this edit[22] for example, capitalizing words like "marketing", "full-time", "landscaping", "lifeguard", etc. are unnecessary. Cleaning up your messes like this and this takes time and effort. When another editor cites a rule that you broke, please read the rule and learn it, instead of joking about "ignore all rules" and making the same violation a dozen more times. BBQboffin^{grill me} 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization errors are clearly non-malicious edits and ignore all the rules, while tongue-in-cheek, is still official wiki policy. I've made over 1,000 edits, most of which remain unedited. If this is really the standard for a "full block", there's no point in anyone new genuinely attempting to edit wiki if they're blocked for capitalization mistakes.

Again, I apologize for not understanding what the discussion pages were and the lack of communication. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. ZebulonMorn (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

ZebulonMorn, can you respond to Tamzin's questions above? Spicy (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello! My response to Deefriedokra was kind of an amalgamation response to a few of the questions from people. I believe it was answered there, but if there is anything more specific I'm happy to answer. ZebulonMorn (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules", in full, says; If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. It does not mean that you can just do whatever you like. If other editors do not agree that your edit improved Wikipedia, or was necessary for maintenance, then it is not protected by "Ignore all rules." It does not excuse careless editing or flouting of policies and guidelines. Donald Albury 01:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It's been a week. Could an admin be so kind as to weigh in here? Regardless of your conclusion ZM doesn't deserve to have this hanging over his head indefinitely. Buffs (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll renew my concern... Buffs (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It's these kinds of edits that continue to concern me. The sheer volume of purported "reliable sources" that are being added by the user and us editors having to search and destroy which ones are valid. The user's continued argument that every source the user adds is "reliable" (see [23]). See [24] - both sources appear reliable, but have no reference to the subject, completely ignoring WP:RSCONTEXT. --Engineerchange (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Engineerchange Hey, you might want to check the conversation again and do your own research first. ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

These edits and conversations have been taking place just over the past few hours and are ongoing. It appears you missed both references. It would probably serve us all best to wait until we finish communicating before jumping into the noticeboard, especially when it's clearly premature. ZebulonMorn (talk) 17:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@ZebulonMorn: Respectfully, my comments are not premature; this noticeboard discussion is still active. Your insistence on adding more words to argue your point does not mean it meets WP:CONSENSUS. For instance, your comment "second source references Paul Terry visiting the school" is an example of a 'passing reference' to a topic, these are not WP:RS. Citing the Facebook page for that preschool is not a reliable source. --Engineerchange (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There are other WP:RS from the Orlando Sentinel, WOFL, and the county government. Facebook is just one source. I don't have control over WP:CONSENSUS, which is why were discussing on the nominating page? I'm explaining and defending my edits, as you're supposed to do. I'm also adding further information to the article that's been nominated for deletion, as is suggested to keep it from being deleted. ZebulonMorn (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

On an AfD for a preschool, they mentioned "The second source references Paul Terry visiting the school. Terry would later become notorious" (with sources about Terry), to which I replied "And did the school play any role at all in him becoming notorious? WP:NOTINHERITED." Instead of replying, they decided to add this information to the article[25], so now we have an article about a preschool containing a whole section about a deputy sheriff who "murdered his 10-year-old daughter and 8-year-old son before killing himself" in 2005, with the only connection being that the same person once visited that preschool in 1999! This raises serious WP:CIR issues. As the AfD nominator, I have not removed the info from the article, but it clearly doesn't belong there at all... Fram (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed. Rotary Engine ^talk 05:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to a bit of RCP

This has been announced elsewhere, but a rate-limited Newcomer Task for adding wikilinks based on machine learning suggestions has begun phased rollout following an RFC (involved as proposer; subsequently forgot).

Page watchers here may be interested in occasional checkins on Special:RecentChanges as filtered for the applicable tag (link kindly provided by asilvering at here). Manual assessment of the added links will help the community determine appropriate levels of reassurance / alarm. Folly Mox (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

When I checked these early on, they were universally good or at least "yeah sure, whatever" levels, but then we discovered that it had given the task out to 2% of all people with the homepage, not 2% of all new signups. So my conclusions based on that are 1) wow, experienced users use the newcomer homepage a lot more than I would have expected, and 2) it's probably pretty close to the right level of specificity. I've checked in a couple of times since then, but much less systematically, and found a few bad links. Newbies make bad links pretty often so I'm not sure that's cause for alarm, but if it's a systematic problem, we can tell the algo to get less creative.

So far it looks like new users really like this task! I'm stoked. -- asilvering (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering -- Do we know how much established users utilize the tool? I vaguely remember fiddling with it for a few minutes several months ago, and I'd guess others have done the same. JayCubby 01:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@JayCubby, what tool do you mean? This one has only just arrived on en-wiki, though you might have played with it elsewhere? It's available to everyone on simple-wiki I think. If you just mean the newcomer homepage... no idea. You'd have to come up with a specific stat you were interested in and ask Growth if they log those numbers. -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right, I muddled the two. JayCubby 12:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I just took my own advice and had another look at the RecentChanges tag, clicking through to sixteen diffs comprising 36 added wikilinks. Most actually made sense, although the proportion of "sure i guess" is a little bit higher than optimal. I reverted two links, both linking country names in the middle of sequences of multiple country names, which in addition to violating MOS:OL also makes them stylistically awkward (which I'm experiencing a lot of trouble believing is spelt correctly).

Somehow, I do remember warning about potential OL violations in an earlier conversation at Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features/Archive 7 § Usefulness of "Add links" task? (October 2023), but no exclusion list seems to have been implemented. Maybe we can try to convince Growth to add one before the rollout is expanded much further? Folly Mox (talk) 11:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox, what do you have in mind as an "exclusion list"? Something like a list of country names, which we'd then prevent the task from suggesting to users? -- asilvering (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I should add that I think if we tell the algo to get less creative, it's my expectation that we would get more of this kind of linking happening, since I assume the outcome would be to aim it to more common words. But I have no idea what's actually behind that number, eg, is it "links that tend to get reverted less often" (great! nevermind!) or is it "links that exist on the encyclopedia in higher numbers" (probably terrible! my expectation). -- asilvering (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The list I suggested last year was the one already in use at User:Ohconfucius/script/Common Terms.js, which is rather unfortunately formatted as hundreds of regex function calls, but fully compliant with MOS:OL. (I happen to feel that removing links to all subnational political divisions and major international cities is overzealous as applied by the user script here, but I think not suggesting them is wholly acceptable.)

I do feel like I remember seeing somewhere that years and units of measurement were programmed never to be suggested. As a minimum shippable prototype I'd begin with a list of all UN member states. Presumably the algorithm is trained not to suggest linking basic ass vocabulary like human and forest.

Having forgotten even of the existence of a "creativity" parameter, I'll have to do some reading to form an opinion about it, but on the off chance that turning it up increases slightly inaccurate niche suggestions and decreases boring VA1, first two months of language learning vocab style topics, I'd be in favour. Folly Mox (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Before you confuse any WMF staff with my unclear wording, I went to the community config to check what it's actually called: "Minimum required link score". The only documentation there is Minimum confidence threshold for link suggestions. This field requires a percentage in its decimal form, so the number should be between 0 and 1. If you increase the number, the suggestions presented to the end user will have a higher likelihood of being good suggestions, however fewer suggestions will be available. If you decrease the number, there will be more suggestions available but some will have a lower likelihood of being good quality suggestions. I haven't gone digging to see if there's anything more illuminating available elsewhere. -- asilvering (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I think English Wikipedia would most benefit from a value at the higher end of the scale here. We have tons of articles, including very specific topics. There should always be both of: good suggestions and articles that the algorithm can add to the task pool. That is, we have no shortage of either articles to link to or link from, probably to a greater degree than any other project in the ecosystem other than Wiktionaries. Folly Mox (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox that's assuming that "good suggestions" means "what en-wiki editors think are good suggestions", and I don't know that that's true. Worth fooling around with once we have a higher % of editors on the test though, for sure. -- asilvering (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that assumption, which I hadn't really noticed myself assuming.

I found some more documentation linked from :mw:Growth/Personalized first day/Structured tasks/Add a link § Engineering. It looks like the variable we're discussing affects precision and recall – Pattern-recognition performance metrics. There's a more detailed writeup at meta:Research:Link recommendation model for add-a-link structured task, and a white paper on the model at Gerlach, Martin; Miller, Marshall; Ho, Rita; Harlan, Kosta; Difallah, Djellel. (2021) "A Multilingual Entity Linking System for Wikipedia with a Machine-in-the-Loop Approach". arXiv: 2105.15110 The most relevant sections are 5.2–5.4.

I do still think that, given this software is designed to scale across all language Wikipedias, the largest Wikipedia should be able to afford a very high Minimum required link score. Folly Mox (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Although if this works like I imagine it does, we might be a good test case for a very low precision parameter. In some cases we may want lower confidence links. If the algorithm decides to link something in the string "Nigerian politician", it might be dead certain on "[[Nigeria|Nigerian]] politician" and "Nigerian [[politician]]", both clear MOS:OL violations, and less confident about "[[Politics of Nigeria|Nigerian politician]]", which would be overwhelmingly preferable to everyone here if a link were to be added. Folly Mox (talk) 17:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

To reply to myself yet again, the rollout and rate limit are strict enough that all edits of this kind can be reasonably reviewed by one or two editors. I checked all of these since my previous look, reverting one link and retargetting another. In both of these cases, the (very new) editors should have rejected the suggestion; I don't really blame the algorithm for suggesting them.

One extremely promising phenomenon I noted is that in two cases, editors who added suggested links subse­quently made unprompted copyedits to the article (although the second case wasn't really an improvement, it does support the hypothesis that accepting link sugge­stions can act as a gateway drug).

The single instance of poor model behaviour I saw this batch is reflected at Special:Diff/1261717277, where it makes the suggestion (accepted by the newcomer) to append a third consecutive wikilink to an existing pair of consecutive wikilinks in violation of MOS:SOB. The target is fine and linking it is reasonable, but the placement should not have been suggested.

Something this model seems to do really well is choose articles to add outlinks into. I wish we could use that bit of it for the copyedit task as well: a lot of our articles are underdeveloped and unmaintained, and would benefit from additional review, even by newcomers unfamiliar with our guidelines. But the cleanup templates we throw onto articles (which add the articles to the task pool) typically signify experienced editors having given up on addressing the problem noted, and usually outmatch the skillsets and knowhow of fresh newcomers. Just pointing them at the articles I'm seeing targetted by the Suggested Links algorithm might make for a better introduction to editing (exceptions noted). Folly Mox (talk) 11:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the above. -- asilvering (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Honestly the problem with that "poor model behavior" diff isn't the model, it's that the article has three technical terms in a row and needs recasting to remove that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Talk:Rajiv Dixit#RFC can we say he peddaled false hoods in the lede

Rajiv Dixit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Compassionate727 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: [26]

Reasoning: This topic is about Rajiv Dixit, who was noted for spreading disinformation and was a conspiracy theorist. He claimed that 9/11 was an inside job, promoted Ayurveda, recommended cow urine, just to name a few.

The RfC happened over the inclusion of the sentence which noted the nature of him making such false claims. The vote count was split but the opposers were entirely problematic.

1 oppose was outright meaningless,[27] claiming that the subject is a WP:BLP despite it has been more than 14 years that the subject is dead. 2 of the opposers only demanded more context[28] [29](further explanation) which was provided with this edit. The remaining 2 opposes[30][31] only falsely claimed that the cited sources are unreliable without providing any evidence of unreliability, nor did they refute the information supported by these reliable sources.

The RSN discussion where nobody agreed if the concerning sources are unreliable. If the discussion had to be initiated today, then still nobody would seriously agree if the cited sources are unreliable.

Compassionate727 has failed to address any of these issues with their problematic closure. This closure should be overturned. - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-participants(Rajiv Dixit)

• Endorse Frankly, this challenge is very, very, very weak. It should be withdrawn immediately. Good close. Nemov (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse closer correctly identified the arguments that had worth and discarded those that did not. No-one seriously refuted Hipal's penetrating argument. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn - The RfC was not the right place for disputing the 2 highly cited sources[32][33] as unreliable. We have WP:RSN for it. Given the RSN thread failed to prove the sources as unreliable, the RfC had to be focused on the authenticity or the weight of the information. The closer had to close in favor of the inclusion since nobody disputed the authenticity or the importance of the information. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  The RSN thread only received participation from three people, all of whom also participated in this discussion, and it discussed the sources less thoroughly than this discussion did. There is no policy anywhere saying that the reliability of sources may only be discussed at RSN. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? Everyone knows you can only discuss BLPs at WP:BLPN, original research only at WP:NORN, neutrality only at WP:NPOVN, the MOS only at WT:MOS! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727 When the sources have been widely used throughout Wikipedia and there is not a single valid reason to term them as unreliable then you must use only WP:RSN for discussion. Your supervote on the RfC contradicts this practice. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Compassionate727 When the sources have been widely used throughout Wikipedia and there is not a single valid reason to term them as unreliable then you must use only WP:RSN for discussion. Your supervote on the RfC contradicts this practice. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  I can't comment on how the source is being used elsewhere, and this discussion wasn't about that. It was about, in the part that proved most salient, whether the two sources were sufficiently reliable for a particular claim in a particular article. A source may be sufficiently reliable for some claims and not for others, so it is perfectly reasonable to discuss a source's reliability in the context of particular claims, and the relevant article's talk page is a perfectly reasonable forum for such a discussion.

  Arguments that the cited sources were not sufficiently reliable for a claim that Dixit "is known for spreading disinformation" were discussed extensively. I pointed to them on my talk page, and they have been cited by participants here. Your and others' continued insistence that there is not a single valid reason to doubt their reliability, without any attempt to address why the reasons that were given aren't compelling, strikes as WP:IDHT behavior. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse, reasonable close based on evaluating participation. As additional commentary, it doesn't seem the most useful RfC. The lead is only 58 words, adding something vague is not going to help it much. A more developed lead may be able to present the information at hand in context. CMD (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen. The consensus claimed by the closer does not appear to reflect the overall sense of the discussion. No opinions on the actual merits. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn - It was inappropriate to smear the reliable sources as unreliable when they are only reporting about the examples of fake news promoted by the conspiracy theorist in question. Even more inappropriate was the closure who endorsed such an invalid view without looking into the contrary views that easily outweighed the former. No issue with reopening. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse Upon reviewing the discussions, I observe multiple missed opportunities to provide substantial arguments to justify the inclusion of the sources in question. Whether in the lead, the body (or both), if the sources are not reliable, the content cannot be incorporated into the article. Case closed. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen per David Eppstein ArvindPalaskar. The closure does seem to be a supervote and has failed to analyze the consensus which was absolutely not in favor of exclusion. Dympies (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen - A one-sided closure mostly based on problematic/debunked opinions cannot be a valid closure. Lorstaking (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Participants(Rajiv Dixit)

• Overturn - The closure was nothing more than a brief WP:SUPERVOTE. Capitals00 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse, I agree with Nemov in that this is a very weak challenge. Ratnahastin just wants to re-litigate and re-argue the RfC, that's not what challenges are for. Good close. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion(Rajiv Dixit)

• I'm very puzzled. A lead is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents. The sentence addressed in the RfC He was also noted for spreading false claims is not reflective of anything in the body of the article. Why even debate that for the lead without discussing whether something should be in the body about the claims? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Rsjaffe: See this section at that time of the RfC. It did have enough details about Rajiv Dixit pioneering the trend of fake news in India and the article also cited the examples where he spread disinformation. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  What I'm getting at is the RfC asked the wrong question. The arguments were not about the suitability of the lede, but about the suitability of stating anywhere in the article that Dixit spread false claims. The current version of the article reflects that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 04:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  No. It was about the lead as clearly described by Slatersteven by saying "Simple enough can we say "He was also noted for spreading false claims." in the lede or words to that effect?"[34] - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  That's rsjaffe's point: the phrasing of the RFC, focusing on the lede, was a mistake. It's clear that there's still arguments whether such a statement should be in the article at all, and that needs to be resolved before we can do anything about the lede. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with @Rsjaffe & @HandThatFeeds, RfC should have focused on the content, not the lead. Regardless, the conclusion remains the same - these sources in question do not merit inclusion in the article. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  It makes no sense to question the RfC which was focused on lead over the sentence which was completely in line with MOS:LEAD. Nobody did that when the RfC was opened for months. Capitals00 (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  Curious. My understanding of reopening this matter here is to gain fresh perspectives, so the fact that nobody questioned the RfC while it was active seems irrelevant. What’s more telling is that the original arguments raised against the inclusion of the content have yet to be addressed as pointed out by @Compassionate727 [35]. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  The purpose of this thread is to discuss the closure of the RfC and it makes no sense to discuss the irrelevant. That response by Compassionate727 reads nothing more than a lame attempt to have the last word that's why nobody can take it any seriously. There was no concern over the cited sources. Capitals00 (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Appeal of my topic ban

TL;DR: on (roughly) the 20th anniversary of joining en.wiki, I'm appealing my years-long topic ban from BLPs.

After creating thousands of biographies (mainly of New Zealanders and/or academics) over more than a decade, on 25 Sept 2021 I created or expanded Kendall Clements, Garth Cooper, Michael Corballis, Doug Elliffe, Robert Nola, Elizabeth Rata, and John Werry with material on a then-current race controversy. I then continued editing as normal. Several months later (April '22) an editor raised issues with my edits of that day and I escalated to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1096#Drama_at_Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. After much discussion I received an indefinite topic ban from BLPs:

Stuartyeates is indefinitely topic banned from the subject area of biographies of living persons, broadly construed. (see Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community).

Since the topic ban I've done some editing of en.wiki (>2,000 edits, some patrols and some barnstars), but I've been mainly active on wikidata (>60,000 edits, no barnstars).

I accidentally broke the topic ban a couple of times as exemplified by my recent edits to John Dennison: I noticed a mistake on wikidata that was sourced to en.wiki; I fixed wikidata and then en.wiki before realising I wasn't allowed to make that edit and self-reverted (still not fixed on en.wiki at the time of writing). The first time this happened I reported it to the closing admin who indicated that if I caught myself and reverted it wasn't a problem (see User_talk:Swarm/Archive_21).

I'll readily admit that I went harder than I should have on 25 Sept 2021. I a non-BLP for the controversy was the right option. Mouthing off on twitter was the wrong option. I feel that I've done my time for what was clearly a one-off. If the topic ban is removed I'll not repeat that.

Full disclosure: I was involved in Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Department of Corrections (New Zealand) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stuartyeates/Archive. I have previous appealled this topic ban at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive347#Appeal_my_topic_ban_from_BLPs. The discussion at User_talk:"Fish_&_Chip"_flavoured_ice_cream#block_appeal may also be relevant.

It is my intention to notify Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board of this appeal, since all this is New Zealand-related and I have a long history with those folks. I'll also be notifying the closing admin. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors

Support unbanning. A single accidental mistake on a different wiki wouldn't violate topic ban on the ENWP slightly. Making BLPs is a risky task, I just made some BLPs which are a translation from RUWP, but one of them is nominated for deletion. Just be careful of the text and use sources carefully. Ahri Boy (talk) 11:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment @Stuartyeates: You've glossed over having deliberately violated WP:BLP as part of a disagreement with others. (Per @Jayron32 and Cullen328:'s opposes in last appeal.)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• I would want to hear from the other involved editors before endorsing a complete lifting of the restriction, but I will suggest limiting the restriction to "race/ethnicity topics involving living people"; that should ensure that Wikidata-related edits do not inadvertently violate a ban. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support lifting the ban or limiting it to the restriction suggested above, per my comments at the previous appeal. The ban seemed overbroad to me in the first place: yes, the conduct was egregious, but the remedy was not tailored. As I wrote two years ago, I've read Stuartyeates' statements then and now, and my honest take on the matter is that they know what they did wrong. I don't need to see further paragraphs of repenting in sackcloth and ashes to be convinced of that. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC) (Non-admin comment. I was visiting this page to check on another discussion and happened to see this thread.)
• Deeply concerned about the sheer number of alt accounts. It took some digging but I found this comment at an afd related to Donald Trump, which makes this a BLP issue. Another alt created a talk page for a blp. Perhaps not a huge deal in and of itself but technically a violation nonetheless. And Another afd comment by another sock, concerning a list of people, some of whom are alive. Creation of a redirect to a blp by another sock earlier this year. With so many other accounts, who knows what other violations may exist? I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction. Actually I don't support this unless and until Stuart restricts himself to one account for at least six months. It's not feasible to monitor fifty+ alts for violations. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• I concede that these are breaches of my topic ban, I'll take that on the chin. I'm sorry I made those edits, I shouldn't have. In my defense (a) They're 100% accidental (b) None of these appears to be related to the issues that led to the topic ban or contentious in any way (c) There are four of them, over the same time I count seven barnstar or barnstar-like awards on my talk archives, so they don't reflect the body of my work over that time. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Those are four that I found, my point stands that it is almost impossible to know how many more there may be considering the absurd number of alts you have. Barnstars don't change any of that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  I also find it hard to believe that you accidentally commented on Donald Trump. He's famously totally alive. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• I was prepared to advocate on your behalf... but I'm also concerned based on the number of accounts and what's gone on with them. I'm also looking through your talk page archives (#25 and #26) and noticing that the barnstars and related awards I'm seeing were actually mostly given by me. Archive 25 has 6 awards given by me as as the result of your participation in backlog drives, one for your participation / contributions for the year (end of year NPP award, given by Dr vulpes), and an AfC backlog drive award (from Robertsky). #26 has an NPP backlog drive award as well (also given by me). I do appreciate your contributions to NPP, but there is a bit of a difference in people going out of their way to give barnstars for great work and receiving them as the result of participation in backlog drives.

Anyways though, back to the key issue for me, your use of multiple accounts. JSS said "I couldn't possibly support this without an ironclad one-account restriction.", is this something you're willing to commit to @Stuartyeates? I personally don't understand your usage of, and the large amount of alts that you have. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose These alt accounts are a nonstarter for me (some blocked) as are the acknowledged breaches of the topic ban. If they were inadvertent or debatable, I could possibly see fit to give them some slack, but what I'm seeing here doesn't give me a good feeling that lessons have been learned. Show us you can abide for at least 6 months and commit to a single account and I would reconsider. Buffs (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Why I use alts

About 15 years ago during a round of the eternal "should all newcomers be welcomed (by a bot)?" discussion, some HCI person wrote a blog post on a long-defunct uni blog site. They said experienced editors are underestimating (a) how many new users are being welcomed (we only see the problems) and (b) the retention bonus of real human interaction. They challenged us to create a new user account and try editing using it for a while. Some of us did. Some of us found that editing with a clean account removed distractions (no watchlists to watch, no alerts to check, no !votes to vote in because we weren't allowed, no tools to use, no noticeboards like this to update, etc) and that we enjoyed focusing on the barebones editing, usually wikignoming. Discussion about the welcoming issue were less clear cut, but led to a bit of a game, where you see how many edits you can go without getting a user talk page. The game got harder when some wikis introduced auto-welcoming and clicking on an interwiki link lost you the game.

Most of my 'game' edits were tidying up backlogs so minor / obscure they're not even tracked as backlogs. So https://quarry.wmcloud.org/';%20drop%20database%20prod; is a series of queries finding old articles without a talk page (and thus not assigned to wikiproject) so I can add them to wikiprojects. The username is taken from the cartoon at https://xkcd.com/327/ . For the last decade, me 'game' editing was en.wiki editing I've actually really enjoyed.

Some of my edits are work related. See wikidata:Wikidata:ExLibris-Primo for information on what kind of thing that is. There may or may not be a new class of en.wiki editors: librarians who want to fix facts which have flowed from en.wiki to wikidata to the librarians' library catalogs; whether we'll notice them in the deluge of other random users remains to be seen.

One of my alts was created to test for a bug which is now fixed in the upcoming IP Account thingie.

Several times I've created a new account to be sure that something works the way I remember it, in order to help someone else or to take a screenshot (for socials or a blog). WMF improvements have been focused on the onboarding process and branding so there have been a lot of changes over the last 20 years. If you haven't created an alt on en.wiki in the last decade, I doubt it will be as you remember it. Trying to 'reset' an old account has some interesting effects too, but that's another story.

Some of my alts have a humourous intent, User:Not your siblings' deletionist is my most longstanding one, and I was setting up several alts for a christmas joke when the issue at User_talk:"Fish_&_Chip"_flavoured_ice_cream#block_appeal blew up. I've had positive feedback on my joke alts, most was off-wiki, but see for example User_talk:Stuartyeates/Archive_1#I_like_your_username.

As far as I can tell there are no en.wiki policies against how I use alts [with the exception of some that could be considered trolling, but I stopped when that was pointed out]. As far as I can tell there are no WMF policies against how I use alts. I'm aware that a number of people appear to be deeply opposed to it, but I've always been unclear why, maybe you'd like to try and explain it?

As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban. They were all done on my main account which is also my real name and the one I use on my socials. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, my use of alts is independent on the issues which earned me my topic ban. Wrong. A sanction applies to the person operating the account regardless of whether they are using their main account or an alternate account. You are appealing an editing restriction. It is unreasonable to even ask the community to determine that all fifty or so accounts have not been violating that restriction, but by appealing you are essentially asking that. It took me quite some time to find the examples above, due to the sheer number of accounts involved. I certainly did not check every single one, but it is reasonable to conclude there are more violations than the ones I have already brought forth. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, I'm confused about this discussion of "alts" – do you have a list of these somewhere? If they aren't disclosed clearly on wiki, and they're being used to evade a topic ban or to participate in project space, they aren't alts – they're socks. – bradv 23:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

More importantly, does Stuartyeates have a list of them somewhere? 😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I was working off the list of admitted alts here. It's... a lot. And no, they are not all clearly tagged as alts. I'm actually rather surprised this did not earn them a block. Perhaps @HJ Mitchell: can offer some insight into that? El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that's hardly adequate per Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Alternative account notification. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Well,I blocked several of them a while ago, I think following a thread on checkuder-l. The creation of so many accounts, especially with borderline disruptive usernames, naturally drew suspicion. I'm not sure what Stuart was trying to do. I don't know if he intended such a good impression of a troll or LTA but that's what he achieved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any accusations that I've used alts as sockpuppets, except for the decades-old allegations above which were clearly boomerang. If there are any allegations that I've done this, please be clear about them. There is a list of all alts I'm aware of at User_talk:"Fish_&_Chip"_flavoured_ice_cream#block_appeal. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Stuartyeates: To be clear, the TBAN-violating edits on your alts do constitute sockpuppetry as a matter of policy. Honestly I'd thought policy forbids any undisclosed alternate account use for someone subject to an editing restriction, but it looks like the letter of policy, at least, only says that for clean starts. I wonder if this should be clarified in policy, as it's not really possible to enforce editing restrictions against someone when you don't know what username they're using. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well said. The TBAN applies to the person behind the accounts regardless of which account they use. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And also every single edit Stuartyeates has made since January 2024 is a sockpuppetry violation since several of the alts were blocked then (there are also blocks from earlier but they were username softblocks so can be ignored here), right? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive IP returns

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

---

This IP sockpuppet was blocked for a week and has immediately returned to their same disruptive editing pattern against multiple users' reversions, including recreating and edit warring over 2027 Formula One World Championship, which was AfD'd. MB2437 19:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Creation of a protected article

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

---

I wanted to notify the administrators about an article which was deleted several years ago, and my wish to restore it and create a new one with greater percisive information.

Article reffering to the "Azerbaijan-South Korea relations", was deleted and blocked by an administrator due to the fact that it was a created by a user who was blocked/banned earlier.

If it is possible, please consider opening the page up for creation to let someone else contribute and publish an article reffering to the said topic.

Thank you! Nuritae331 (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You may use the article wizard to create and submit a draft. Why do you wish to create an article that has been a target of a blocked user? 331dot (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I initially planned on making one for quite a while, but it turned out that someone else already published article of the same name a while ago, about 10 years ago or so, which was later removed.

It was pretty surprising, and I was very disappointed due to the fact that out of all the pages, the one that I desired to make ended up already getting deleted.

If you have any doubts or suspicions over my truthfulness, I can reassure you that my intentions are very clear and I do not wish to break rules or cause harm to the wikipedia community and its staff. Please make sure to look into my already submitted article draft which is under review, or look into my earlier edits.

Thank you so much for the feedback! Nuritae331 (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

In case anyone else struggles to find this deleted article, it was at Azerbaijan–South Korea relations (the key is using the en dash, not a hyphen... I think). No? Just me? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Can't find the article if you type it without the en dash.. Nuritae331 (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Sudden spate of userspace school essays with AI art

Patrolling recent uploads at Commons, I noticed that Socialpsych22 (User:Socialpsych22/sandbox), ChloeWisheart (User:ChloeWisheart), and AlicerWang (User:AlicerWang/sandbox) all uploaded AI images and put them in what look to be school essays within a short period of time. It looks like someone might be teaching a class and using Wikipedia as part of it, without teaching them how Wikipedia article are structured or about WP:NOT. Figured I'd brink it to folks' attention here. Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Even though none of the three accounts seem to be students in a WP:WEP affiliate course, you could still try asking about them at WP:ENB on the oftf chance that one of the Wiki ED advisors that typically help students remembers a username. Otherwise, I don't think there's much to do if there are no serious copyright (images or text) or other policy violations. Generally, users are given a bit of leeway to work on things in their userspace and it's possible these could be good-faith drafts, i.e. not really eligible for speedy deletion per WP:U5. I guess the "draft" that's not already in a user sandbox could be moved to one just to avoid it mistakenly being tagged for speedy deletion per U5, and perhaps welcome templates added each user's user talk page, but (at least at first glance) I'm not seeing a reason why any of these would need to be deleted. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC); Post edited. -- 20:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've moved the userspace one to draftspace and left a message on that editor's talk page asking if it's for school work, so hopefully they'll be able to give more information. StartGrammarTime (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Another one just appeared at User:Northsoutheastwestt/sandbox. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The good news is that the few references I checked were real, not LLM hallucinations. Hoping the AI is only used for images, not text. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Is there any kind of guideline about including AI artwork in articles on here or is it just based on people's feelings in the moment at this point? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

There'sn't. jp×g🗯️ 10:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

IMHO we shouldn't have any AI artwork in articles, because leaving all "artists' livelihood" concerns aside, image-generating AI is, as I understand it, often trained using copyrighted images - which makes their creations copyright violations. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not true. jp×g🗯️ 04:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Commons treats AI works as being in the public domain because copyright requires human authorship, however there's a warning about derivative works. I personally agree with The Bushranger that they should all be treated a copyvios, but that's something that's working its way through the courts, IIRC. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I would concur with jpxg. You're incorrect on this front. By that logic, anyone who was trained in artistic methods of the another living/recently deceased artist (say Bob Ross) couldn't legally make similar paintings. Buffs (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It is prima facie possible to create derivative (e.g. copyright-encumbered) works in literally any medium. This does not mean that all works are derivatives. For example, this ASCII sequence is a derivative work:

_o_
 |   <--- Spider-Man
/ \

This does not mean that the ASCII character set itself infringes copyright, nor that all ASCII sequences infringe copyright. jp×g🗯️ 17:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have informed the education noticeboard of this discussion. JJP_Master (she/they) 23:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Close challenge for Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus

User:Compassionate727 closed the RFC at Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#RFC for Jewish exodus as no consensus, arguing in the close that there seems to be a consensus among scholars that hostile pressures from the war were a contributing factor to Jewish emigration from Arab countries; many sources were provided here that expressed that position, and only one that cast doubt on it. Whether the war's contribution to that emigration is an important enough aspect of the conflict to mention in the lead is the subject of no consensus; some editors consider a mention in the lead proportional to scholars' treatment of the topic, others don't. On their talk page, they said I read the sources provided, both there and in the linked discussions, and that was the sense of them as I understood it. It was a tentative claim (hence I wrote "seems to be"), and if you can explain why I misunderstood them or provide other sources, please do so and I'll revise my closure.
As for the numbers, consensus is not a vote. Several editors' arguments were based on original research (e.g., the exodus wasn't an aspect of the war because it happened afterward, or wasn't caused by the war because it was caused by something else) or other arguments not rooted in the relevant policies, namely due weight in sources and summarizing the important parts of the body. When I discarded the junk, I found two policy-based arguments: a mention should be included because (most of?) the relevant scholarship discusses the issue, and a mention should be excluded because those sources don't devote enough attention to the issue to make it due weight in the lead. That is to me a pretty straightforward admission of both a supervote and of having not read the policies they claim support their close. WP:OR is about article content, not about talk page arguments. And it says exactly that in the lead of WP:OR: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. The bit on I read the sources provided, both there and in the linked discussions, and that was the sense of them as I understood it is explicitly saying that they decided a position was correct. Beyond that, it isn't true. Snippets of sources out of their context are used to argue against sources that straight up say otherwise. and those snippets dont even support whats claimed. I dont want to get too deep into the weeds here, but for example Schindler says that the war exacerbated the situation, but a. he goes through a number of other things directly responsible, and he doesnt even cover it as part of his coverage of the war, it's in an entirely different chapter. All in all this close ignores the substantial majority of respondent's arguments, improperly throws a number of them out as "junk" despite the fact that the justification for considering them junk explicitly refutes that claim, and makes claims about the sources that are not true in an attempt to justify a basically admitted to supervote. nableezy - 17:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

In response to You could have presented that evidence on my talk page, I dont think arguing with a closer about the sources is an appropriate thing to do, no one user here has the power to decide how to represent the sources. That is a matter for consensus, and your task was to determine the consensus of the discussion, not decide what the sources say and impose that decision on to the article. nableezy - 21:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Closer (Jewish Exodus)

"Original research" was perhaps a poor choice of words given that it's jargon here, but there was a reason I didn't wikilink it as policy citation, unlike most of the others I mentioned on my talk page. My point, and I think this was comprehensible in context, was that several people made arguments trying to disconnect the exodus from the war based on various factual considerations, which is not a compelling argument in the face of reliable sources that say they are connected. You keep claiming that the sources don't make that connection, but the quotes making those connections are there in the discussion for all to see, I did my reasonable due diligence to verify them, and no compelling evidence that those sources didn't actually mean those things (e.g., because they said something different elsewhere) or that other sources disagreed was presented in the discussion. You could have presented that evidence on my talk page, and I would have reverted my closure, but instead you are here claiming I made a mistake by weighing the arguments according to their strength, when that's literally a closer's job. And as I explained on my talk page, once the strength of the arguments is accounted for, I don't see a consensus to exclude (or include); arguments that the sources frequently discuss the two as connected weren't refuted, arguments that they don't discuss them together in enough depth to constitute due weight were reasonable but not broadly convincing to participants, and when one side has somewhat more voters but the other side presents the more persuasive arguments, that puts us in no consensus territory IMO. Reasonable minds may disagree, I suppose. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Non-participants (Jewish Exodus)

• I would have closed as "the consensus is no".—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• I would have not closed it because this discussion was, sorry, completely toxic. You're quibbling whether to mention the Jewish exodus from Arab countries in the lede? That's what this was about? This is why WP:ARBPIA5 is now a blue-link.

On the close, I think was, just barely, within the ambit of the closer to weight the arguments heavily towards more policy-based ones and away from ones that are essentially based on independent reasoning, but they shouldn't have closed it. FOARP (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn to No - The closure lacked any understanding of the RfC and the closing note reads like a supervote. Capitals00 (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• I understand why there is disagreement over this issue, it is a framing question that relates to issues of DUE. That said, the close clearly contains elements of a supervote. On the basis of the discussion *itself*, I would read consensus as "no" (although had I participated, FWIW, I would have contributed otherwise). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn to no -- once the confirmed sock votes were struck, what remained was a reasonable consensus for "no." Closers have wide discretion but on balance this decision was not an accurate reflection of the community. That said, worth noting there's also nothing here to support allegations of bad faith, and thanks to Compassionate727 for taking the time to read the topic, consider the arguments and make a close. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Participants (Jewish Exodus)

• Endorse (involved) within discretion and aligns with my read of the relative strength of arguments being roughly equivalent. Andre🚐 22:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
• overturn Saying that A -> B implies that we should write B -> A? I simply don't understand this form of logic, Huldra (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (Jewish Exodus)

FOARP is there something inherently toxic about discussing if something belongs in an article that I’m missing here that you can spell out? nableezy - 01:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A wall-of-text discussion of people talking past each other, whose votes I know without even looking at the discussion, about a single sentence in the lead section, is toxic. FOARP (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That still has no explanation, just assertion. That was clearly a good faith discussion focused on the sources, and the idea that because it is about a single sentence in the lead means something is one that’s going to need some actual explanation. nableezy - 14:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Judging by your evidence at the PIA case, I think you are letting things there influence your views here, not really appropriate, methinks. Selfstudier (talk) 14:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

HabsMTL

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

---

Plagiarism and personal attacks on talk pages 2600:1003:B137:DB08:586D:F686:F203:F9FE (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Diffs are required.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and if you are alleging plagiarism or copyright violation (which are not the same as each other) you need to say where the content was copied from. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a continuation of this complaint: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:HabsMTL. The intractable dispute over episode summaries at Blue Bloods season 14. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Chicdat ban appeal

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

---

Three years ago, in November of 2021, I was topic-banned from the project namespace following a community discussion. Six months later, I appealed the ban, but the proposal was unanimously opposed and archived without closure. Through the rest of 2022, my editing gradually decreased in frequency, and I was basically semi-retired for over a year due to real-life stuff. Lately I've become more active again. In the past few months I've !voted on many RMs, almost all of which have been closed accordingly. An RM that I recently nominated is heading towards consensus to move to a shorter title, a marked departure from some of the proposals I made in 2021, most of which got almost no support and had already been perennially discussed.

Back in 2022 when I appealed my ban, and I had to explain why I was banned, I gave a reason that looked very good, but was really just parroting what other people had told me. What it really all boils down to was: I thought I knew what I didn't know. I thought I was always right. I constantly deluded myself about my experience. When I commented on or opened a discussion, I either gave a half-baked rationale that had no basis in policy, or cited something that had nothing to do with the comment. Often I went above commenting, botching many closes, and tried to do things myself, often moving pages in such a manner. I just didn't understand these things. I made many edits like that. My second-ever edit was one of those. The last one was moving a page when I should have opened an RM. That was a year and a half ago.

During my long semi-wikibreak, I learned something. Before, when I envisioned having my ban lifted, I envisioned doing everything I had done before the ban, but non-disruptively. That was really stupid of me. If the ban is lifted, I will stick to doing things I understand. This isn't any kind of voluntary restriction like I had beforehand, it's just common sense. If I don't understand something, I won't get involved in it. Even admins do this: there are hundreds of admins who don't have a clue how to perform a histmerge, so they, understandably, don't perform them. Back then, if I had been in that situation, I would have jumped right in, and totally screwed it up. Now, I would stay away, and let the people who know what they're doing do the work. I know not to try to do things, or participate in discussions and areas that I don't understand.

Things have changed. Apart from RMs, one example is at Talk:Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi. This is the kind of thing that would have led to an edit war back in the bad old days: a disagreement over what an article should say and include. Instead, in AGF and BRD, another editor and I, after a short discussion, collaborated to create a compromise revision between mine and theirs. As an aside, while participating in an Israel-Palestine RM and after making a comment about needless bickering between ideologies, Chess, a user who supported my ban in 2021, pointed me to contribute at a draft MOS guideline (something well within the scope of the ban).

So what will I do? For the most part, the same kind of thing I'm doing right now: getting my magnum opus, List of Atlantic tropical storms, on the road to FL, working on my two new sandboxes of the same sort, participating in RMs that interest me, the occasional burst of recent-changes patrolling, little assorted gnoming fixes... but there are a few more things that I understand that I want to get into doing. Before my ban, I was a pending changes reviewer, one of the few things with which I didn't run into incidents, but voluntarily had it removed. So if unbanned, I'll go over to PERM (not RfP) and ask to have the right back. If there's a discussion about an area in which I have experience, such as my home WikiProject Tropical cyclones, that happens to be in projectspace (like an AFD for a hurricane), I'll add my 2¢. If there's a discussion at MR that is a supervote, I'll !vote accordingly (but won't nominate anything, since I don't trust myself to do so yet).

And finally, some assorted appendices. First of all, to the community, thank you for banning me. The IP who opened the discussion is sadly no longer active, but thank you to Cabayi, Levivich, Thryduulf, and ProcrastinatingReader, who supported the ban; and to the closing admin, Daniel. You saw what I did not: I needed a few years away from that area of Wikipedia to come back with a more experienced eye. Bans are preventative, not punitive, and this one was a textbook case. All of you prevented a great deal of further disruption. Finally, only tangentially related, but while reverting vandalism the other day, I came across (based on the brainrot username) a bored teenager who was vandalizing. When giving a level 2 warning, I tried to personalize it a bit by adding that vandalism isn't very sigma. To my surprise, the user replied, apologizing for vandalizing. An absolute gem.

Thank you for considering my request.

🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know (or remember) the background to this, but that strikes me as such an earnest and insightful reflection, that I'm sure I'd be happy to support this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm particularly impressed with the examples of corroborative editing, especially in such a potentially heated (and officially controversial) topic as the Arab–Israeli conflict. And per DoubleGrazing, that's a seriously introspective display of self-knowledge. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 14:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I read through the initial ANI that led to the ban and the unsuccessful ban-appeal discussion. Chicdat's tone and self-reflection in this appeal is a stark contrast to the obfuscation and deflection in those earlier discussions, and displays a noticeable change in editor maturity. I support lifting the projectspace ban. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Support unban per above. I too am impressed by the insightfullness.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised that conversation ended in a t-ban from projectspace (I don't recall supporting or opposing the ban, and didn't follow the discussion to the end), and I apologize for inciting you to try to get around your ban.

This is a scenario in which I'd support an unban, though. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 16:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chess: No problem. If this passes, by the way, I'd be happy to help work on that MOS proposal. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 16:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support unban. I've been in occasional contact with Chicdat over the years, and didn't even know about the topic ban until the user reached out to be about their appeal. Having seen impressive editor growth, I think Chicdat is more than ready to be a productive contributor. I also apprecate the creative take with dealing with that vandal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support, to my surprise; i remember the name Chicdat and the assorted troubles the user had, so much that i Wow-ed aloud in my surprise at first seeing this appeal. But, as both DoubleGrazing and SN 54129's comments point out, this appeal is pretty much the most realistic and self-recognising that we could wish for. My only caution, to Chicdat, is that you are likely to have eyes on you as you fully return, so please take everything you wrote seriously and abide by it. Welcome back ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Should I collapse, delete, or leave alone, some WP:ARBECR-breaking additions?

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

---

Hi,

I just received two different responses (and an unwelcome addition to my own talk page, which I promptly removed per WP:UOWN) from the IP address 2600:480A:3091:3000:695F:6F7D:2112:812D; the comments I made, introduced before I was more familiar with CTOP or Wikipedia guidelines in general, were obviously made in contravention to WP:CT/A-I as I was not extended-confirmed; the responses by the IP contravene that restriction as well.

The question I have here is, should I just collapse these past "illegal" comments of mine, and their replies, to avoid more rule-breaking responses in the future? Or merely revert the additions by the IP here? Or just avoiding touching it at all? I've not given the IP an ECR alert, because I'm not entirely sure what the template is for that.

I'm just attempting to avoid running afoul of CTOP as best I can, which is why I'm bringing this to the attention of administrators. But I'm not really sure what the policy is on this, or even if this is the right place to ask. Is there a help desk specifically for contentious topics? Should I just have asked at the help desk?

Thanks for any help. NewBorders (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

a) Don't alter archived material and b) Per WP:ARBECR, the only thing you can do on AI/IP articles is make edit requests. Selfstudier (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay gotcha, I'll just ignore these comments and not touch anything then, and will keep doing so in the future.

Thanks for the prompt reply. This can be closed if people have nothing more to add. NewBorders (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've blocked Special:contributions/2600:480a:3091:3000::/64 for 3 months for disruption (they've been blocked before...by me...for one month).--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

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

RM on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

The script I was using to fulfill this RM malfunctioned (it thought that the page being moved was Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather instead of List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak sequence of May 7–11, 2008), so it moved the WikiProject and all of its subpages to variations on List of tornadoes in the outbreak sequence of May 7–11, 2008 instead. I have reversed all of the moves in question. I am here to request the closure of the RM because I do not want to intervene in this request whatsoever after this incident. I have also disabled Move+ to prevent this from happening in the future. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. For what it's worth, the other RM script nearly did the same thing—cc. BilledMammal and TheTVExpert in case there's an easy way to code this situation (an RM proposed on a WikiProject talk page) in. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Help to Unblock

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

---

I'm Farsi wiki editor and My user globally locked and blocked with no previous notice. I explained a lot everywhere and now I would mention that I have a brother and he was fan of Farsad (rapper) and sometimes vote in AFD and make some edition in Farsi Wikipedia and we mostly use same PC. And explained to that moderator who blocked me but he didn't do anything! I didn't any mistake anytime and I if I did unwanted I apologize. 2A02:4540:A1:72E0:1:0:1436:39A4 (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

1. We cannot help with issues on other wikis.
2. See WP:BROTHER.
3. You have admitted to evading your lock. That means that your IP is eligible to be globally blocked, and I have thus reported it. Instead of doing this, please email stewardswikimedia.org. JJP_Master (she/they) 14:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Sander.v.Ginkel unblock request

The following is copied from User talk:Sander.v.Ginkel#Unblock_request on behalf of Sander.v.Ginkel:

I have made serious mistakes. I regret it and say sorry for it. I fully understand why I have been blocked. My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. I have also misused other accounts as suckpuppets: User:SportsOlympic and User:MFriedman (note that the two other accounts –- User:Dilliedillie and User:Vaintrain -- at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sander.v.Ginkel was not me. ) In addition, my work was too focused on quantity, rather than quality. I apologize to those who had to do some cleaning up for me.

Whay do I want to come back? And do I deserve it? I can show that I can make constructive content. I made some edits and created pages under the IP address 82.174.61.58, that was not allowed; and was blocked. It is not good that I made edits under an IP address, but I appreciated that some users (User:Tamzin, User:Xoak, User:Ingenuity) stated they liked the content I created and/or that they offer the opportunity to have me back (see at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive). I made the same mistakes on the Dutch Wikipedia (where I misused the same accounts). At this Wikipedia I bot back my account and I am editing the Wikipeida I’m also editing at simple.wikipedia.org (see User:SportsOlympic). I have created over 900 pages (see here), (1 page being deleted). I like to create articles from historic work on old sources, for instance simple:Annie van de Blankevoort, simple:1928 Belgium–Netherlands women's athletics competition, simple:Julia Beelaerts van Blokland, simple:Esther Bekkers-Lopes Cardozo or the event simple:Water polo at the 1922 Women's Olympiad that is barely mentioned at the English 1922 Women's Olympiad. Around 100 pages have been (literally) copied to the English Wikipedia by several users. I'm also editing Wikidata, see here and here when I forgot to log in.

However, as I have learned from it, I will never use multiple accounts anymore and adding controversial content without doing a proper fact-check. I will always listen to users, be constructive and be friendly. I will make sure you will not regret giving me my account back. I would like to work under the account user:SportsOlympic.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Support unbanning and unblocking per WP:SO. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• Quoting my SPI comment in 2022:

  I was torn on this. The IP does not seem to be creating the sort of low-quality BLP stubs that SportsOlympic was. If this were "just" a case of block evasion, I'm not sure I could justify a block of the IP as preventative of any disruption, and would be inclined to either ignore it or block but offer a non-OFFER unblock to the main account. However, Sander.v.Ginkel is banned, and under the SportsOlympic account has caused significant disruption just six months ago. Evading a ban is an inherent harm, as it undercuts the community's ability to self-govern. Furthermore, it would be unfair to the community to allow someone to contribute content, particularly in a DS area as much of the IP's recent edits have been, without the community being on-notice of their history of significant content issues. (And there is still troubling content like Draft:Krupets.) I thus feel I would be defying the mandate the community has given me as an admin if I did anything but block here. ... FWIW, Sander, I could see myself supporting an OFFER unban down the line, although I'd recommend a year away rather than six months.

  That sentiment is what I eventually wrote down at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock, which mentions the same principles being relevant in unban discussions. And now that this is before the community, with even more time having passed, I have no problem unbanning: The post-ban edits, while problematic in that they were sockpuppetry, do show evidence that Sander has learned from his mistakes, and thus a ban no longer serves a preventative purpose. Looking back at the one hesitation I mentioned above, I think my concern was that it was an ECR violation that seemed credulous of a pro-Russian narrative; but if there's no evidence of that being part of any POV-pushing, then I don't see it as an obstacle to unbanning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Endorse one account proviso. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm a little bit concerned by the sockpuppetry returning earlier this year: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sander.v.Ginkel/Archive#18 April 2024. However, that is over 6 months ago. I would Support with the obvious proviso that the user be limited to 1 account and that IP editing may be scrutinized for evidence of WP:LOUTSOCK. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support with provisions per above. Worth keeping a close eye on, but they seem to have understood the problems with their behavior and improved upon it. The Kip ^(contribs) 07:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support I've previously spoken in favor of the subject as well. X (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. "My biggest mistake that I copied-pasted content from articles to other articles, that led to a BLP violation. " That wasn't the biggest mistake by far. You made extremely negative claims about sportspeople based on internet rumors. Apart from this, the first article I checked on simple, [36], is way too close paraphrasing of the source[37]. This has very sloppy writing, "He started his business alone 1980 built so his horse stable "Hexagon" in Schore. " is just nonsense. Copyvio/close paraphrasing seems to be a recurring problem, this has e.g. "Zwaanswijk is regarded as one of the most respected post-World War II visual artists of Haarlem and his work had a profound influence on the local art scene." where the source has "Piet Zwaanswijk was een van de meest gerespecteerde na-oorlogse beeldend kunstenaars van Haarlem. Zijn werk had een diepe invloed op de lokale kunstscene". I don't get the impression that the earlier issues have disappeared. Fram (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support User seems to have recognized what he did wrong, has edited constructively off enwiki. JayCubby 18:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Support, the crux of the issue was three-fold: creation of low-quality sports stubs (including what Fram said), persistent IDHT when asked to fix them, and sockpuppetry. I recall I identified the SportsOlympic sock in a tangential ANI thread a couple of years ago. It appears he has edited constructively elsewhere. I would like to see a commitment to one-account-only and a commitment respond civilly and collaboratively when criticized. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Completely support an unblock; see my comment here when his IP was blocked in April. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sander and his socks created literally thousands of poorly-written and/or potentially-copyvio pages on (very frequently) non-notable sports topics. I don't see evidence in his Simple Wiki contribs that his writing has improved, and for someone with his history of non-notable subject choices I would want to see clear evidence that these creations are supported by WP:SUSTAINED, non-routine, IRS SIGCOV. Articles like this may well be on notable competitions, but with content like On 20 March the Women's Fencing Club gave an assaut, in honor of the visit of the Dutch team. As seen as an exceptional, mr. de Vos was a the only man allowed to visit the women's club., and all sources being from 20 or 21 March 1911, we can be confident that verifying and rewriting the mangled translations and searching for continued coverage will be a huge pain for other editors. And going from the most recent en.wp AfD participation I'd also anticipate the same combativeness and time wasted explaining P&Gs to him in that area as well. Given the volume of his creations, I don't think it is fair to foist all the extra work that would come with overturning the ban onto other editors without a much more thorough evaluation of his Simple Wiki contribution quality. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Currently oppose; open to a change of view if some explanation and assurances are given with regard to the points Fram raises. There is no point in unblocking a problematic editor if it appears that they may well continue to cause issues for the community ~ Lindsay^Hello 12:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation

There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Several admins just standing by interrogating a user who was the subject of an obviously bad block.

See User talk:82james82. This user created an undoubtedly spammy page, and deleting it was justifiable. However, they were also issued an indef hard block tagged as {{uw-spamublock}} by Jimfbleak. There is no username violation, therefore this is a bad block. While I understand asking some questions, trying to educate a user as to why their deleted content was not appropriate, I don't understand why multiple admins, specifically Significa liberdade and 331dot did not simply undo the obviously bad block.

The username has no obvious or even implied connection to the subject the user was writing about, therefore there was no blatant violation of the username policy, so the block was invalid. Whether the blocking admin chose the wrong setting by accident or on purpose, it was a manifestly incorrect block. I am not at all comfortable with multiple admins seeing this and letting them remain blocked while they wait for the blocking admin to come by and explain an obviously incorrect action.

Just to be clear, I've already undone the block, this is more about admins holding each other accountable and being willing to reverse obviously wrong decisions where a user is blocked without justification. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

You have unilaterally undone the block. You could have waited for Jimfbleak to consent to the unblock. A block for advertising or promotion would have been legitimate. PhilKnight (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The block reasoning was manifestly invalid, and we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi there! As was mentioned below, I am a fairly new administrator (September) and am still learning the ropes. I often try to be kind and see the best in editors when they've been blocked. In the month or so I've been helping out with unblocks, I haven't seen your name around. If you'd like to help, we'd love to have you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, I actually just changed my name and my sig, but also I've been more active at AFD, and on the other end of the blocking process at UAA. I do think it is a shame that so few admins work unblock requests, when it is only a few people, their opinions become de facto policy, which isn't good. I do know you are a fairly new admin, as I was one of the first dozen supporters at your RFA, under my then-username Just Step Sideways. I haven't changed my mind about that, but I don't like what I see here.

What concerns me is that you don't seem to have questioned the username violation aspect of this block at all. You could see the deleted page, and could see that it had no connection to the username, and that the name is clearly a common first name with some numbers around it. Being able to see and correct obvious administrative errors is part of the job, in particular when reviewing unblock requests from brand-new users. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 03:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, let's say she had, and she reversed the block instead of asking about the connection to the company. When that editor then recreates their spam page and is indeffed as an advertising-only account, and an irritated admin swings by her talk page to chew her out, are you going to stick up for her? -- asilvering (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Yes I would. However, you've misrepresented what happened. Again I will assume it is an simple mistake, but asking about the connection to the company is not what she did, she ignored that aspect entirely. It was 331dot who finally raised a question about it. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 04:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

What? Hello there! Can you tell me why you were interested in creating the Tripleye article? Do you have any connections with Tripleye? How is this not asking about the connection to the company? -- asilvering (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, My bad, I misunderstood you, I thought we were talking about asking how the username relates to the company, which as far as anyone can tell it does not. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 06:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No indeed. What I'm saying is that, if Significa liberdade had unblocked without first determining whether the editor had a COI and educating them on what that would mean for their editing on Wikipedia, chances are very high that the editor would return to the same behaviour - creating AI-scented promotional articles. If that happened, someone would again CSD them, and I expect they would be blocked again (this time with more accurate rationale). Maybe after a few more warnings, maybe not. Probably some flak for SL, either as a direct "wtf are you doing, that editor had an obvious COI" talk page message, or a passive-aggressive swipe at her in an edit summary or block rationale or something. This would be a worse outcome in every way than taking the time to check in with the blocking admin and figure out whether the editor has a COI or not before unblocking. -- asilvering (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah I'd no idea you'd changed your name. Secretlondon (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

So, it wasn't even a posted article, but just a sandbox? Why couldn't the editor have had it pointed out to them that there needed to be improvements to fix the issues? I also don't agree with the whole "the admin who did a thing had to show up and agree or comment before you can do anything" nonsense. This entire thing seems overbearing, bitey and just poor admin conduct altogether. Silverseren^C 22:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Silver seren, that "has to comment before you can do anything" bit is policy: WP:RAAA and WP:Blocking policy#Unblocking. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem with said policy being the text are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators, as we can see from the above case and in many other cases (GreenLipstickLesbian has an example list below). There really is not a reason to presume that admins carefully consider their actions, personally. Particularly when that consideration is not showcased from an action in the first place. Silverseren^C 01:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I left a note explaining our rules for new articles about companies. That’s usually a good first step when a new editor writes a promotional article.

I can no longer see deleted contributions but all I see mentioned on 82James82’s talk page is a deleted sandbox. My understanding is that we are more tolerant of subpar material in sandboxes than article space. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. It wasn't submitted to AFC or anything, just a sandbox, and if it had been submitted at AFC they would've rejected it, not blocked the user. This was the users's first edit, and they got an instant no-warning indef hard block, and when they appealed they got an interrogation session instead of a reversal of the unjustified block. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The ideal admin, in my mind, considers the protection of new editors to be one of their highest duties. They should actively look for justifications to prevent or undo blocks. An admin who leans toward blocking without warning, or leans toward refusing unblocks when the editor expresses good faith, is more dangerous than a thousand vandals. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Good deletion by JFB, bad block by JFB, and good unblock by JSS Beeb. But after the unblock, there no attempt at all to discuss this with JFB, SL, or 331 before coming here. Couldn't we try that first? Shouldn't we? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to have more public discussions about the community's expectation with regard to the treatment of new users. I know you have concerns that the intent of such discussions is to escalate matters, but my intent is the opposite. The two recent recalls happened because the admin corps did not effectively hold colleagues accountable. If we establish a public consensus here that clarifies that that is something we do want from admins, that should decrease the chances of further ugly recall proceedings. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 22:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

My user talk is hardly not public. 331dot (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Floquenbeam - spam sandbox should have been deleted, the user should not have been blocked. GiantSnowman 11:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

(non-admin nosy parker comment) Significa Liberdade is one of our newest admins, so I think it's completely understandable that she would be nervous about going against two long-standing administrators. I think, @Beeblebrox, discussing this with her first would have been a good idea.

331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined. They do demonstrate a pattern of finding reasons not to overturn suboptimal blocks, and that's a pattern you should maybe think about changing. I know you made each of these declines in good faith, and you accepted that they other administrators had made them in good faith. And I didn't go hunting for these- these were already on my radar for different reasons, and I made a note of them. Sorry for the dates being all out of place.

• 2023-11-03 This user was indeffed for "disruptive editing", because on their twentieth edit they added "Category:Southeast Europe" to a plant that grew in south east Europe. (But was their twentieth edit and they'd never been told about redlinked categories before- just welcomed with a 4im vandalism warning for adding Category:American Surnames to an American surname article. No, I'm not kidding). In their unblock request, they said I am new to Wikipedia and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.. 331dot declined the request, saying Once you have gained a better understanding of policies, and have an edit you wish to make, please request unblock at that time.
• 2024-06-01 This sock block was overturned by @JBW (with the rationale This block is clearly a mistake. There was no abusive use of the two accounts), but 331dot had declined the initial unblock request using the justification You used one account to comment on the talk page of the other, this makes it seem like you are multiple people[...]I see no grounds here at this time to remove the block. (For clarification, the user never hid the fact they used two accounts. I don't see any WP:BADSOCK, neither did JBW, so I don't know how 331dot did).
• 2022-10-15 This user was no-warning indeffed as NOTHERE due to their edits to the common.js/monobook.css page, and because the blocking admin seemingly did not notice the fact that the account also made several minor grammatical corrections to mainspace articles, had fixed formatting errors, and added cleanup tags. 331dot declined their unblock, saying This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. (What vandalism or disruptive editing?)
• 2023-11-12 This user was no-warning indeffed for making tables in a wikiproject. (No, I'm not kidding). A more experienced editor confirmed that they'd asked the other editor to assist in projectspace. 331dot declined to unblock them, saying It's not at all obvious to me that's why you are here.. No, I don't get all the Wikiproject people either, but the community consensus says that yes, those editors are HERE.

TL;DR: I see no grounds here at this time to remove the block is not a good attitude towards unblocks. We want editors to come back, and learn from their mistakes. We don't demand perfection. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yikes! A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The decline reason for Pbnjb1, with Yamla enforcing said provision no less, seems shamelessly punitive. Only unblocking when they say they have an edit to make? Just wow.... ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 02:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That block is pretty awful. Straight to final warning for vandalism, then to an indef. No vandalism whatsoever. -- asilvering (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I will also point out their unblock denial at User_talk:Big_Thumpus, where a new editor who makes what appear to be respectful inquiries is accused of WP:SEALIONING (frankly, I don't think they're POV pushing so much as just being polite, which we should encourage) and blocked for sockpuppetry with no further explanation of any sockpuppetry at all, and with a CU stating there is no evidence at all. That editor, by the way, still has not been unblocked, despite being willing to discuss concerns civilly with other editors and with administrators and neither has User:Ceboomer (the 4th example listed). EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, there are only two options with that user - (a) they are a sock/troll/LTA, and (b) they are someone who is familiar with Wikipedia, perhaps editing as an IP, who made the spectacularly bad decision to create an account and head straight for ANI to vote for banning Fram (and you would have thought in that situation they would have known it would look suspicious). In that context, the CU data being negative may not be the positive thing it might look like, as if they are the former they probably would know how to avoid CU issues. Yes, we should AGF, but I can see why people didn't in that case. The other cases may be more problematic, though. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

How can you see why people didn't? There is no "obvious evidence to the contrary" unless I'm missing something, the evidence presented is entirely circumstantial and non-obvious. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back You wouldn't be even slightly suspicious of a brand new editor that dived into an ANI block discussion with one of their first few edits? I would. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The guideline isn't slightly suspicious its obvious evidence. As a non-admin I would also have to temper any suspicion I had with being found liable for biting a newcomer, hence even when I'm almost entirely certain I still have to be open and respectful (and to just walk away when I can't actually prove anything). I do think that we tend to be pretty harsh with newcomers... If they're not good editors we ding them for being incompetent net negatives and if they're good we start calling them puppets. With all honesty I can say that I don't envy you admins though, the inherent conflict between being swift and severe with socks and AGF, BITE, etc is one of the great questions we face as a community. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No, which is why I didn't block them (I saw the edit when it was made). Looking at their previous few edits - using @ in their first edit, spelling lead as "lede", diving straight into AMPOL, that is a judgment call someone had to make. Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite hold up, surely spelling lead as "lede" is evidence that they aren't a long-time wikipedian? We spell it "lead". It's American journalists who spell it "lede". -- asilvering (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I see most editors refer to "lede" not "lead", which while I can't stand the terminology personally is well documented as a concept per WP:LEDE. It is therefore not indication of an editors' experience, ever. CNC (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The linked page says "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." and seems to overall document that we use lead not lede. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

People using "lede" on Wikipedia is one of my biggest pet peeves, but I see plenty of long-standing editors use it, so I also don't take it as indicative of anything nefarious. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney agreed, I hate it. Doug Weller talk 16:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think there's probably a conversation about how unblocks are handled that is worth having, but I'm sure having trouble getting fired up about this unblock in particular. An editor makes a blatantly promotional LLM-generated page, which is deleted; once they're blocked, two admins politely ask about the editor's possible connection to the company. It looks to me like it was headed for an unblock. No one's been rude or made threats, including the editors who dropped templated notices earlier. This looks better to me than most interactions I see between newcomers writing promo and experienced editors. -- asilvering (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Deleted sandbox for non-admins' context – Tamzin

== Tripleye == Tripleye is an integrated technology solution advancing the future of intelligent machines across a range of industries with cutting-edge autonomous systems and modules. The company equips engineering teams with the tools needed to enable fully autonomous vehicles or specific autonomous functionalities. Its camera-based approach, rather than relying on LiDAR, delivers unmatched visual detail, scalability, affordability, and versatility. By leveraging advanced computer vision and AI technologies, Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems tailored to their unique operational demands. The company’s patented technology, developed by an experienced team with a history of groundbreaking research and innovation, outperforms other solutions on the market. Tripleye is headquartered in Berlin, Germany, with additional offices in Karlsruhe and New York City. == History == Tripleye’s origins trace back to early work by Jens Schick and David Wegner as far back as 2013. Jens Schick, a pioneer in autonomous vehicle technology, built the first autonomous car at Daimler in 1994 as part of a groundbreaking project called ‘Prometheus.’ This was the first-ever autonomous vehicle, predating the 2004 DARPA challenge by a decade and marking Europe’s leading role in AV innovation. After Daimler, Jens joined Bosch to establish its vision group from scratch and later launched Myestro Interactive, a research company focused on autonomous vehicle sensing technologies. In 2019, Jens met Francois Dubuisson, a seasoned entrepreneur with extensive experience in building startups. Recognising the transformative potential of Jens’ innovations, Francois joined forces with him to start a new venture, and Tripleye was born. == Technology == Tripleye’s technology is built on a unique camera-based approach that offers unmatched visual detail, scalability, and cost efficiency compared to traditional LiDAR systems. By combining advanced computer vision and AI-driven analytics, Tripleye enables the development of fully autonomous systems and customised functionalities tailored to diverse industry needs. With a robust foundation of patented innovations and decades of expertise, the company delivers hardware and software modules designed to outperform market competitors. This technology is ideal for industries requiring precise, adaptable, and scalable solutions. == Impact == Tripleye has gained significant recognition and support for its contributions to autonomous systems and intelligent machines, including: * Funding from the European Innovation Council, which champions pioneering deep tech solutions. * Inclusion in the NVIDIA Inception Program, an exclusive accelerator for cutting-edge AI and data science startups. These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries. == References == * [Sifted: Deeptech Briefing](https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/deeptech) * [Sifted: Autonomous Vehicles 2024](https://sifted.eu/pro/briefings/autonomous-vehicles-2024) * [An Interview with Tripleye (Spielfeld Digital Hub)](https://spielfelddigitalhub.medium.com/an-interview-with-tripleye-bd3b0f61080a)

One thing worth all of us considering, when dealing with potential spammers, is that if someone is using ChatGPT, as James appears to have here, that makes it a lot harder to infer their motivation, for better and for worse. That is to say, someone could be a completely inept spammer using ChatGPT to masquerade as a moderately ept spammer, or could be a good-faith editor who's made the foolish decision to rely on ChatGPT and has inadvertently used a spammy tone as a result. In this case, the deletion was definitely within reason under G11, but it's a good illustration of why blocking on the first offense of spam is usually overkill, unless it's like blatant link-spamming ("for the best online slots click here" etc.).

Jimfbleak, I'm wondering if you maybe have some script misconfigured, or if there's a misunderstanding on policy here, as pertains to username blocks? I noticed Special:Contributions/Onüç Kahraman yesterday too. That user did turn out to be socking, but your initial {{uw-softerblock}} didn't really make sense, as Onüç Kahraman is a film that came out in 1943, not something subject to any ongoing promotion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like they were using User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage, a script I also use. It is somewhat easy to select the wrong drop downs, or to use the default selections on autopilot. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

• I was prepared to ask the blocking admin to unblock but I wanted the user to show that they knew their text was promotional. I didn't see a username issue, but I'm not perfect so I was asking Jimfbleak what it was, if anything. 331dot (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  You've been working around username issues a long time, and doing a lot of good work. I think you have the necessary experience and judgement to see that there was not a blatant violation here. I really feel like we're falling down in our treatment of new users who aren't behaving maliciously but just don't understand what Wikipedia is and how it works. I assure you I'm not trying to have anyone burned at the stake here, I just think we need to address these issues and be more willing to undo obviously incorrect actions without waiting as long as it takes for the admin who made the error to explain themselves. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:04, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I get it, but sometimes I like to make sure that I haven't missed something. 331dot (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll repeat something I said in User talk:Tamzin § Administrative culture:

  I think the root problem here is with WP:RAAA. It begins Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. I mean. Fucking seriously? Every fucking admin knows that's a lie, because we've all had times where we deleted a page or blocked a user within seconds of looking. Usually entirely justifiably, because some deletions and blocks are just that obvious, but there's no world where that's "consider[ing] carefully". And in other cases, the lack of careful consideration speaks for itself. If an admin blocks two users as sox because they didn't know about the meme both were referencing in their usernames (actual thing I've unblocked over), they obviously did not carefully consider that block.  ...

  So I think the solution, or at least a major necessary step toward a solution, in all this, is replacing that presumption of careful consideration with something else. I'm not entirely sure what. I'm honestly not sure if we need RAAA-shielding for routine admin actions. If another admin were to see some routine vandalblock of mine and think I was hasty, and wanted to just unblock, then more power to them, as long as they're the one who wears the responsibility for whatever comes next. RAAA is useful for, say, blocks of experienced users who might have an admin-friend in the wings, or keeping people from fucking with things they mightn't understand the full story behind, like sockblocks, copyvioblocks, and socking-based page protections. But it creates a latch effect on the simplest admin actions, I think often more than even the admin intends. I think the solution starts with fixing that.

  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the allowed actions in Wikipedia:RAAA are all that problematic, though I do agree with you about the presumptions in the preamble. You can reverse if the following are met:

  1. Good cause
  2. Careful thought
  3. If the admin is presently available: consultation. So shoot them a message, and if they don't respond within a reasonably short period of time, proceed anyway

  Those three steps are not very restrictive. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  They might not be very restrictive in theory, but they are in practice. It's far easier to get desysopped for a bad unblock than for a bad block. In effect the rule becomes that you need to not just try to talk with the admin, but actually need their permission. That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy. Or to put it more simply: We can't all be Beeblebrox. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank god for Beeblebrox then... We can't have all the admins form a Blue wall of silence... Somebody has to be the "bad brick" for the larger society to function. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  That's going to stay that way unless there's something in policy affirmatively saying that admins can and should lift blocks that are not supported by policy.

  Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to having this become a policy. Of course, there should be some latitude for the blocking admin's discretion, but a block with no WP:ADMINACCT explanation should be able to be reverted by another admin. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  We've had a parallel to this idea in deletion policy (para 2 here) for like forever, and the world's stubbornly refused to end. I do worry somewhat about the effect it'd have with WP:UNBLOCKABLES. —Cryptic 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  As one of the relative newbies around here, I've kind of assumed that the RAAA thing with unblocks is a hangover from the Bad Old Days of wandering cowboy admins who needed rules like this to keep the wheel-warring in check. I don't tend to mind following this gentlemen's agreement, since I value the second look. But it's the admins who make the bad blocks that are also the least likely to be affable about you lifting them. Then we end up with the problem Tamzin's described. -- asilvering (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• It's great to welcome new users and assume good faith, but Wikipedia will be neck-deep in spam if junk like the above is not handled firmly. If I had seen it, I would have ground my teeth and moved on because why should I get heaps from people who think there is value in "These achievements underscore Tripleye’s commitment to advancing the future of intelligent systems across a range of global industries." There is more and more of this stuff, and soon people will be able to ask an AI bot to author and post their fluff on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

  Literally nobody is arguing that the page was acceptable or that the deletion was incorrect. The issue is the subsequent block and making the user wait, blocked, until it was convenient for the blocking admin to respond. If you found yourself blocked for reasons that were manifestly incorrect, would you not expect and hope that reviewing admins would reverse it? El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 00:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  If I had been the user who posted that advert as their first edit, I would know why I had been blocked. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  You seem to be entirely missing the point that this was an indef hard block because of the supposed combination of promotional edits and a promotional username, when there is literally no issue of any kind with the user name. We can AGF that this was simply an misclick, but we shouldn't pretend there is a real issue with the name because of it. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 04:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• FWIW, I try to educate users as to why I have deleted their hard work with User:Deepfriedokra/g11 or User:Deepfriedokra/del. For the most part, I prefer to give them the opportunity to mend their ways in the context of User:Deepfriedokra#DFO's rule of thumb. Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out. It is important to try to facilitate that emergence, though sometimes a block is required to do so.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I want to second that Inside every promotional editor is a constructive editor trying to get out. (well, perhaps a slightly modified Inside every disruptive editor is potentially a constructive editor trying to get out.) One of the people brought on to talk about wikipedia in a recent NPR piece[38] described a vandal to core editor conversion sparked in part by effective and positive engagement on their talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I do think we, and I include myself here, have gotten too hardcore about blocking over one or two promo edits, in particular when they aren't even in article space. I'm working on some proposals to address this right now. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 04:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Something that reiterates "we tell new users that their sandbox is for screwing around, don't CSD them for screwing around in it" would be hugely welcome. -- asilvering (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I just spent a few minutes chasing my tail looking for anything that makes it clear where the line is, and all I came up with is that you can't have attack content, copyvios, or other types of "not acceptable anywhere, period type of content. I didn't see anything about promotional content in sandboxes. If I've missed it somehow, someone please let me know where it is. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 05:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Db-spamuser}} covers userpages, which I guess personal sandboxes are a subset of, that's all I could find. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 05:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

No, there isn't anything clearly explaining where the line is, that's my point. I've seen quite a lot of "good faith" promo editing tagged for G11/U5 in sandboxes, editors blocked for having promo there, etc etc. I'll happily do the promo username+edits blocks or vaporize chatGPT nonsense, but deleting/blocking someone for sandbox edits when the template right in front of their eyes says it's for experimentation is really over-the-top bitey, imo. -- asilvering (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it's time we warn these users that sandboxes are not a completely safe haven to test whatever they want, because as I see it, the user's sandbox template did not bring up the reasons why one edits in the sandbox might be deleted (whether from U5 or G11 or sth else). 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 11:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Please think about the long-term consequences of a rule saying that anyone can post anything so long as it is in their user space, or marked as "sandbox" or whatever. Will we wait a year to see if an SPA refashions their spam into an FA, then (if not) add a delete request tag, then discuss the deletion request? That won't scale. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you ok? I honestly can't tell what point you are trying to make. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 06:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me: it's potentially a gate to letting spam "articles" stick around 'because they're in sandboxes'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If a sandbox is clearly G11, and IMHO we've become overly inclusive of any COI editing as G11, then it should be deleted. But the creator needs to be educated as to why. And yes, I share the concern about people using Wikipedia for promotion, and I know some would leap at any loophole. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Ah, yes. The Ghost of Wheel-Wars Past. Before my time really, but you can still hear the chains rattle after nearly two decades. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

As ScottishFinnishRadish correctly surmised, I use Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SpamUserPage script, and I'm aware that it's easy to select the wrong drop down, so I always check. However, it appears that in this case I still managed to fat finger an obviously incorrect rationale, mea culpa, I can only apologise for that. I don't think that the G11 was incorrect, there's no policy that exempts spamming in userspace. I intended to block the account as being likely an UPE, given that their first edit was a full, highly promotional page about a company, and then left it for uninvolved admins to review the block. If asked, I always accept the reviewing admin's decision unless, rarely, they have missed something like socking or previous malpractice. I apologise again for the error I made, although I can't help thinking it could have been sorted out on my talk page rather than through ANI Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I frankly agree. This didn't need to be brought here. He made a mistake- apparently I made a mistake by asking him to confirm that he made a mistake(even though clicking unblock bring up a clear message "Unless you imposed the block, you may not unblock any accounts you control (including bots) without permission from the blocking administrator, even if you believe the block is unfair, inappropriate, or in error") okay. We'll do better next time. 331dot (talk) 09:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I realize that's for "accounts you control" but clearly there's some intention here that we need to consult with the blocking admin in general. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Policy does state "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter." So does this mean I shouldn't ask to confirm that the blocking admin made a mistake? We also prohibit wheel-warring. 331dot (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Theres a lot to unpack here. First, what you quote is about admins unblocking themselves, nothing related to this situation. It is not a statement on asking the blocking admin. Then you quote policy stating specifically in cases or error just unblock and that it is polite to ask, not required. Seems pretty straightforward. PackMecEng (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was in error with the first part. But I do value being polite and making sure I don't make a mistake. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Polite to the admin, even if clearly in the wrong, is a disservice to the user unfairly blocked. That kind of gets to the whole point of this tread. PackMecEng (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

If we're saying that a temporary disservice to doublecheck my thinking and have a little civility is bad, okay, but that puts me at risk of being accused of wheel warring/unblocking people who shouldn't be. So I should err on that side? (a serious question) 331dot (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: as it's the second time you've expressed concern re. wheel-warring; to clarify, unblocking someone doesn't qualify. If another admin came along and reblocked them, that would be WW. Good luck with all this, too. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

And I reiterate it would have been better to approach me with a nice "hey, I think you would have been okay unblocking here" rather than coming here. My talk page is very public. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• On a related note, I think we need to sit down with WP:PRECOCIOUS and WP:CIR and decide which one (1) of them we will be hard-assed blockhawks about. It is absurdly, unbelievably dumb to do so for both -- noobs trying to do volunteer work seem to currently have the choice between being instantly screamed at for not knowing how markup works and being instantly screamed at for being sockpuppets. jp×g🗯️ 10:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
• "we don't usually indef block users for creating one sandbox page" - We do too, if the one sandbox page is awful enough. I would've blocked too. I like to think I never would've misclicked the wrong rationale while blocking, but we're not all dextrous, typo-immune college students. That calls for a correction in the rationale (probably on the talk page rather than unblocking and reblocking), not a reversal. Same as seeing someone make a typo in mainspace calls for fixing the typo, not a rollback of the entire edit.
  There's a couple comments above to the effect that this person might have become a productive Wikipedian if only we hadn't blocked them after deleting their ad. I say you're full of it. People who start out as vandals may, very rarely, eventually become productive Wikipedians - there's been a handful of admitted examples of people "hacking Wikipedia for the lulz" in middle school and making amends five or ten years later, and no doubt there's been many more silent reincarnations. But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. —Cryptic 11:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I vandalized Wikipedia with my European history class in high school, and I've got my entire editing career since. I'd say you might want to rethink your attitude. It costs very little for established users to offer grace to newbies, because without a doubt those established users are only still on Wikipedia because some grace was offered to them when they were new. The attitude displayed by some in this thread suggests that you should have been treated with suspicion and blocked immediately on your first edits, because who just knows wiki syntax and uses edit summaries immediately? Very suspicious.

  "They would never have become a productive Wikipedian" is an easy position to take when you never offer the possibility to become one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  There's a difference between vandalizing Wikipedia for S & Gs as a teenager(for which I've given several new chances at editing for such people) and knowingly posting marketing material(the main point Cryptic refers to). 331dot (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)As I said, there is a world of difference between casual vandalism and commercial promotion. The one is reformable, and has been shown to be reformable. The other is not. High school students don't write credible marketing brochures in history class. —Cryptic 12:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  People don't understand our notability criteria, let alone our rules about promotional content. Blocking someone for not understanding arcane rules you haven't explained is not functionally any different than any other vandalism. And you can respond to my comment, 331dot, but not to GreenLipstickLesbian's collections of your bad judgement? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  If people are looking for the perfect admin that's not me. I make mistakes and try to learn from them. I'm not sure what should say beyond that. If GLL has concerns about me I wish they would bring them to me directly. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I fail to see how "331dot, let's look at some other unblock requests you've declined" is not bringing concerns to you directly, in a discussion you have been notified of. Was it the lack of ping? The assumption is your involvement in this thread should be enough, and being repeatedly pinged would could be over-pinging. CNC (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  CommunityNotesContributor By "directly" I mean to my user talk page. 331dot (talk) 16:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  CommunityNotesContributor: I cannot speak for 331dot, but I would have preferred if Beeblerox had first brought this concern to me on my talk page rather than bringing it directly to ANI. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  @331dot @Significa liberdade. Respectfully, this doesn't concern only the two of you, and the idea of three parallel discussions occurring on different talk pages doesn't lead to structured discussion, hence it's centralized here. This discussion also goes beyond the conduct of certain admins, and instead is intended to be a broader discussion over admin conduct etc, so it appears correctly located to me. I understand the concept of approaching admins directly on talk pages etc, but this isn't a case of a single issue with a single admin. CNC (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Including myself, there are four admins involved here. Seems like a central discussion is appropriate to me to air this out. Not to nitpick, but this is AN, not ANI. There is a difference. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 19:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  And presumably you have sufficient evidence to back up that sweeping assertion? The idea that any class of editor is entirely and utterly not reformable strikes me as wrong (if not a top level AGF violation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you can find a commercial promoter who has, I would be genuinely very interested to see it. -- asilvering (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor... I don't actually know of many reformed editors overall but I have seen racists reform their views and become valuable editors where they were once Jordan Peterson style knuckle draggers. I don't however see why someone who first learns to edit wikipedia inappropriately for work would be incapable of becoming a productive wikipedia editor after leaving that job for one which doesn't involve wikipedia. I would imagine however that such an editor would WP:CLEANSTART, rendering my point somewhat moot. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I object to the broader concept of deprecating any class of editor me too, that's why I'd be very interested to see evidence of a commercial promoter who has become a good general contributor. We've got plenty of people who will admit to having been teenage vandals, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who edited for their job and then became a regular editor. -- asilvering (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with this overall assessment, even if it is hard to swallow: if racists can change editing behaviour, then so can anyone. I think clean start would only usually apply if blocked. If the user remains able to edit, there wouldn't be much of a reason to create a new account. You underestimate the point you made. CNC (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  But people who're posting explicit marketing material for companies know what they're doing, even if they don't know we don't tolerate it; they're not going to change, and I have never, ever seen or so much as heard of one doing so. I present JohnCWiesenthal as a counterexample.

  Despite that, I agree with the general sentiment being expressed there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I cannot see any similarity between that editor's contributions and the user being discussed here. I just looked at some of their first edits, and the first edits at IntelliStar which was mentioned in the block reason. There was no comparison with the current case. Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• I see a difference between a page that is "promotional" and a page that is "advertising". The content here was promotional in tone; Tripleye provides innovative solutions that empower teams to build intelligent systems is sufficient example of that. But it was not advertising. There was no list of products for sale, no prices, no "call this phone number to order". For advertising of that nature, blocking after a single creation in a sandbox seems reasonable. In this case, it seems excessive; although 82james82 clearly needs guidance for how to proceed in the project. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  RFC on some of the issues raised here is now live at Wikipedia:Username policy/ORGNAME/G11 in sandboxes RFC. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Broader discussion on reporting users and blocking/unblocking

• Having read this discussion, I wanted to provide an example of how issues such as those raised can also lead to deterring users from reporting others. Apologies for the length of comment, but the point is predominantly in the context here. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. This is my personal feeling/opinion based on recently reporting a user for the first time, in a situation where there is a very high possibility that the editor becomes an (exclusively) constructive contributor, rather than regularly disruptive. The specifics of the example isn't the point, only that I almost certainly would have reported earlier if not seriously concerned that the user would fail to "prove" they were worthy for an unblock. Fortunately I had a very competent and understanding admin deal with the case and there wasn't even the pedanticism of an official unblock request (as is expected, or even required?) which was refreshing, but rather a simple back and fourth discussion, and the bar for the unblock was effectively set incredibly low, exactly as I'd hoped. For me this was a huge relief, as I'm a strong believer that even if only 1-10% of editors unblocked go on to become constructive contributors, then this is a huge number of potential useful editors, many of whom are here today no doubt. I'd be a lot more inclined to report serious issues rather than ignore if it were more common or possible for admins to override rejections of unblocks, or otherwise set lower bars for unblocks when applicable (that's subjective, I know). Maybe I've misinterpreted the examples above and my own, but I do wonder how many other users feel similar, those who shy away from noticeboards when possible, and don't want to be responsible for a user being indeffed due to failure to research and understand every policy and guideline that's ever existed in order to satisfy a request. I'm also aware of the cost/benefit scenario in the opposite direction, that of users being unblocked too easily leading to more serious issues down the line, but I do also think the balance could be better achieved overall. CNC (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  We get loads of people adding the same copy they use for user pages on LinkedIn, Facebook etc. That's all they are here for. When they ask to be unblocked we ask them what they want to edit about, and it's still their employer. Secretlondon (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  99% sure this reply isn't to me, maybe it's to the comment above? CNC (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well I intended it as a response to you. I accept I skimmed your comment as it was long. I was trying to explain that most spam blocks are clear cut. I wouldn't have blocked the one this thread was about, and I regularly reject requests to block people. Secretlondon (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Apologies for the cryptic example then, has nothing to do with spam blocking. My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. CNC (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  I do really worry about this, partly for the reasons you describe and partly because I think it sets people up to either become unblockable or the receiver of a really rough reality check once they stop flying under the radar. (Currently dealing with an unblock request from someone who fell into the latter category, then ruined their chances of a quick return by socking - not an ideal trajectory.) I know this doesn't really address the broader cultural issues, but when you're dealing with someone like that, it's hugely helpful if you can get them to understand what they did wrong that led to the block. The more of that that happens, the more likely their appeal is to be accepted. Part of the work of making unblocks a kinder process can be done (and done more effectively, imo) by non-admins. If you do this and get yelled at by some other admin, feel free to blame/call on me. -- asilvering (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Also, if you do this kind of thing, you're inevitably going to run into someone who is completely unhelpable at the present time. This can be really hard to disentangle yourself from, emotionally and from a sunk-costs kind of perspective. I think it's harder for admins actually, since admins are bound by WP:ADMINACCT and a non-admin is free to give up so long as they maintain basic civility while they do so. Forewarned is forearmed, but also, if you get trapped in a hopeless situation like that and need someone to be the Mean One who bails you out, I'm happy to do that too. -- asilvering (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  In this specific case, the user was blocked for a combination of spamming and a username violation, which was an obvious error. They were still blocked for it for three days after explicitly asking in an unblock requests what was wrong with their name. That's miles away from the scenario you are describing. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 19:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's also not similar to the scenario CNC is describing, which CNC already explicitly acknowledged. I'm aware that the prime example wasn't based on reports that led to blocks (as far as I understand, could be wrong), but simply knowing that there can be a high bar for an unblock, can be a deterrent in editors reporting issues, even if an incentive to others. -- asilvering (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Or, better, My comment was intended as part of the broader discussion of block/unblock procedures, rather than the example in question. -- asilvering (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox probably referencing directly what I'm talking about in future would help, apologies for any confusion here. My long-winded comment was effectively in support of the concerns you raised, even if somewhat indirectly or more broadly, and asilvering was merely providing some alternative context that is also relevant, even if not necessarily to the broader discussion in question. The quotes above should cover this, as well as potentially "The specifics of the example isn't the point,...". CNC (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I'll bare it in mind and appreciate the context you provided. The example of a blocked user turning sock is all too common I imagine, and 100% agree can be more likely avoided with more non-admin warnings (if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here). With my example above, the user was warned numerous times by non-admins and presumably thought it was "all talk" rather than reality (ie, being warned about being blocked, but never actually being blocked). This is also what happens when you spend a year warning a user and not taking the situation further based on the concerns raised above. Anyway, I digress as per often. I'm far from shy from sending warning templates to users (in fact I do so religiously, because usually it works). So the editors' ability to be unblocked was handed to them on a plate already, as intended, with the admin simply reminding them of the plate they had been given previously. Without these warnings, they quite possibly would have been left in the dark to research every policy and guideline that's ever existed to in order to determine whether that was the reason for a block, which is thoroughly unrealistic. At least, this can be the case, even if not so often I realise. Even knowing there is an admin or two I could ping into a discussion, that understand my POV, would be a huge benefit in future. Without intending to sound rude to admins here, going to a noticeboard is an awful lottery system that I try and avoid at all costs unless completely desperate. And hopefully, this context can be understood within the discussion in question, that of never wanting potentially useful editors permanently blocked unnecessarily. Which I've noticed can be as simple as failure to format an unblock request 🤮 CNC (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  if that's the point you were making, which is what I took away there, so please clarify if I'm off the mark here - in this case I brought up the socking simply to illustrate how someone who gets blocked can end up blocked for a long time, much longer than should have been necessary. That's always going to be a possibility if you report someone, and it's not your fault. Sometimes people make bad choices, doesn't matter what you do. -- asilvering (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed, no one is at fault when reporting editors based on the outcome, ever, but I see it as being partly responsible none the less (as the instigator of the outcome). No one is immune to the outcomes that they have caused fundamentally, even if they are not to blame. Ie if I become partly responsible for an editor being blocked for too long, it's a solid good reason not to report users in future, based on basic WP:RESPONSIBILITY WP:MORALITY. Even if I'm not implementing a bad admin action, I would remain the cause of such an action per cause and effect and remaining WP:CONSCIOUS. CNC (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'll start by saying that, absent some sort of specific statement about why that particular block reason was selected, I too am a bit baffled for choosing that reason. On the other hand, I'm having a hard time getting too excited about the indef block of an account that, by their own admission, was intending to write promotional articles about companies that don't come close to meeting our notability criteria, while using Wikipedia as a springboard to return to their career path. What I am seeing here is more a reason to *change the block reason* rather than a reason to unblock. Any admin can reblock with a more correct block message without getting into the whole "well, you need permission from the original blocking admin" stuff, which isn't actually material when any admin could have reblocked with a different block message. Risker (talk) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking through 331dot declining unblocks reveals quite a few instances where either 331dot or the blocking admin takes an extremely newbie-unfriendly approach:

• User talk:Meruba ny has now been unblocked by Philknight, but the approach by 331dot was not very helpful or newbie-friendly
• User talk:DustinBrett: no warnings, immediate indef block by User:Widr for a misguided edit (not vandalism, just auto-promo): no idea why a warning wasn't tried first
• User talk:Djmartindus, no warning, immediate indef block by User:rsjaffe, reasonable unblock request, denied by 331dot. This is the apparently unforgiveable, no warnings needed edit[39].
• User talk:PaulSem, I can understand their frustration, I don't see the "blatant spam" they were posting, they were posting references with relevant information, but these included commercial websites as well as neutral ones. I don't see any company they tried to promote, no spam text, ... just a helpful editor who hasn't yet given up on editing here despite a way too harsh block by User:HJ Mitchell and an unhelpful unblock decline by 331dot
• User talk:Cryo Cavalry incorrect sock block, unblocked thanks to PhilKnight, but previous interactions with 331dot, including a declined unblock, were again rather unhelpful, just blindly believing that the block has to be correct

These are all from this month, from spotchecking some of their declined unblocks (a number of other declines were perfectly allright). Fram (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I blocked based on Wikipedia:SPAMNAME combined with promotional edit. Name represents a website that functions to generate income and the user posted a link to the site. Is that kind of block incorrect? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Name of website (blog) is name of actual person, DJ Martin Dus. Link they posted was informative and relevant. The reaction to this is not some gentle steering towards "perhaps better a new username" (dubious if that was even necessary) and "please don't post links to your own blog", but an immediate indef block, and a declined unblock with a request for basically a complete plan for their future editing career. Apparently their error was much more heinous than someone posting blatant vandalism, who gets 3 or 4 chances before being blocked, and first gets clear warnings that it will happen. Fram (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Rsjaffe it was well within the bounds of policy and reason but the name could be a stage name whuch changes the equation slightly. Ask 100 different admins, you'll get 100 different answers.

I stand by my block of PaulSem based on the information I had at the time but my threshold for undoing my own block is essentially a coherent appeal or promise not to repeat the problem action so I've unblocked now I've seen that they appealed. That's not a criticism of 331dot because my standard for reversing another admin's action is much higher. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock, but I really don't see why that editor didn't just warrant some guidance, at worst warnings, for some of the links they included. I may well have missed it, but their latest edit added a good source, which you reverted[40], after which you blocked. Fram (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If the edit wasn't promotional enough for you to even revert, it probably wasn't blatant enough to call for a block. Or to turn it around, this is like when I see another admin tag all of a user's creations as spam, or vandalism, or even attack pages instead of deleting them themselves; and after I delete the pages and go to deal with the user, I find that the same admin had already blocked. How can you be confident enough to indef a user while still being unsure enough about their content - the reason you blocked them - that you need confirmation from another admin? —Cryptic 16:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The lack of reversion was an error on my part. However, I do acknowledge that I had only seen the name as the name of a website, and not also as a stage name. I have been slow on reversing the block after seeing the objection raised here, because one of the lessons I learned from a previous block that I posted on this page requesting review, showed that acting too quickly on an objection can create havoc, when the objection — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Itself becomes controversial. (I am on flaky connection right now, sorry for the broken up message). Will unblock, revert edit, and discuss either user. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Cryptic, I see things somewhat differently, and I am among the administrators who often block for promotional username/promotional editing and then tag the content, usually G11, for review by another administrator, under the principle that two heads are better than one. In my mind, it is a check on myself to help prevent me from becoming too stringent and if another administrator questions my tag or my block, that helps me adhere to community norms. Cullen328 (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

So, what, you see a promotional page being made, figure it's bad enough to block the creator, but aren't sure it's worth deleting? What do you do if the deletion's declined? Leave the user blocked, even though what they wrote was acceptable? Unblock? How do you rationalize either of those outcomes as ok? —Cryptic 18:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Cryptic, the answer is clear to me but I will spell it out for you. If another administator disagrees with my assessment that the content in question should be deleted (or that the editor should have been blocked), then that administator and I would have a conversation. That could lead to content being draftified instead of being deleted. It could lead to a hard block being converted to a soft block. It could result in me concluding that I misunderstood and unblocking with an apology. It would not result in me ignoring the situation and leaving a contradictory outcome unresolved. As I said, I believe that two heads are better than one and I do not recall any other admimstrator chastising me with, "you should have deleted that spam yourself!". Cullen328 (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Why not tag the page for deletion, then warn the user? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Significa liberdade, because I am an administator and overtly promotional usernames are not permitted and call for a block. And an account with an overtly promotional username combined with creation of overtly promotional content calls for a hard block. I do not engage in friendly negotiations with spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328: Apologies, on a re-read I realized you mentioned username+promo. I thought you were just talking about a new editor creating promotional pages. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And Cullen is of course correct by our current policies and practices. That's where I think the problem lies, not with individual admins but with the guidance provided to them, which I have been following for years myself. I do think spammers who are a plague on the encyclopedia is going a bit far in many cases and we need to try warning and education as a tool of first resort, as we do with vandals, instead of jumping straight to a block. I am very willing to delete spam, but I have come to believe that the no-warning blocking is not really productive or fair. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 03:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The best solution might be the simplest one: we need some new blood dealing with blocks and unblocks. Either admins who work in other areas should pay some attention to this, or new admins with a newbie-advocate philosophy need to be given the tools to work on block appeals. ...any volunteers? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin myself, but I'm always happy to help give advice to users making block appeals, and to make sure they're on the right track! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade is one of those newbie-advocate types who has taken up this work recently, and I've been on it as well. It needs as much new blood as it can get. It's also really helpful for non-admins who know their way around to help out the ones who have clearly misunderstood something (eg, someone blocked for copyright, a promo editor who needs to agree to abide by paid disclosure, etc). -- asilvering (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Help is surely needed, as the usual suspects just continue in the same vein, e.g. with User talk:NKabs03. That editor needed warnings and guidance, not an indef block and and a declined unblock. No idea why this was reverted, and while their addition was a promo link, it's hard to find fault with the reasoning from their edit summary[41]. 5 Edits of which 2 were good and 3 promolinks but relevant and understandable = no warnings and indef block? Gee, I wonder why we have such a hard time finding new editors. Fram (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Are there deleted edits or something else I can't see here, there's nothing further in the filter log? User:Tanishksingh039 makes two edits on the 11th, gets warned (okay), makes no further edits, and gets blocked indef a full week later on the 18th by User:HJ Mitchell. Why??? Fram (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

There are no deleted contributions. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything either, and this isn't a CU block, so I'm just going to reverse this one. I've asked about the other. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly my point, there is an attitude that people who post promo material are automatically someone making a living by backlinking a website for a clientand not just someone who is ignorant of Wikipedia policy. How are they supposed to learn if the first interaction they have with another Wikipedian is "you are already blocked, because you are a malicious spammer." and their second interaction is "you haven't immediately fully comprehended Wikipedia's policy on promotional edits so NOPE." I'm surprised the even made a second appeal. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 03:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• We need to recognize that we're in an era in which WP:ROPE doesn't really work for Spam/UPE, even though it continues to apply for other forms of disruption. The cost in editor time of monitoring the contributions of a suspected paid editor after an unblock or warning are very high, because often the edits are benign on the face of it: whereas I have no qualms about warning an editor at AIV, because I know they'll be back if they vandalize again. I haven't looked into the specifics of the cases here, and am not intending to justify them, but we need to recognize that if we want to make it easier to unblock editors suspected of UPE, or to encourage admins to warn for a first offence, a starting point might be making it easier to monitor the contributions of these editors. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  An alternative could be ROPE + topic ban? As in, we give them a second chance, but if they go back to editing about the company/etc. they were promoting (or something broadly related to it), even if the edits themselves are innocuous, reblock. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  That risks leaking private information about their conflict of interest/paid editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  True, I was only considering cases where the UPE was obvious (example: writing about a company in marketing jargon) rather than cases based on private evidence. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  It also doesn't change the difficulty of monitoring. It still means someone who knows of the concerns needs to check every subsequent edit manually for issues: new editors often don't understand a TBAN, and a dedicated spammer is unlikely to want to follow the rules in the first place. I'm just spit-balling here, but wondering if an admin were able to add a flag to an editor's subsequent edits that would tell patrollers what the concern was. That feels somewhat big-brother-esque, but perhaps we'd be more willing to give rope in that case? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I know a generic "watchlist this user's edits" isn't a good idea, but enabling it specifically for users you unblocked could definitely be helpful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Chaotic Enby, I think that's exactly the sort of thing @Vanamonde93 is saying is too much work when it comes to dedicated spammers. I keep an eye on the people I've rope-unblocked, but I couldn't do that at the rate that HJM does spam blocks, for example. Maybe he shouldn't be doing that many spam blocks; I don't know the circumstances enough to say so. -- asilvering (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, it could be good to find a way to distribute this workload, and Vanamonde's idea might be better for that purpose. Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful, but would need to be workshopped to find a middle ground between a mark of shame and total invisibility. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  There's a potentially good idea in there somewhere. In at least one of the cases above I might have held off on a block if I could have flagged all their edits for closer scrutiny by patrollers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae: as the first technically minded admin I thought of, is this even within the realms of feasibility? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  watchlist this user's edits. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to WP:HOUNDING concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.

  Flagging edits by recently ROPE-unblocked editors would be helpful. A user script could be written that runs itself on pages such as recent changes, the watchlist, and article histories, and highlights edits by users that have been added to a wiki page containing a list of users to highlight. Or highlights edits by users who have been unblocked within the last month. So yeah, that's technically possible. WP:US/R is a good place to request user scripts if y'all decide to go that route. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  watchlist this user's edits. I think I recall a Phab ticket for this somewhere that was declined due to WP:HOUNDING concerns. So I don't think devs will build this into MediaWiki.

  Yep, which is why I thought limiting its availability to admins watchlisting users they personally unblocked could mitigate the WP:HOUNDING risks. Even more if it's limited to unblocks from the last, say, 30 days (although giving a specific timeframe might be an incentive for these editors to just wait it out, so a specific number of edits that will show up on the watchlist might be better).

  For your second point, a script could very much be feasible. I think there's a way to retrieve a user's logs by script to check the date of their last unblock, and from there it's just like an admin/etc. highlighter script. I might do it actually, if I find the time for it (and everyone, feel free to remind me if it looks like I'm forgetting!) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  For reference, see this old community wishlist entry. Graham87 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Examples: HJ Mitchell

@HJ Mitchell:, per WP:ADMINACCT, can you please explain why you blocked User:Tanishksingh039 despite there being no edits between the warning they received for their first two edits, and your block a week later? Fram (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

HJMitchell addresses some thinking behind the block in this discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but the same happens with other editors as well. User:8neshebraWright8, warned on 11 December, one edit (not constructive but not problematic either) to their own user page the same day, suddenly blocked a week later? Nothing in the filter log, no deleted pages. If it was a sock, an indication in the block log would help. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That one was reported to AIV (which is where most of my blocks come from) late last night. I misread the timestamps and hadn't realised they were a week old but didn't see anything to be gained by unblocking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• User:Anushka Sweety Shetty: none of their edits after their one vandalism warning were reverted, they seemed like a good faith editor, but still you indef blocked them. Fram (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  That one came to AIV for triggering filters five times in five minutes. They were repeatedly blanking an article section by section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Except they weren't, after the warning they removed or merged sections once and then proceeded to add (at first glance acceptable) sources to the same article[42]. They were a good faith editor trying to improve an article, probably making errors along the way. Fram (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is very bizarre. They're blocked for vandalism, yet not a single one of their edits has been reverted. @HJ Mitchell, could you please have another look at this block? – bradv 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Why is this here and not on the user's talk page? If you have a concern with an individual user, as is the case here, you should first try to resolve your issues with the individual user. That's step one of dispute resolution. Risker (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. I think this whole section should be closed and discussion moved there.

  Somehow, I don't think that: "But we think our torches and pitchforks will be more effective here", is (or should be) a valid reason to skip steps in WP:DR in this case. - and that's about as much AGF as I think I can give in this instance. Regardless of initial intent, this is starting to come across as a kangaroo court. The appearance of which would seem to be undermining whatever goals that those concerned may have. - jc37 20:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  To those concerned, it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue. That is, in itself, a valid perspective. Class-borne exasperation is not itself collective discrimination or punishment.

  If you are implying this is shaping up to be a witch hunt, I have yet to see instances of magical thinking or confessions produced under torture. Instead, I see reasonable evidence for users' interrelated, reasonable concerns. Are people on WPO rude? Yes, and I see no bad faith in their incivility here. Remsense ‥ 论 20:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not seen as magical thinking or torture? Welcome to WP:AN : )

  And your comments do not address that this should have been - and should be - carried out on the admin's talk page, as Risker noted. - jc37 20:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Examples: 331dot

@331dot: per Wp:ADMINACCT, can you please explain why you declined the unblock of good faith editor User:PaulSem? It seems that they needed guidance, not blocking in the first place, and certainly not a declined unblock with a rather unfriendly, unhelpful message. Fram (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it was that was "unfriendly" about my message. I try to be matter of fact and succinct, perhaps that comes across as unfriendly, but I'm not trying to be. As the blocking admin said when they removed the block, "we don't link to sites that sell things". That's spam. I was looking for some understanding of that point. Perhaps I shouldn't have closed it, but we've had a massive backlog most of this year and I was trying to keep it down. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• "we don't link to sites that sell things" except that we do this all the time of course. This was very clearly a good faith editor (their last edit before the block was this), not some editor interested in adding spam. Your reply "You were posting blatant spam, the issue is not poor references." was clearly wrong, and the editor just needed an explanation of why something like this is not an acceptable source, even if it was added to be helpful and not as "blatant spam". Trying to keep down a backlog is not an excuse to deny good-faith editors their chance to edit and improve along the way because you don't have the time to actually look at what happened. Fram (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you're trying to offend me, it's working. I did look at what happened. Say you disagree, say I was wrong, fine. If you want the perfect admin, that's not me. But don't tell me I did things that I didn't do. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  So you looked at what happened, and still called this "blatant spam" and sufficient to decline an unblock? Then we are approaching WP:RECALL territory, as you seem to be having too many of these situations. I also linked above to User talk:Cryo Cavalry, who was incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry. I presume you looked into what happened when you declined the unblock with "I think that the reason for the block is correct. " or then continued to be extremely unhelpful by countering "If you could please check my edit history, you would see that I haven't done anything malicious." with "Your making edits is in and of itself malicious as you are evading blocks." They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment. Fram (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please tell me what the acceptable level of mistakes is so I know never to make too many. I never said anyone wasn't sincere. I didn't have access to all the information. You are assigning motives to me that I simply don't have and I don't know why you, a former admin, have it out for me. Merry Christmas. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @331dot Please familiarize yourself with WP:BATTLEGROUND. 78.173.128.237 (talk) 16:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am very familiar with it, thank you. 331dot (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't rude. I categorically, totally, in the strongest terms, reject that claim. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, let's leave the rudeness matter to the side for a while. Tone is hard to convey on the internet. Let's also not accuse other editors of having it out for anybody, because when in the history of Wikipedia has that ever gone well?

  Just to try and steer things back on course, @331dot, could you explain why you chose not to accept the unblock requests I posted a few days ago? And the others that Fram posted? I think understanding what your reasoning was when declining these unblocks, especially those of users such as Pbnjb1 and Cwootten13, will be useful for everybody. Mistakes are fine, but, and as an admin who monitors the unblock queue, you know this better than most, what other people want to see is genuine reflection and understanding. What went wrong in these, and what's going to happen differently next time? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm sorry but it's hard to be told I'm doing things that I'm not doing.

  • 2023-11-03 The user said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Wikipedia polices. I would like to continue editing Wikipedia and request to be unblocked." They said they hadn't reviewed policies yet, and they didn't say what edits they wished to make, both of which would indicate their understanding of the reasons for the block. Quite often people say they understand when they actually don't. Yes, blocks are cheap, but trying to avoid repeat blocks is good both for the appellant and us. Nothing nefarious, nothing rude. Happy to hear what specifically I should have done differently.
  • 2024-06-01 I said "If you lose track of which account you are using, you should stick to a single account." I didn't say it was an inappropriate use. They also incorrectly said a personal attack was made against them.

  I'm happy to discuss other things with you but I fear drawing this discussion out more than it already is. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Okay. Here we go.

  You selectively quoted Pbnjb1 there - which, I mean, I selectively quoted you so I can't get too mad. But they also wrote I am new to Wikipedia and was unaware that I was vandalizing articles by adding these categories. I now understand that I was adding nonexistent categories, which is why they showed up in red and were seen as disruptive.

  They very obviously demonstrated that they understood the relevant policies and had read them. How much clearer did you want them to be....? Please, elaborate

  Additionally, I don't think anybody who has seen that block has understood why it was made, because we don't do instant 4im warnings and indefs for newbies adding redcats. I don't know why you've expecting a new user to have to have understood something seasoned admins and editors are scratching their heads over. I concur with you about repeat blocks- they're bad for everybody's moral. But accusing other users of not having read policies when they tell you information they could have only learnt by reading the policy? I don't know what to say here.

  For the next decline- you selectively quoted yourself. this makes it seem like you are multiple people. That's inappropriate use. You did accuse them of inappropriately using multiple accounts. Again, I don't know what to say. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well, they said they read it and then said they didn't- what should I believe? A contradiction would suggest they didn't- but okay, I screwed up.

  I was trying to tell them why people thought they were using them inappropriately. I guess I failed at that. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  "then said they didn't" Please, back this up with a quote, because they didn't say they hadn't read the policies and guidelines. They said they would look at the Teahouse to get a better understanding. There was no contradiction. They demonstrated an understanding of the policies in the areas they'd been making mistakes in, and said they would ask for help in areas they didn't understand yet. But, because that was in the past, let's say you came across the exact same situation today. What would you do?

  I'll come back to the Cwooten13 block at a later date, just so we don't start spiraling off out of control. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  They said "I will review the resources at The Teahouse to get a better understanding of the Wikipedia polices"- which would suggest they hadn't yet. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  ....no? A better understanding != hasn't read something yet. In fact, the use of the comparative adjective "better" implies that they did read it, and they did understand it. Maybe not completely, but very few people understand our policies and guidelines completely, and especially not when they are a bran-new editor.

  And you didn't answer my question. Let's say you see that exact same situation again. What would you do? 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would unblock them. I think this was just a difference in wording interpretation- which I'm happy to correct when pointed out to me. 331dot (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  So, an editor is incorrectly blocked for sockpuppetry, protests his innocence, and you simply dismiss his protests without any indication why. They then point to their record of good contributions, and you again dismiss this completely and reassert that they were editing maliciously, but you weren't rude? "I didn't have access to all the information." In the first of these two blocks, you did have access to all the information, but still denied the unblock and called it blatant spam. In the second case, you didn't have all the information, but still proceeded to completely reject any possibility that the editor was right and summarily dismissed them. The issue is not "the acceptable level of mistakes" but what you do when those mistakes are pointed out. Fram (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I can't do anything about mistakes if you don't tell me what they are. I'm always willing to change and adjust. I've never denied this. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  ??? Seriously? Perhaps reread this whole discussion top to bottom, it lists enough of your mistakes. Or if that's too much to ask, just reread my messages from today. Fram (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I mean before now. "Hey, 331dot, just a friendly question asking why you did X thing when I noticed Y thing was the case". 331dot (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  So no actual reply to my post then. You claim to be willing to change and adjust, but give no indication that you understand what you did wrong. Fram (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  "They weren't a sock, but you don't seem to have entertained the thought that their unblock request and their comments were sincere even for one tiny moment." I did, but unsurprisingly many socks deny being socks. Do I get that wrong sometimes? Yes. 331dot (talk) 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  The editor involved (nor anyone else) had any indication that you took their unblock request and explanation in any way serious, you gave no explanation at all, leaving the editor rather desperate: "Please, could you explain to me how this conclusion has been reached?", no answer. Fram (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have other things to do, and by the time I noticed that, someone else(a checkuser) had already engaged with them. I didn't want to pile on especially whem someone with more information was interacting with them. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  But it should never have come to that in the first place, if you had at the very least explained your reasons for not believing them at all in either your unblock decline or in your follow-up at the latest. Fram (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is actually quite illustrative. We have a situation where several people are telling you that you made mistakes and they're discussing what should be done. This seems to have come almost out of nowhere and you wish you had been given a heads up before it came to this. You're not sure exactly why it is that they're approaching things this way, and even though you're expressing that you're acting in good faith, it feels like there's nothing you can say that would satisfy them. If you're getting frustrated, that's an entirely understandable response and I don't blame you. Imagine the frustration when you're told that I will strive to improve in the future. That's all I can do. Thank you. doesn't cut it and your appeal is denied. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I see what you're trying to do here. I get it. You say it "doesn't cut it" but don't tell me why. I do tell people why or at least attempt to. We all see things differently and have different perspectives, so maybe I don't always succeed. But I try. I'm not the perfect admin certain people seem to want me to be. But turn it around and try to see what I'm saying. I'm not acting nefariously, I'm not a terrible person. 331dot (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe you intend to cause harm. I've never done unblocking (obviously), and I imagine it's one of the more difficult admin tasks. My point is that there are parallels in terms of asking for assumptions of good faith, only that the newer editors don't always know how to express that. My suggestion, acknowledging again I've only been involved as an observer? Once a blocked editor tries to express good faith, the community as a whole should be more willing to help them express that. This is a ultimately a systematic problem. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with that, but that means more discussion, not less, and this thread was created because of a perception that "several admins" were "just standing by interrogating a user". It's my personal opinion, from handling and watching these over the past couple months, that repeated, snap declines are much more harmful than these longer conversations. -- asilvering (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Since this has devolved into focusing on single administrator's actions, I will ask that you either split this into a new discussion, move this to that admin's talk page, or collapse it as not to distract from what was supposed to be a broader discussion. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 11:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I've turned it into subsections Fram (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  This discussion should probably be moved into relevant subsection. CNC (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• This makes me curious, probably a good fit for the idea lab for further workshopping, but would it be an interesting idea to have a board specifically for WP:ADMINACCT questions? From what I've seen, asking on the talk page of the editor or the admin themselves gives pretty low visibility to the question and often isn't conducive to further discussion, or sometimes to getting a clear answer at all, while something like AN or ANI might be too direct or accusatory for a simple question. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps the scope of WP:AARV could be expanded to include such questions? 331dot (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  It could be, although AARV carries the presumption that the action was incorrect and should be up to debate to endorse/overturn, rather than a centralized place to simply ask WP:ADMINACCT questions with more transparency than the admin's talk page (where things like WP:OWNTALK apply). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It's difficult to see how other admins deal with unblock requests, as only open requests are easily findable. Looking at the open requests, I see User talk:TagKnife, which seems from what I can see onwiki a very weird block, but as it is based on an UTRS ticket I can't judge it completely. Still, if it was paid editing the block seems to have come 6 months after the fact, not at a time the paid editing was happening (if it ever happened), so why a block and not a warning/discussion? Fram (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Because it was a Terms of Use violation involving UPE. I cannot say any more without violating policy and documents that I have signed. 331dot (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Were there other edits besides what is visible + the one deleted article? Fram (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe I can answer your question without violating policy. 331dot (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really understand under what circumstances that could be true, but I guess I have to accept it. Fram (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Fram (and others), it is not a UTRS ticket, it is a WP:VRT ticket (presumably a WP:COIVRT ticket). People who are given access to the queue sign the ANPDP (which is the same NDA signed by editors with CUOS). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Fram I'm genuinely curious. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the ticket showed definitive evidence of UPE (because in my estimation as someone who can see the ticket, it did), do you think this is still a bad block in the way you have concerns about other spam blocks where the editor has stopped editing? I didn't become an admin to block people (I am a bit abashed I'm up to 175 blocks in my ~5 years as an admin) but I am closely following this discussion to get my own sense of community consensus about these matters. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If the UPE is about the deleted article, then yes, I consider it a bad block. If there is more to it, which doesn't show up in the edits, log, and filter log, then it may of course be a perfectly acceptable block. But there is, as far as I know, no reason to automatically give an indef block for UPE instead of warning editors, certainly when like here they have made many other edits which seem uncontroversial, and when the paid editing is months in the past and not repeated after the article was deleted. Fram (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the ticket out of curiosity, and based on the evidence I would say that not only is it clearly UPE, it is clearly UPE from someone who knew it was not permitted and chose to engage in it (and later, pretend they hadn't). I think an indefinite block is entirely justified under the circumstances. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@331dot: it turns out you were perfectly correct with this block, and at the same time not allowed by policy to convincingly explain it, which must be frustrating. Thank you for your patience, and thank you to the others who took a look at this one. I'll not bother you about similar ticket-based blocks in the future, as it is clear that I can't independently assess them, the one example I used was a perfect block, and you may not explain it in any detail anyway. Fram (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I agree that the imperfect information landscape must have been frustrating all around and I applaud the good faith, patience, and understanding that the community has demonstrated on this issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for closure review

I would be grateful for a review of the decision to close the discussion at Talk:You Like It Darker in favour of merging the article Finn (short story) into You Like It Darker".

The proposal to merge was raised by Voorts on 30 May 2024, the day after the article was created, at which point the article looked like this. Subsequently, there were three responses, two (including myself) against merging and one for merging (not including Voorts' "vote" as nominator). The final "vote" was cast on 3 June, at which point the article looked like this. The discussion was subsequently dormant for a few months. On 1 October 2024, AirshipJungleman29 opted not to close the discussion. On 27 October 2024, Compassionate727 performed a non-admin closure on the proposal to merge in favour of merging, at which point the article looked like this.

I subsequently raised this with Compassionate727 who declined to revise their decision (entirely within their rights).

I am therefore bringing this to the noticeboard to respectfully request a review of the decision to close in favour of merging. The main points I would flag are:

• I think the verdict that there was a "rough consensus to merge" is questionable.
• The proposal to merge, and subsequent discussion, date from immediately after the article's creation and while the article was in the process of being expanded and improved. The latest vote for merging is from 31 May 2024, and the article has been significantly expanded since then. My view would be that, in light of the changes made to the article since 31 May, it would be reasonable to revisit the matter to consider if any of the arguments in favour of merging have been satisfactorily addressed. In effect, the decision to merge does not give weight to any improvements to the article since May 2024.
• On a practical level, it is unclear how the article could realistically be merged into You Like It Darker without running into WP:UNDUE or purging the vast majority of content. The article has not been merged over two months following the closure.

If the settled view of the community is to merge the articles on the basis of the discussion in May-June then I will of course accept that, but on this occasion I would respectfully ask that some more consideration be given as to the best course of action. Thank you. McPhail (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Overturn and reopen Not a single comment was made after the request was posted to WP:PAM, and, excluding the nom's !vote, there is one proponent of the merge, who cited a concern that appears to have been addressed. There should be further discussion here. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Endorse: The sources added after the merge proposal opened are all about the book. The notability of the book cannot be inherited by the short story. Until there are several independent, reliable sources that establish the story is notable, this should be merged. The due weight issue can be resolved by cutting out the extensive plot summary and summarizing the reviews within the broader context of the book itself. Why not work on getting the book article completed instead of myopically focusing on one short story? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Overturn and Reopen. There's no consensus to do anything there, let alone merge. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Just commenting, because I didn't receive the expected notification, that I am aware of this discussion. I may respond in substance later. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Okay, I had to take some time to remind myself of why I handled this how I did. Basically, because it was proposed for merging because of notability concerns rather than anything in WP:MERGEREASON, I treated this discussion as an AfD in another venue. The way AfD works, in practice, is that the subject is presumed to not be notable until it is demonstrated that it is—which, if the subject is indeed notable, is rarely difficult to do. As multiple participants observed, no evidence was provided at any point in the discussion that this short story meets the general notability guideline; indeed, opponents of the merge didn't even bother trying to argue that it does. Instead, they tried to fall back on WP:NBOOK#5, but again, they failed to provide any evidence that King's corpus is a common subject of academic study, and Οἶδα provided a reasonable argument that it probably isn't. The notability of the story not being demonstrated, I found a consensus to not retain the article, which in this case meant merging.
    I would find it idiosyncratic for the result to be overturned to no consensus because of the discussion's low participation, which is entirely characteristic of merge discussions. I would find it vexing if my closure was merely vacated and the discussion reopened, as participants here are currently suggesting, because unless they want to join the discussion, doing so is quite unlikely to actually garner additional participation and will instead merely stall the consensus-building process. In any case, with notability still not being demonstrated, I'm guessing that a "no consensus" outcome will merely cause the conversation to move to AfD, where I expect the article will be deleted unless new evidence emerges. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn and reopen per my original reasoning as mentioned above (I didn't get a ping though) and strongly echoing Black Kite. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. I don't believe this discussion has meaningful consensus, and as someone who works on literary topics it is a somewhat frustrating discussion to read. First, the story is notable: Stephen King is a literary giant, and therefore his publications meet WP:BOOKCRIT No. 5. Second, the notability is somewhat secondary; the real question for a merge discussion is whether a standalone page is appropriate. We routinely treat notable topics as part of a larger coherent article because that serves a reader better, and sometimes because that is how the sources treat them. The questions that needed to be answered are whether there is sufficient content to justify a standalone page, and whether a merger would create due weight issues. At a brief glance the answers to those questions are "yes" and "yes", but more to the point, those questions weren't examined in any depth. Honestly, I think this is a borderline case where either outcome could be made work with good editing (the collection article could be expanded, such that a merger wouldn't swamp it). Finally, the discussion had four participants, evenly split on the question. Absent a reason to completely discard one set of opinions - and I don't see such a reason - I don't see grounds to close this with consensus in favor of anything. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Derogatory comments and sockpuppetry

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

---

Administrators' Please block the users Special:Contributions/2409:408C:AE9C:9877:9A5E:3256:72B3:8EAB and Special:Contributions/2409:40F2:3B:B5A:44E2:8FF:FE64:729E for their disruptions and abusive edits on page: Mohan Bhagwat. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

These edits are from over a month ago. There is no point in blocking these /64 at this moment. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato okay, I will keep an eye on this user. Will let the admins know in the future if they continue to disrupt. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Request removing creation block at Alpha Beta Chi

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

---

Alpha Beta Chi was repeatedly recreated in 2008 after a deletion for Copyvio back in 2007 and was thus Creation Blocked. On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities after some discussion, we believe we have found sufficient references for creation of the page. On contacting an available administrator, they indicated that I should ask here. thank you.Naraht (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If an editor wants to create this in good faith then I don't see why not, but I must say that I find this whole "Greek letter" thing extremely childish, so I certainly won't be editing the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The article was SALTed for lack of a credible claim of significance under A7, not for persistent copyright violation. I don't think a Senate resolution and a newspaper article from 1942 – which are the only two sources cited in the WikiProject discussion – meet WP:NORG. I personally won't un-SALT the page until I'm satisfied that this is actually notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Naraht,

I'm not sure why you were advised to come here to WP:AN, the proper place to request a change in protection for a page title is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Secondly, you're best bet is to write a draft article and submit it to WP:AFC, if it is approved, then protection can be lowered so the article can be moved from Draft space to main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Naraht: I've undeleted it for you; salting wasn't intended to prevent a soild editor from creating an article in 2024; it was being recreated in 2007-2008 in unuseful ways. Because of Voorts' concern, Liz's idea of drafting it in draft space first, until you have all your ducks in a row, is a good one. But you've been here forever, I defer to however you want to handle it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't notice that Naraht had been an editor since 2005. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Request to create the 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 redirect to Shavian alphabet

REASON: It's directly mentioned in the article thus it's already immediately obvious. And because it uses characters outside the BMP, I can't create it myself so... User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

·𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑩𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑 already exists. Not sure about the dot in front of it? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

From the article.

There are no separate uppercase or lowercase letters as in the Latin script; instead of using capitalization to mark proper nouns, a "namer-dot" (·) is placed before a name. Sentences are typically not started with a namer-dot, unless it is otherwise called for. All other punctuation and word spacing is similar to conventional orthography.

Seems appropriate for the forced capitalization of the wikipedia article, but I could see that going either way.Naraht (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• 𐑖𐑱𐑝𐑾𐑯 𐑨𐑤𐑓𐑩𐑚𐑧𐑑? Sure. jp×g🗯️ 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done. jp×g🗯️ 16:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Call for decisive admins to clear backlog

So, there have been persistent backlogs at Category:Requests for unblock. I had not worked the area in a while, and I assumed it was simply so understaffed that appeals weren't even being looked at. What I have found instead is that, in quite a number of cases, between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the exact edits they would make. I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock.

Now, I don't agree with that approach as most of these appeals are from fairly new users and I was under the impression we were supposed to assume good faith and give second chances, not act like every unblock appeal was the trial of the century, and there is some terrible risk to just finding out if they can actually behave if unblocked. However, the real problem here is that I'm seeing these long discussions, but then the reviewing admins don't do anything. Even after asking the user to jump through all these hoops, they do not even get the courtesy of closure to their case.

So, I'm asking, pleading really, for admins who find themselves able to come to a conclusion and act on it to pleas help with this backlog.

I'm not looking to have a long discussion here about it, I'm asking for help dealing with it as it seems fairly out-of-control. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to say that I couldn't disagree with that characterization more. In some cases (and you didn't name me but you clearly include me) I have already reviewed and I'm not supposed to review again. I also have other things to do. And sometimes I forget. Nothing nefarious like its being made out to be. And yes, I don't want people to post here saying "that 331dot's wasting our time unblocking all these people who shouldn't be!". Is that so unreasonable?

AGF does not mean accepting things on blind faith. WP:GFISNOT; Trust, but verify. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe I said or implied it was anything nefarious, as I don't think it is. I don't agree with the prolonged quizzes and goalpost moving I'm seeing in some of these requests, that's true, and sure, some of that is you but it isn't just you. It seems to me that we have an issue here exactly because too few admins are working in this area, and that group has developed their own version of "how it's supposed to work" that I do not think jives with what the community expects. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

What the community expects, or what you expect?

I'm not being disagreeable here. You and I have been around a long time and I think it's safe to say we've seen a lot of blocks and unblocks happen, and many discussed here and elsewhere. In my estimation, there's no consensus on how unblocking should be treated, because it's relying on admin discretion on a case by case basis. And questioning the blocked user to get more info - rather than ignoring and leaving them blocked! - was always seen as more merciful and giving the opportunity for AGF. We always have said that we as a community believe in the opportunity for redemption here. But not at the expense of disruption to the project. (See also Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblock_requests, especially the first line.)

All that said, concerning one of your comments, if an admin is going on vacation, a wiki-break, or whatever, then out of courtesy, they should note here that they are dropping certain tasks (like an unblock review) so that there is less confusion, and someone else can pick up the ball. - jc37 02:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I do second the request for help, though. Thank you in advance. 331dot (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I have some hypotheticals in response to your implication that current admins staffing RFU are acting unreasonably:

• between one and four admins have discussed the block, quizzed the user up and down about why they were blocked and asked them to identify, not just what broad areas they might edit in if unblocked, but to describe the exact edits they would make. SpamEditor is blocked for spamming links to their small business. They request an unblock, with the statement: "Sorry I just want to edit Wikipedia productively, I won't do it again". AdminUnblocker uses the {{2nd chance}} template. SE complies with that template after two weeks, and submits an article edit. AU and a couple of other admins comment on it. BlockingAdmin is consulted per the blocking policy, but takes a week or so to respond because they're on vacation.
• I'm also seeing admins bringing in other concerns entirely unrelated to the logged reason for the block and demanding that the user address those concerns as well before they will unblock. MeanEditor is blocked for making personal attacks based on three or four diffs and without any preceding discussion or AN/I report. ME requests to be unblocked, stating that they won't make personal attacks ever again, and sincerely apologizing for their conduct. While reviewing the unblock request, AU looks at ME's edit history and sees that ME had also regularly added unsourced information to articles. AU asks ME to explain what WP:V requires and to provide an example of a reliable source. After a back and forth, ME passes the exercise and is unblocked. Now, assume AU hadn't asked those questions and instead unblockes ME based solely on the sincerity of the apology. The next day, ME inserts unsourced information into several articles, continues after a final warning, and is indef'd.

voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• I also want it on the record that I strongly disagree with Beeblebrox's removal of KathiWarriorDarbar's block, a block that three admins (including me) didn't think should be removed. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• We can also add to the record that Beeblerox unblocked Jisshu, who had been blocked for copyright violations. In the meantime, Jisshu had been contributing to Simple Wikipedia... where many of their edits consisted of close paraphrasing. As documented here, the editor immediately returned to adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia and has been reblocked. Although I'm all for clearing the backlog, it's also important not to be sloppy about it. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I second this. I want to unblock people, but I also don't want to see them back, both for them(so they become good contributors) and for us(so we don't waste more time dealing with repeat appellants). Yes, blocks are cheap, and often WP:ROPE is good, but not always. I also am aware of no policy that says only the stated/logged issue can be dealt with and nothing else, especially in the face of clear evidence. 331dot (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Your "clear evidence" is too often a brand new editor who was blocked way too harshly instead of being warned, and then gets their unblock declined because they didn't fully understand the block (how could they?). The previous discussion included plenty of recent such episodes where you were involved (together with others). I don't get why blatant vandalism gets 4 warnings, but people adding helpful links to informative but unacceptable sources (their own blog, a commercial site they don't seem to be affiliated with) get an indef block without a warning and then a very unhelpful treatment when they ask for an unblock. Fram (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm trying to balance being helpful with avoiding the user telling me what I want to hear(giving them the information I'm looking for). I provide help when specifically asked. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  add to the record? What record? The record of giving people a second chance and then being disappointed but not particularly surprised when they squander it? As far as I'm concerned that's how this is supposed to work. Simple unblock requests from newer users making a reasonable request for a second chance don't require a committee to deal with them. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  No, El Beeblerino. It is a follow-up on 331dot's wording of I also want it on the record, which is a phrase. (I believe that it is likely you knew that question was false when you replied, but on the off chance you didn't.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  But this was an editor who hadn't learned they were about to squander it! Did you think they were lying when they said they understood what paraphrasing was? If yes, why unblock? If no, why set them up for failure like this? -- asilvering (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  You asked them several questions and they gave at least semi-reasonable replies. They admitted they had copied material word-for word and said they would paraphrase in the future. You declined to action the report after all that, saying that someone needed to check their edits on another project for copyvios.

  
  

  I read the appeal and the subsequent conversation and came to my own decision, which was different from yours. That's how it goes. It isn't personal, I just did not see it exactly the same as you did, and since you explicitly said you would not decline the request I took the action I thought was appropriate. I did not and do not see this as overriding your decision, but equally I do not feel I was required to make the checks you wanted somebody to do.

  
  

  It turns out they didn't understand any of it and actually acted even more clueless than they had before the block, and were swiftly reblocked for it. I've undone a bunch of their bad edits myself, and added my own comments about how their behavior post-unblock was terrible and clueless. All we can do is try and educate newbies, which you tried to do. Some people are just unteachable, that's just the sad truth of it and I feel at this point that this is a CIR case.

  
  

  I think we have similar basic goals in mind, we want newbies to be given a chance, but your approach with the quizzes is simply not how I approach things. That's ok, we need diversity of opinion and approach in these areas.

  
  

  As far as I am concerned, this specific matter has already been resolved. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 00:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly I suspect that exactly this reaction is what's actually going on here: admins are reluctant to unblock people for the same reason governors are unwilling to pardon people, because if they let someone edit and they do something bad again people will rightly-or-wrongly now blame the unblocking admin for it. Loki (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  What I do is add an event to my calendar so that I get a daily email reminder to check the unblocked person's contribs. I typically have several of these happening. This system gives the opportunity to give timely feedback if they are still not getting it, or to reblock if necessary. Diannaa (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Diannaa (and others): may I take a moment to recommend User:SD0001/W-Ping.js which lets you create reminders onwiki which then appear on your watchlist. You can even "snooze" them once they appear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Sob story About a year ago, I decisively tackled CAT:UNBLOCK. It was exhausting. It was disheartening. I felt constant fear of making a mistake. That fear got worse when many of those I unblocked resumed disruption and were reblocked. The sense of achievement from the few successful unblocks was not enough to overcome the sense of stupidity I felt from the reblocks. I gave up. @Beeblebrox:, you have renewed my willingness to make decisive (if high-risk) unblocks. @Tamzin, JBW, and Asilvering:, are you with me?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That's weird, because recently this page has made me want to hand back my barely-unwrapped mop. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@DoubleGrazing: Don't get discouraged. Remember it is a learning and relearning experience. Be open to feedback and adjust your focus and methodology as needed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm in a similar position. I waded in to CAT:UNBLOCK some time ago to try and help clear the backlog and pretty much every case I looked at was seemingly already being reviewed by other admins. Despite the volume of requests in there, I found very few "virgin" requests where I could pop in and make a quick decision without overriding anyone but the blocking admin.

I agree with @Beeblebrox, we need to stop the protracted discussions. If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along. If you're not sure, err on the side of assuming good faith; their edits can always be rolled back and they can be reblocked if necessary.

Above all, let's not beat each other up if we make a mistake on that front. Assuming good faith is one of our central pillars and nobody should be lambasted or made to feel stupid for doing so. WaggersTALK 14:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If the unblock request on its own isn't enough to convince you to unblock the user, decline the unblock (explaining why) and move along. Why is this better than having a dialogue, answering questions, and educating the editor? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Two reasons. First, with limited admin resources, that time-consuming approach just isn't feasible if we want to actually get the backlog down. Second, as @Beeblebrox has pointed out, it often turns the unblock request into something closer to what RfA has become, and none of us want that. WaggersTALK 11:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, outside of the context of this thread, my answer is, of course, "you know my philosophy, you know I'm with you". I believe very firmly in treating people with kindness, collegiality, and above all, patience. That's precisely why I have been engaging at some length with blocked editors. Given the context of this thread, it appears that "decisive" means "with minimal discussion or delay". I've already watched one editor I had been interacting with get unblocked without any verification that they understood what was expected of them; that editor was so excited to be unblocked, immediately connected with another interested editor in the topic area... and was reblocked. I don't think that was kind, collegial, or patient, and I don't think it was just, either. If that's what being decisive is, I don't want any part of it; it's heartbreaking. -- asilvering (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'll gladly endorse second-chance unblocks that lead to disruption, if it means we can avoid reaffirmed blocks that prevent good faith contributors from joining Wikipedia. It's the difference between short-term disruption on a few pages versus potentially years of contributions lost. I don't object to talking to the blocked editor first to make sure the concerns are addressed, but the admin should go in looking for reasons to unblock rather than the other way around. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

To editor Thebiguglyalien: Wait. You endorse unblocks that lead to disruption? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm simply describing WP:ROPE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

😵 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You 😵, @Deepfriedokra, but when it comes to low-stakes obvious vandalism and so on, I think this is fine, so long as the unblocking editor keeps an eye on the next few contributions to see whether the rope got used in the, uh, traditional manner. People who replace the content of an article with "pee pee poo poo" know what they're doing. I had gotten the impression from my early lurking at unblocks that this was unacceptable, sighed about the death of WP:ROPE, and resolved to bring it up once I had more unblocks experience. Since then I've only seen fit to apply it in cases where the block is quite old already, so it didn't seem like much of an experiment (and indeed, no noose-takers), and one other case with other mitigating concerns (I was immediately snarked at for this one, but so far, still no noose, just a slow-moving cat-and-mouse game I don't know what to make of yet). -- asilvering (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

ROPE itself says that sometimes these discussions are appropriate: Sometimes those prolonged unblock discussions produce real results in educating the blocked user about why they were blocked and helping them to edit productively in the future. I've made ROPE unblocks, but I've also made unblocks where I've had a discussion with the editor. By ROPE's own terms, whether to do one or the other is within an admin's discretion. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I've done both as well. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And I'm fine with that, as long as we're more forgiving to admins who make bad unblocks as opposed to admins who make bad blocks or are too quick to dismiss unblock requests by editors who don't know "the game". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

If Beeb had asked the admins involved instead of bringing this to AN, I think you would have seen answers like @asilvering's. This idea that people staffing CAT:UNBLOCK are looking not to unblock people appears to be coming from WPO editors assuming bad faith. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That thread in particular has some extremely funny things to say about me. Recommended reading, really. -- asilvering (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm always amused when someone implies that I am under mind control from WPO. I assure you that I am quite capable of making my own decisions. Where the initial alarm bell went off is not relevant, I, myself, looking much further than the specific cases mentioned there, found what I believe to be a serious systemic problem in the unblocking process. I don't believe I said anywhere that the regulars in this area are looking not to unblock people, I said too many requests were being discussed at length and then never closed, whether as an accept or a decline. That's not acceptable. What we need here, as I very clearly stated when opening this thread, is more admins working this area and more willingness to just make an up-or-down call on unblock requests. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

"looking not to unblock people" etc. was in response to alien's point, not yours. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

All this "that part of my comment was directed elsewhere even though the other part was clearly directed at you" is getting farcical. If anyone wants to help out with the damn backlog please jump right in. That was the point here. It's down to fifty-eight items right now, which is bad but not as bad as it has been some days. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 00:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Beebs, you could save us all some time if you'd just tell us which users Wikipediocracy thinks were improperly blocked today. I'm a little exasperated myself lately at some blocks that have been ignoring the assume good faith guideline especially with respect to new users, and I'd be happy to look into some but I'm not going to waste my time sorting through the drivel over there on the off chance that there might be a helpful comment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  How nice to see locations of the targeted admins being brought up on the first page. CMD (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector:I have responded to one or two that were discussed over there, but I've mostly just been scrolling through the list and just picking them at random. I've found plenty that just needed someone to take action that way.

  I admit I shy away from the CU blocks. I know those were moved back to largely being reviewed by the community but I'm not actually sure how we're supposed to actually do that. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  And also starting threads here specifically about the admins and their specific actions that are being discussed there by people who are banned here. I'm not going to harp on this because I happen to be roughly on the same page, but do mind WP:BMB and WP:PROXYING. Regarding checkuser: I'm not sure what you mean by "moved back to the community" - all a CU block indicates is that private information is involved in the block decision, and for that reason the community shouldn't be reviewing CU blocks at all. Likewise checkusers shouldn't be flagging blocks for no reason. But if a CU has already reviewed the block, it's supposed to be good to go for regular reviews by admins or the community; I'm trying to be more explicit about that in the blocks that I review, if I don't just close the appeal myself. And like I said below: if you come across an unblock that's sitting idle because it's waiting on a checkuser, try flagging it with {{checkuser needed}} so that the page gets listed in the table at WP:SPI. Stuff listed there gets the fastest attention. I know you probably already know all of this, but I'm saying it anyway for everyone's benefit who might not. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Beeblebrox what's been changed has been CU blocks basically being appealable only to arbcom to being able to handled onwiki by any CU in most circumstances (and/or a CU removing the CU part of the bloack because there is no socking going on and letting an admin handle other issues that contributed to a block). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Ah. I hadn't worked this area in a while and I think I was on a break when that change was made, so I kind of missed the finer points. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The unblock log would probably be shorter if some admins weren't so trigger happy. The other discussion here at AN contains quite a few examples of editors who shouldn't have been blocked so swiftly, and in the current unblock queue I see e.g. user:Pampanininoam, who needed an explanation, not a block. Fram (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Checkuser blocks The blocks that have been waiting the longest for a response are checkuser blocks. I cannot unblock those, so I've not looked closely. Perhaps a checkuser could look at them?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I processed some from the top of the list that were marked as checkuser blocks - all of the ones I looked at had already been reviewed by a CU. I closed some but I am in meetings for the rest of the day. You might want to take a closer look, and perhaps consider adding a {{checkuser needed}} if they are still waiting. There aren't that many CUs that patrol unblocks, but the template lists the page in a table at WP:SPI that we all look at. I think they also get posted to IRC but I'm not on there. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Now seems like a good time to invite comment on User:Tamzin/wild ideas/Unsucking unblocks, my radical proposal for restructuring the system. It's already gotten some very helpful feedback from some of the participants in this discussion. Please note, this is still in the workshop phase, so I'm not asking for support/oppose comments at this time. But I welcome any and all comments on its talkpage about how to make the idea better and/or more likely to pass an RfC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Trigger-happy blocks are for sure another serious issue here, we need to work it from both ends. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have little to offer here, except to say that decisiveness is a virtue only if the decider is right. In itself it is very overrated. I wish that people, especially politicians, would be more honest and say "I don't know" much more often. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Self-requested RM relist review

I recently relisted Talk:Protecting Women's Private Spaces Act#Requested move 11 December 2024 but I'm not entirely certain if that or closing as not moved was the correct option. There were zero !votes in support of the requested move, and the nominator's argument misrepresented policy, but three of the oppose !votes indicated that they would support renaming the article to something else that accounts for the fact that the article also discusses another bill. Therefore, I relisted the discussion with the following comment:

There is a very clear consensus against the proposed move, but some people have suggested moving to an alternative title that also accounts for the mention of another bill in this article. Further discussion is needed on that aspect of the request.

I've never relisted a discussion for a reason like this before, so I've come here to request review of if my decision was the correct one. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is an appropriate relist since additional discussion might lead to consensus on a new title or enough options for a bartender's close. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"Early" closes at AfD

The closing instructions at AfD currently says A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). I have noticed that several discussions each day are being closed early. Most of these are less than 30 minutes early but I have seen up to 2 hours early of their 7 days/168 hours. If articles are being closed as keep, I think that's arguably defensible and relisting early when it's obvious no consensus will be reached definitely makes sense, but I have a harder time with deletions. Truthfully, I don't understand the rush, especially as most (if not all - I've only spot checked this) are being done with XfDCloser which warns you if you're going early - that is these admins are making a conscious to close early. Since we're talking a handful minutes it likely doesn't make a difference in the outcome. But for me the instructions imply closing before 168 hours should be more a IAR situation rather than several discussions each day and multiple admins doing it. I thought I would bring it here for discussion to see if it's just me or if it bothers anyone else. And if it is just me maybe we adjust the instruction (or maybe I'm just making normally out to be a stronger prohibition than it's meant to be). I'm specifically not naming any of the admins or linking to any early closes as I'm not looking to get anyone "in trouble", just trying to see where the community stands, but obviously all of this can be observed by anyone else who wants to go through the day's closes at AfD. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Are there controversial closes being made like this, or 'straight up' all-keeps or all-deletes being closed a few hours early? If it's the latter, then I'd say it's no big. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with Bushranger here that if they're 'straight up' it probably doesn't overly matter. XfDCloser does warn for early closures but if they've been relisted once that behaviour does appear to break based on recent personal experience, as I realized last night and self-reverted an MfD close (as redirect) when I realized it was way too early following a relist to take action; got my dates mixed up in that instance and it was in the "old" section. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I advise against closing even marginally early for a couple of reasons. From the perspective of establishing a robust consensus, I know that several regular participants begin with the oldest open discussions (I did this, when I was a frequent participant), and so closing early can sometimes prevent scrutiny that a nomination can usefully receive. From the perspective of making best use of the community's time, I would avoid making an early closure an additional reason to go to DRV. Even the most well-reasoned closures have a chance of ending up there, but ending an AfD a few minutes early offers no tangible benefit to compare with the tangible cost of a DRV (this is somewhat akin to why I discourage even experienced editors from making contentious NACs). Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I don't personally consider a closure "early" if it has already been relisted at least once. I would define early as "open less than 168 hours", not "open less than 168 hours since last relist. If the community sees this differently I'm happy to amend my approach. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Vanamonde93 regarding relists - from my understanding, these can be closed at any time once consensus becomes apparent, as they will be over the 168-hour threshold (presumably). No need to wait for (168 x 2). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 07:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, TheSandDoctor, there's no requirement to wait another week following a relist; the whole point of that mechanism is to nurture a consensus so the discussion can be closed. Not kept open. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 20:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

To be clear the AfDs I'm discussing have not been relisted; they're being closed before 7 total days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I was actually thinking of raising different modification: currently WP:AFD/AI actually indicates discussions should be closed after they have been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old (which is 168 hours + rollover of UTC day), which definitely does not reflect practice. I would agree that pre-168 hour closure should probably only occur in exceptional circumstances, though I can't say I've really been keeping track of them so I wouldn't know if the current rate is above my expectations. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't done formal math but based on having looked at this over 10 days of closes I'm guessing it hovers just under 10%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have been doing some afd closes and I have noticed this as well, probably done it a few times myself, when the result seemed unlikely to change. I usually start doing them less than two hours before midnight UTC though, which is three in the afternoon for me. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 20:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't recall you from the days I've sampled, but art of my thought here is that AfD seems more than adequately staffed at the moment. So what's the rush with any of these? Just let them play out for the full time and any of the many admin who are around can handle it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I just popped in there, all but one from today was already closed. I could be imagining this, but it feels like since I started doing AFD closes again last month, the other regulars have started doing them even earlier. It also seems clear that some of them are watching them days ahead of time, while myself I prefer to come in clean and just read the debate, but that's perhaps just a matter of personal taste. I agree there's no real rush, there's plenty of other backlogs that actually need help. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it tends to be only the kinda gross ones that end up on the /Old list. I've set myself a personal policy to not relist anything that hasn't made it to that page, but I'd also be pretty happy if we all agreed to only close AfDs after they ended up there. -- asilvering (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

If the issue is that WP:AFD/AI (To process an AFD debate listed on a day page containing debates old enough to be closed) implies something different than the explicit statement in WP:CLOSEAFD (A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours)), then the two should be reconciled in some way.

I don't think that there is an objectively better answer here, but the current practice appears to be closer to the language in WP:CLOSEAFD. Since, as WP:PAG notes, technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors, I think we may want to consider tentatively revising WP:AFD/AI pending future discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Except old enough links to WP:OLD and only things older than 168 hours appear on that page. So I'm not sure I agree they need reconciling. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• As someone who has closed thousands of AFDs, I'll just say that closure times varies a lot over time (I'm talking years) and with different discussion closers. NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early, sometimes a full day or two early. I assume this is because they think a discussion looks like SNOW and they want to get the practice of closing AFDs. I regularly remind them to wait for 7 days to pass.

And we have some admins, none of whom are currently closing AFD discussions, who consistently close up to 9 or 10 hours early. In the past, I have often left a user talk page note about these early closures and those notes usually result in changes in their behavior. Then, there is another phenomena at 23:00 UTC, there is often early closures of lingering AFD discussions that are due to end between 23:00-24:00 UTC. In general, I don't get concerned about AFD closures that are within an hour or two of the appropriate closure time but I do post notifications to closers who close AFDs half a day or days early. We have respected admins who are irregular closers who close a discussion as SNOW that doesn't seem like SNOW to me! I'll just say that while this phenomena might be getting attention right now, the situation is much better now that it was months or years ago. I also recommend that any chiding of closers is done as a general and gentle reminder to all admins, not singling out individuals as we always are short of closers and some of our worst early closers simply do not close AFDs any longer. That's my 2 cents as someone who spends a lot of time in this area.

I'll also say that while I believe in the 7 day rule, we really get little discussion participation after the first two or three days, when discussions are first posted or right after a discussion has been relisted. We see little last minute activity in deletion discussions. That's my observation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's what I've generally seen as well, although as you know I wasn't regularly doing them for quite a while until recently. I figure when it is the last hour for everything, it's probably ok to close slightly early unless you see a very recent post that makes a new point or points out sources not previously discussed. Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time.

For the record I appreciate your pointers to me when I started doing them again. The XFDcloser is a real game changer, which is probably why closes are being handled so quickly, but you do kinda need to know what you are doing with it.

For those that may not know, the XFD closer does alert you when you are closing a discussion early and you have to affirm you are doing so deliberately. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Some days though, pretty much everything is closed hours ahead of time. I have to register strong disagreement with this statement. It's not my experience that most AFDs are closed hours ahead of time. I think that most closers are very respectful of the 7 day guideline and only close discussions early if it is SNOWING until we get to the 23:00 UTC hour. I think some closers, admins and NACs, have a SNOW bar that is too low (like 4 Keeps or 4 Deletes) but that is a subjective judgment on which well-intentioned editors can disagree. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the entire tenor of this discussion. An AfD should be closed when the outcome is clear. A WP:SNOW close is absolutely fine when the snow has fallen. An early close by a few hours is fine when, aside from outliers making weak arguments, there is overwhelming consensus for specific outcome that cannot realistically change in the course of the normal pattern of an AfD. BD2412 T 02:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like a good problem to have.

Regarding, "NAC closers are known (at least to me) for regularly closing AFDs very early", I've closed discussions as clearly keep on the seventh calendar day, but an hour or more before the clock completely runs out, and don't see an issue with something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanda Toscanini Horowitz where there is discussion and only keep !votes. I've also had several times where I read through the discussion, wrote up the rationale, and came back a few minutes before the clock ran out only to find the discussion already closed early by another editor. Closing early (at least for me) is to avoid duplicating and wasting effort.

A technical solution to make collaboration easier when closing would be appreciated. I have no idea how the XFDcloser gadget works, but I'm imagining some kind of way to flag an AfD discussion not as closed but as "being reviewed" or something like that. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Rjjiii, I wasn't talking about all NACs or anyone specifically. I think it's just a tendency among NACs to be enthusiastic about closing or relisting discussions and so they can take action too soon sometimes. But NACs help out a lot and usually make accurate closures. IF I have issues with any editor, I bring it to their User talk page and they are almost always very responsive to criticism which, to me, is an essential trait on this platform. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, gotcha, and I wasn't taking it in a personal way. I realize it can be hard to tell with just text. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Quibbling about a few hours seems to be clearly against the spirit of WP:NOTBURO. If an the admin has time to process a batch of AfDs now but not in a couple of hours, it makes sense to do that rather than letting them sit. For many years WP:XFDCLOSER has also implicitly encouraged this but colouring such discussions yellow instead of red. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  The yellow is just for relists, as far as I can tell. An AfD that is about to hit 168 hours is still red. -- asilvering (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

On replacing crap lead image for Sophia Loren

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

---

As a topic-banned editor, although no one knows why, am I allowed to request that a piece of crap photo of Sophia Loren be replaced by one worthy of her stature? I assume I can't request it on her talk page. There seem to be over a 100 of her on the commons, 99% of which are better than the one someone stuck on her bio. Try this one, for starters, which shows her at the peak of her career. An editor a few months ago requested someone "replace that crap crop" of Maggie Smith on my talk page, which was accomplished.

Top Awards: Academy Awards: Best Actress: her the first actor to win an Oscar for a foreign-language performance. Honorary Award: (1991) for her contributions to world cinema. Golden Globes: Cecil B. DeMille Award: (1995) for outstanding contributions to the entertainment world. Multiple Golden Globe nominations, winning Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical for The Millionairess. Cannes Film Festival: Best Actress: Two Women (1961). BAFTA: Best Foreign Actress: Two Women (1962). Grammy Award: Best Spoken Word Album for Children: Peter and the Wolf (1981), shared with other performers. 7 Best Actress Awards, including for Two Women and A Special Day. Golden Lion Award for Lifetime Achievement (Venice Film Festival): (1998). Presidential Medal of Freedom (USA): (2019), awarded for her cultural contributions. Career Overview: Number of Films: Over 90 films over a 70-year career. Light show (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the reason for the topic ban. It's logged here. Reason: IDHT+disruptive edits. AKAF (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Given that you've been blocked six times for breaching the topic ban, I would have thought it would have been clear why it exists by now. Not only that, but this request is also a violation of the topic ban, which you should have been aware of per this discussion from last year. Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think one is allowed to use the AN board, to request a proxy edit to an area one's t-banned from. GoodDay (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No. JJP_Master (she/they) 13:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Light show: It is concerning that you do not understand the reasons for your TBAN and that you have once again violated it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

{{subst:Admin recall notice/Liz}}

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

---

Admin targeted a User in October 2023 by making a redirect of users former usernames Sulan114 (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This user is not eligible to start recall, unless the rules have changed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Nor can someone elected to ArbCom in the past year be recalled. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Add these Romani articles to Wikidata.

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

---

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montenegro

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus 79.105.137.11 06:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Add to wikidata.

Add the Romani article for Sweden: https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sveko

Add the Romani article for Cyprus: https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipro 79.105.137.11 06:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Add the Romani article for Bosnia and Herzegovina to wikidata.

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniya_thai_Hercegovina 79.105.137.11 06:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Add these Romani articles for US states to wikidata.

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania

https://rmy.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_(stato) 79.105.137.11 06:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Hi. Thanks for this list of links but this isn't really the place to make content requests. If there's specific well-sourced information in articles on other Wikipedias that could also be in our articles, then you should feel free to add it yourself. If you need help in how to do so, a good place to ask would be at the teahouse. Re the requests to add material to Wikidata: sorry but that's a separate site, you'd be better off reposting your requests directly at Wikidata.-- Euryalus (talk) 06:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

@The Bushranger:, could you take care of (I assume) this person at 37.21.144.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) rq? Remsense ‥ 论 07:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism

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

---

I created a page Styrian derby and put A LOT of work into gathering all information. Within hours, user Snowflake91 simply deleted it. No warning, no explanation, no reasoning, just deleted everything. This is not the first time this user has arbitrarily deleted or undone my work and you can see on his talk page that other users have experienced the same type of behavior by this user. He just keeps doing it over and over again. It is time for someone to put a stop to this, because this arrogance is completely unacceptable. Please deal with this person and restore the page I created. Thanks. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The article wasn't deleted, it was moved to Draft:Styrian derby with the comment "not ready for mainspace, zero sources and zero indications of notability, there needs to be more than just a list of head to head matches to warrant an article, it fails WP:NRIVALRY and WP:GNG". --rchard2scout (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Then why doesn't this user communicate that clearly to a user like me? Is it that difficult to do that? He can take the time to move the article and delete links to the article I have created instead of taking the time to say, 'Hey, good article, but you need to add source'? The source is the official website of the Football Association of Slovenia and I collected all data from there. Notability? Styrian derby has been listed here List of association football club rivalries in Europe for quite a while but over the last twenty years no-one had ever bothered to do the work and make an article about it. There are only four real derbies in that country and I created a page about the second most important one (apart from Eternal derby (Slovenia)). Seriously, it is this kind of behavior by arrogant administrators that has put many people off when it comes to editing Wikipedia. Instead of valuing INFORMATION and thanking users for the work they put in, Wikipedia chooses to value admins of whom quite a few are on high horses. This is exactly why I stopped donating to Wikipedia years ago. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

You have been on WP since 2007. Isn't it obvious that Draft:Styrian derby has no hint of WP:N as currently written (and can a football rivalry have "Honours"?)? If you want this article to have a chance to "stick" in mainspace, try following the advice at WP:BACKWARD. Find some great independent sources on this football rivalry, summarize them and cite them. That is the work on this website. You can ask for input at related wikiprojects, maybe someone will be interested in the subject. Moving that article to draft is not WP:VANDALISM, not even close. And fwiw, Snowflake91 is not an admin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Štajerski derbi doesn't help much, but consider looking at [43], you might find something WP-good there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I simply used the template used here Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007)#Honours. How does that page differ from the one I created? It only has a longer intro, that's it. The rest is all the same - data/info (which is what people want to see when checking about derbies). The original article (which I had also made a link to) [44] doesn't provide more info either, but no-one decided to move or delete that one. There are many references to this derby online and people who search for the article will not be searching for info on 'what it is' (even though that is also clearly described in the first sentence of the article), they will be searching for a comprehensive overview of results, which I have provided. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 10:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

There are many references to this derby online Then it should be easy for you to add them to the draft article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

And focus on the ones that show WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Draftifying articles that are unsourced and are mistakenly put into main space isn't vandalism. But User:Snowflake91, there are multiple scripts available that many editors and page patrollers use to draftify articles and they all make a point of posting a notification on the User talk page of the article creator. Please do this in the future if you move an article across namespaces. Install the script and it will post the notice for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I truly find this need to write a longer intro of what the derby is completely unnecessary. Go to NK Maribor and you will see the Styrian derbi mentioned in the fourth paragraph from the top. Go to Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) page. What does it say under 'History and rivalry culture' and under 'Fans'? Nothing. It says one team is supported by their fans and the other team is supported by the other fans. Duh! Who would've thought? And the external links (notes #8, #9, and #10) in the 'Fans' section are ALL about violence, nothing more. My beef is with these double standards. One article in Wikipedia (such as Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007)) can stand the way it is, but an almost identical article about a separate rivalry is put under such scrutiny and shelved (draftified)? Utterly ridiculous. If the article I created doesn't meet the necessary standards, then neither does Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007), plain and simple. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Your article had precisely zero sources. It is never going to survive in mainspace without them because WP:V is a policy. As for Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) - well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a thing, but that article does have sources. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF, I mean feel free to nominate Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) for deletion if you want. Maybe check out WP:GNG or WP:NRIVALRY instead (which you clearly still don't understand what the problem with your entry is), the other article has an in-depth coverage from the national television station, like that article, and this alone would probably meet WP:GNG. Meanwhile, your article consists of 1 very short sentence in the lead section and a list of head-to-head matches, and 0 sources...close enough I guess? Snowflake91 (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

All the data I got is from this source [45]. Is it sufficient if I add this reference/link to the article for the article to be deemed Wikipedia-worthy? NoWikiNoLife (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Check WP:GNG again. The page you just linked doesn't even mention "Štajerski derbi" afaict. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, utterly absurd. It is the OFFICIAL list of all matches between the two teams as provided by the Football Association of Slovenia. The page Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) which (under 'Matches') has links to match reports is using that same website as source. If that is sufficient for the page Eternal derby of Slovenian football (2007) even though the Football Association of Slovenia website doesn't mention the name 'Eternal derby' anywhere, then why doesn't the same apply to 'Styrian derby'? This makes zero sense. And the solution is not to delete both pages, the solution is to allow both to stand as they are. This is a clear case of Administration > Information. Red tape. Unnecessary. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it's called Wikipedia policy. No sources = no article. A source that just lists match results is not going to be able to source an article about a derby match, because it needs more than just a simple list of statistics. The Eternal Derby article, as already mentioned, has plenty of other sources. Is that one a great article? Perhaps not. Does it meet Wikipedia policy? Yes, it does. Black Kite (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This probably belongs to the talk page of the draft, but your info in this article is also fully wrong - for example, you claim that the first match between the two teams was played in 1991 (after Slovenia's independence), but you do realise that both clubs have played each other in Yugoslav football between 1961 and 1991 as well, right? The first match was almost cetrainly played during the 1960–61 Slovenian Republic League season, as you can see that both teams played in that league at the time (and finished in 1st and 2nd place)...so this is also obvious Wikipedia:No original research issue. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

One incorrect info is enough to mark the whole article as 'fully wrong'? That's simply a technicality that can be solved by noting that the date refers to the first match ever played in PrvaLiga, not the first match ever in history. Like I've said before, you are a control freak who stalks anyone who dares edit any Wikipedia article to do with your country and you see all 'outsiders' as somehow 'challenging your authority'. During the last week, you have come to my user page uninvited, while I was creating this page, saw that I was creating it, then removed something from the article I was creating (on my user page!) without even bothering to post why you removed that (you could clearly see it was 'work in progress') but never bothered to instruct that such an article may not be up to standards. You let me complete the work, then once I posted it live, you moved it to drafts. Pathetic. You're a stalker, period, and anyone who has ever made edits to articles related to your country knows this to be a fact. You follow my contributions page and come and 'edit' after my edits even on pages that have nothing to do with your country. Those 'edits' of yours are unnecessary and you know it. Again, I will repeat myself - you are a stalker. It's also pathetic that Wikipedia admins allow you to get away with what you do. Honestly, I no longer care. I thought this would be a good addition to Wikipedia, an article no-one bothered doing for over 20 years, including you, but you clearly want to assert your dominance. So, have it your way. But it's because of overbearing people like you that Wikipedia suffers, trust me on that. NoWikiNoLife (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Bruh...firstly, I'm not "stalking" you, I simply have (almost) all Slovenian football-related articles on my watchlist so that's why they were edited after I "stalked" you; secondly, I removed inter-language wiki links at the bottom of your user page (which were abolished like a decade ago by the way, now you need to use Wikidata for that), because Slovenian article sl:Štajerski derbi was literally connected and linked to your user page because of that, and thirdly, maybe use a sandbox (User:NoWikiNoLife/sandbox) for working on articles, and not your user page in the first place. And I thought that you would add sources and write at least some useful prose from that "work in progress" article, but then you just published it with no sources and head-to-head matches only and nothing else. Snowflake91 (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I've temporarily blocked NoWikiNoLife for the above personal attacks. I don't see any other admin action needed here. Sandstein 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Obsession with ENSEMBLE CAST

It seems that everyone is ensemble cast in upcoming Malayalam films. Certain editors, mostly IPs, are unnecessarily adding the term to almost every article about Malayalam films, especially upcoming films. Either they don’t understand what an ensemble cast actually means, or they just think it looks pretty. This violates WP:CRYSTAL. I've noticed this trend for several months now. Please keep an eye on articles about upcoming Malayalam films. Relevant entries can be found in List of Malayalam films of 2024, Category:Upcoming Malayalam-language films, and Category:Upcoming Indian films. 2409:4073:4E00:16EC:242B:D24F:CEC9:7F75 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you link a specific article this happened on, and which IP performed the edit? guninvalid (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Mass rollbacking my bot

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

---

Hi. I was running a task using User:CanonNiBot, which failed when it tripped a private edit filter. Could an admin do a mass rollback of its edits so far, while I wait for a response at WP:EFFPR? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you want the two pages it created deleted? DrKay (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that too. Sorry for the inconvenience. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done! DrKay (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Question about Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan

Would Urartu and Urartian people be covered under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan? The source on Urartu notes Urartu has a significant role in Armenian nationalism.

The reason I'm asking is the recently created Urartian people, which had very problematic sources such as racial sources from from 1957 [46]. These type of sources are now removed, but see the AfD entry. Bogazicili (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, they would: the combination of that "significant role" and the scope of both sets of sanctions being "broadly construed" is sufficient to include them. WaggersTALK 15:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)