Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Wikipedia:Administrative action review
• 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	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Total
CfD	0	0	4	0	4
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	0	1
FfD	0	1	3	0	4
RfD	0	0	20	0	20
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 18 sockpuppet investigations
• 4 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 62 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 25 requested closures
• 46 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 6 Copyright problems

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, [1], is way too close paraphrasing of the source[2]. 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)

• Oppose, I am convinced by the further discussion below that S.v.G is not a net positive at this time. Jip Orlando (talk) 14:11, 24 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)
• Support but keep an eye on contributions off ENWP. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Ahri Boy: Not sure we are concerned with contribs off ENWP. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  He might appeal on Commons later if the appeal here is successful, so there would be a cooldown before doing there. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Fram on close paraphrasing, JoelleJay on sourcing/writing quality, and my own observations on English-language proficiency (I see very recent sentences like "Next as working for magazines he also contributed to book"). At an absolute minimum I would need a restriction on article creation (to prevent the low-quality mass creation issues from recurring), but these issues would be a problem in other areas too. I think continuing to contribute to simple-wiki and nl-wiki would be the best way forward. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  He was once blocked on NLWP for the same sockpuppetry as here before. I don't even know that he may be offered SO there. Ahri Boy (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  See [3]. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Like Fram, JoelleJay, and Extraordinary Writ, I have concerns about their competence with regards to copyright, notability, and simple prose writing. I think an unblock is likely to create a timesink for the community, who will be forced to tie one eye up watching both of his hands. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
• Come on – it's been nearly seven years since the ban – why can't we give another chance? His articles from when he was an IP seemed quite good (and much different from stubs which seem to have been the problem), from what I remember (although they've since been G5'd). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  S.v.G. needs to be reevaluated. He needs to clarify that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. He hasn't made any contributions to Commons because he was blocked. Ahri Boy (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think saying that I will never use multiple accounts anymore and that he wants to make constructive content would indicate that the purpose of return is genuine, constructive, and one account only. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  For the meantime, he should stay at Simple and NLWP for another six months to make sure no suspicions will be made before appealing under SO. Ahri Boy (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  But it's only been three years since he was mass-creating non-notable stubs with BLP violations and bludgeoning AfDs with his SportsOlympic sock. He then edited extensively as an IP, got banned for 18 months, restarted within two weeks of that ban ending, and made another 1000+ edits until his latest IP ban in spring 2024. After which he immediately invoked the (laxer) equivalent of the SO on nl.wp... JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  And he admits that he was too focused on quantity, rather than quality, apologized repeatedly, and his creations as an IP showed that he was no longer focused on mass-creating non-notable stubs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support With the above mentioned provisions. Seems like a genuine, good faith, attempt to start over. Frank Anchor 04:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support - Like a lot of behavioral issues on this site, I think it all stems back to the general public seeing this site as an all-inclusive encyclopedia and some users here seeing the site as a celebrity encyclopedia. If the user becomes a problem, action can be taken again. Let's see how it goes. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fram and PMC. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
• Question: Is SvG the same person as Slowking4? There has been an odd connection between the two in the past; I think it was first noted by Dirk Beetstra. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • No. Spicy (talk) 23:01, 29 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)

And changed the signature in a way which doesn't match the name, while appearing somewhat less serious. To each their own. BusterD (talk) 23:22, 30 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[4] 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)

  hear ye, hear ye, jpxg speaks the truth!... Buffs (talk) 21:52, 30 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[5].
• 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[6], 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[7]. 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[8]. 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)

  @Bradv (and anyone else interested) perhaps that one was a mistake. I've unblocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your introspection and revert. Buffs (talk) 17:40, 31 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)

  Remsense's comment directly addressed that, e.g. it would seem not to be an entirely individualized issue and interrelated, reasonable concerns. Levivich (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Looks at the thread title ("Examples: HJ Mitchell"), and your and their comments. Uh huh, sure. Care to try again? - jc37 23:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Remsense's comment directly addressed whether this should be carried out on the admin's talk page, by using words such as not ... individualized and interrelated. Levivich (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse most blocks; unblock Anushka Sweety Shetty. Procedurally, the OP should have discussed on talk with the user directly first; but setting that aside. For the first example, these are obviously low quality spam external links. All blocks are reversible given a block appeal. This is clearly bread and butter admin blocking and within discretion, and helps keep the quality of the encyclopedia high that we use discretion to quickly dispatch obvious troublemakers and spammers. The blocking policy is not a strict legal document, but a set of guidelines. The norms and practices should be followed, but not religiously. This seems like a good example where the logic is sound and where the action can be reversed easily if someone legit gets hit by a block, but it seems to me that this is just promotional spam. As to the second block, the account was evidently a vandalism-only account. We don't require warnings for this, AFAIK. Finally, I do think that Anushka Sweety Shetty was accidentally mis-tagged as vandalism, and should be unblocked unless there's a good reason that I don't understand. However, one mistake is not a big deal and can be easily reversed. Andre🚐 23:08, 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)

  I'll be blunt. I'm reading this and I fail to see why PaulSem was blocked in the first place. Even if he works for the site he linked (or a competitor), the reference is at least arguably useful. I'm not seeing "spam". @331dot: would you be so kind as to explain why this user was indef blocked/declined? What about his actions were "spam"? I hold no malice toward you and I don't think we've interacted prior. Buffs (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Buffs They linked to a site that sells products; seemed like they were trying to drive traffic. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK.

  Here are his last 5 edits to non-user pages:

  • [9]
  • [10]
  • [11]
  • [12]
  • [13]

  1. What is the policy that bans links to sites that sell products? Last I heard we do that all the time, within reason. I'm unaware of a ban.
  2. How does linking to at least 6 different sites (all commercially independent) in the aforementioned edits "drive traffic"?
  3. Which one of these references violated the policy that you mentioned above and how does it possibly "drive traffic" When such inputs are to multiple sites? Sectionhiker.com appears to be an opinion page, but has useful information. While it's about commercial products it isn't pushing any of them in particular. REI is indeed a retailer, but they also publish articles about available products (sometimes even those that they don't have). Sciencedirect.com is a scientific article reference site. ukclimbing.com seems to be a site regarding climbing and its associated gear. Lastly the CDN link is a link to the actual international standards...literally the title of the article. Why WOULDN'T you want that link?
  4. How do links like this harm the encyclopedia? Even if they aren't the best possible links, they are MASSIVELY better than right?

  I'm completely confused as to the rationale you provided and how it applies here. Buffs (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  Please review the user's talk page. The initial notice said " The blog of a sales website like rei.com is not an appropriate source for Wikipedia". If that's not the case, well, okay. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'll give you that it's not the ideal reliable source, but it's also 100% correct. It isn't an uncurated blog. It's an official publication of a company that gives advice from professionals on how to enjoy the outdoor experience more. While we can find better sources, it's infinitely better than , wouldn't you agree?

  However, let's assume it isn't a viable source. Wouldn't it be easier to simply delete the link? I see no reasonable rationale for a indef block within 3 hours and with no further discussion? The only actions thereafter were to replace such sources. NONE of these were spam sites. In short, the rationale was inappropriate.

  Instead of correcting HJ as you should have, you agreed with him and upheld it. I don't really understand your rationale. Both your logic and HJ's do not appear to line up with the facts. Accordingly, you both share blame in this egregious miscarriage of your duties as admins.

  The fact that you agreed with this and seem to be doubling down on it is beyond perplexing. If you'd said "Ah, I see your point there. Yeah, I made a mistake. That was a step too far". Instead, you seem to be saying, "No, it was the correct thing to do. But if you guys think it was wrong, feel free to undo it." Correct me if I'm wrong here. Buffs (talk) 17:38, 31 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)

@Vanamonde93 and Fram: Is there some precedent that disclosure for paid editing is no longer required when the paid edits are deleted not by the paid editors request? If there isn't it seems to be an indefinite blocked is perfectly justified, noting that indefinite does not mean infinite. UPE is a ToU violation and so needs to be corrected before the editor contributes to building Wikipedia again. It doesn't matter if the editor was simply unaware of the ToU, until and unless they fix their ToU violation they're not welcome to edit here. They've been made aware of it now, and since they made paid edits, they need to disclose who paid them etc. Simply refraining from or even agreeing not to make any more undisclosed paid edits is not sufficient, although in any case a clear agreement should come before they're allowed back to editing. This does leave the open question of how we handle cases where paid editing is suspected but not considered conclusive. (P.S. I'm not convinced deletion at the editor's request is enough to correct UPE violations either. IMO the only remedy for UPE is indeed disclosure. Still it seems more complicated if an editor makes UPE, realises oh crap I should never have done that and asks for deletion of their paid edits so I won't debate that part.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm unaware of such precedent, but also everyone appears to be in agreement that this block was appropriate: we should move on. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:35, 26 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)

This was closed with the comment "Withdrawn by OP as explanation was deemed suitable. If anyone wants to harangue the multitudes, you may revert my close. Andre🚐 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)" but this is incorrect. While the second case was convincingly explained, the User talk:PaulSem case was not withdrawn and was a bad block and bad declined unblocked. Fram (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for closure review

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

---

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)

Addendum: per C727's post below, consensus was properly assessed and arguments based on inherited notability were properly rejected. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 26 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)

  Insufficeint notability is listed as number 4 in WP:MERGEREASON. I think I gave clear reasons why we can't base an article on single sentences or clauses in reviews of the collection, rather than reviews of the short story itself (cf. WP:NSONG). I don't think this is borderline at all. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  Also, BOOKCRIT applies to books, not short stories. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

  The distinction between books and short stories is splitting hairs: the spirit clearly applies. There's about 2 paragraphs of substantive material in the short story article. That could reasonably be covered at the collection, if it was expanded; or where it is. There's nothing fundamentally unencyclopedic about what exists currently, to the point where that could invalidate !votes opposing a merger. Conversely, my point about notability is that notability is necessary but insufficient for a standalone article: that was a criticism of the !votes opposing a merger, not of your position. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  I get where you're coming for RE the spirit of BOOKCRIT, but we analogously have a notability guideline for songs that expressly states we don't let them inherit notability from albums or artists. I think that's an apt comparison because just like most songs don't get SIGCOV, most short stories don't either. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  The analogy only goes so far, though, and we carefully limit it to a small set of authors. If a musical analogue of Stephen King released a single, there's no doubt we'd have an article about it. It comes down again to the volume of coverage and where that is best handled. I've written articles about standalone short stories that could arguably have been covered alongside the collection: and I've written articles about collections that included short stories that could reasonably have spinoff articles. There's a lot of room for judgement. Again, I'm not saying a merger is wrong here; but the arguments to merge aren't so strong that you can call consensus from an evenly split discussion that didn't touch on all the salient points. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

"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)

@Serial Number 54129, Vanamonde93, and Daniel: Thank you all for the insight on this. I've just always operated under the assumption/understanding that relists were for another full 7 day cycle as if the AfD was just (re-)posted. I'll adjust accordingly. Thank you! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:44, 25 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)

  Oh! I've always misunderstood that then. – Joe (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'll be the contrarian I guess. I understand WP:NOTBURO, but by the same token, if someone is fervently defending a keep of an article, especially if contentious, giving the full 7 days is not a bureaucratic move, but one of respect. People have taken their own time to create such media (articles, images, etc) and we should be respectful of their time and efforts before removing them, especially if done in good faith. One of the biggest problems we have is getting new people involved. There's no quicker way to get someone out than to delete all their work. All that said, yes, a WP:SNOW keep = ok to close early. The same would apply for a WP:SNOW no consensus. Some additional, generic clarifying guidelines for both Admins and users would probably go a long way. Buffs (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Went ahead and went bold early: [14]. Feel free to revert if you believe it is in error. Buffs (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  I completely agree with and endorse this outcome. I would assert that any WP:SNOW outcome can be closed once the snow has fallen, and that any discussion for which the outcome cannot reasonably be expected to change is in the same situation. If for example, you have a nomination for deletion that starts out with a handful of delete votes, and is followed by a flood of keep votes with well-reasoned bases in policy and evidence, particularly where the article is improved over the course of the discussion with the addition of sources demonstrating notability, then there is no reason to embarrass the subject any further with a deletion template. BD2412 T 21:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why should there be a different standard for deletion versus keeping? Traumnovelle (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

  A valid question. When you are keeping someone's edits, effectively no action is taken; everything remains as-is. When you are deleting them, you are effectively saying not only should everyone's inputs be deleted, but that you are deleting every record of their efforts and they would have to start over; giving them the full 7 days to attempt to persuade others is a reasonable compromise and reflects courtesy towards their good faith contributions. YMMV. Buffs (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Is it time to write an official policy on usage of AI?

 – voorts (talk/contributions) 03:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Vanished users holding user rights as of 25-12-2024

Hi. The following vanished users hold the mentioned user rights, some of them are also globally locked. I guess their rights should be removed?

Username	Last edit	User rights
Vanished user 1324354	20241220184536	autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer
DoneRenamed user 752595fd077b7cc069aced5f592aa938	20241122065248	pending changes reviewer, rollbacker
DoneRenamed user eb1ee62d1149327ec5c6d6ee42f08205	20241113070034	autopatrolled, pending changes reviewer
DoneRenamed user e2bceb05e0c43dd19cc50e3291d6fac5	20241005122230	autopatrolled
DoneRenamed user 0e40c0e52322c484364940c7954c93d8	20241003115931	ipblock-exempt
DoneRenamed user 6907cec52323a7d54b85dc472c6b6619	20240501040754	ipblock-exempt, pending changes reviewer
Renamed user tk7QEzr9HZuLSk	20210417225619	autopatrolled
Renamed user v08an9234vu	20191001201326	rollbacker
Renamed user efB5zCgPvkrQ7C	20091006044722	autopatrolled, rollbacker

Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 08:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

We typically don't remove advanced privileges from editors that are blocked, globally or locally, unless they are admins. I can't point to an RFC where this decision was arrived at, I just know that this has been the custom in the past. Personally, I don't care if this practice changes but I think this change is worth a discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what proportion of vanished editors ever return, but lots of blocked editors do, and it makes sense to me that we only remove userrights that people need to lose and that we do it when they are blocked or vanished. Take Autopatrolled as an example, plenty of content creators who get this are people who don't always "play nice". Making such people autopatrolled doesn't just make new page patrol more efficient, it also reduces the risk of friction between patrollers and these editors. It can also help if you need to know how an article got through NPP, and I suspect more commonly, think of the scenario where a major contributor to an article you are looking at is now blocked; If the blocking admin has left them with either reviewer or Autopatrolled status you can be pretty sure that their block isn't over copyvio or some other content issue. Conversely if they've lost those rights you might want to be suspicious of their edits. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This makes a lot of sense. They can always be restored if it is ever appropriate. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• 5 of these are vanished under the new process, and there is no way for them to return, I've removed from those. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

  • I've got no concerns about de-grouping the others just to not pollute statistics. I run across these from time to time when doing group inactivity cleanups, and have removed without any complaints then. This is certainly differnt from a normal "blocked" user, especially as vanishing has evolved to be one-way. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

    Removed the remaining rights. I'd also like to put on the record that I find the entire concept of vanishing to be silly - if you want to stop editing then stop editing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to confess to being a sockpuppet of banned user Grundle2600

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

---

I am coming there to confess to being a sockpuppet of banned User:Grundle2600.

It has been 14 years since my "indefinite" ban, and I just wanted to see if that's long enough for me to be able to openly edit the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit.

I have made several hundred edits with this particular account over the last several months, without any problems other than a few very minor messages on my talk page.

If you ban this account, I will understand.

If you don't ban this account, then at least I can be open about who I really am.

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

This confession will lead to your block. Why don't you file an unblock request on your original account? It is more likely to have success than coming to AN, confessing, and hoping no one will care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment.

I'm willing to get blocked. If that's what their policy is, then so be it.

Wikipedia claims to be the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit.

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 10:23, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

...but before doing so, you may want to think of a convincing explanation for the history of socking Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600/Archive. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I hope they see all those great edits I made with my sock puppet accounts. The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Lots more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Grundle2600

I am proud of those edits.

The Last Hungry Cat (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't be sure whether you really are Grundle2600's sock, or just want everyone to think so, but either way it seems you're effectively asking to be blocked.  Done

(Obviously others should feel free to unblock, if this turned out not to be warranted.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranged weapon

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

---

I think Talk:Ranged weapon should be preserved at the AfD's talk page, since it includes necessary context for the comment by Nurg (talk · contribs). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Admins have access to look at the page history if needed; there's no rule we have to preserve any portion of a deleted article for generic public access, including its talk page. Nate • (chatter) 17:27, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I've copied over the section in question; I'm not sure how necessary it is either, but it's a good-faith request and I'm happy to oblige. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Complaint Against Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks by User:Cerium4B

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

---

Summary

I am reporting User:Cerium4B for disruptive editing and making personal attacks in the talk page discussions related to the reliability of sources for the ISKCON article. The user has repeatedly accused me without evidence of using AI to draft my responses, criticized my English proficiency, and dismissed concerns about the reliability of certain sources, including Samakal, Daily Naya Diganta, and Daily Inqilab, without providing a solid basis for their claims. This behavior violates the principles of Wikipedia's civil discourse and reliable sourcing guidelines. I would also like to clarify that I consistently use a formal tone for Wikipedia discussions as I aim to maintain professionalism in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Details of the Issue

1. Disruptive Editing and Personal Attacks

User:Cerium4B has made personal attacks against me, including accusing me of using Artificial Intelligence to reply in discussions and criticizing my English proficiency, which is irrelevant to the content under discussion. These attacks serve as a distraction and a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I would also like to emphasize that I use a formal tone for Wikipedia contributions in a professional manner and in line with Wikipedia's standards for respectful and clear communication.

2. Dismissal of Concerns Regarding Source Reliability

During the ongoing discussion about the reliability of Samakal, Daily Naya Diganta, and Daily Inqilab, the user has failed to address valid concerns raised about the credibility of these sources. These sources have been historically controversial and should be scrutinized carefully before being used to support content in the article. Instead of engaging constructively with these concerns, the user dismissed them without proper research or evidence. The concerns about the reliability of these sources have been discussed in detail on the talk page:(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness#Concerns_About_the_Reliability_of_Sources:_Samakal,_Daily_Naya_Diganta,_and_Daily_Inqilab).

3. Inappropriate Behavior and Disruptive Editing

The user has engaged in disruptive editing by reverting my edits without proper discussion and by making baseless claims without credible secondary sources. This has led to unnecessary edit wars, undermining the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Their behavior violates WP:EDITWAR and WP:CONSENSUS.

Request for Administrator Action

I request that an administrator intervene and review the user's conduct. The user’s personal attacks, disruptive behavior, and failure to engage constructively with sourcing concerns are hindering the editing process and disrupting collaboration. I would appreciate your assistance in resolving this issue and ensuring that discussions remain focused on content and policy-based principles.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Jesuspaul502JESUS (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

"The user has repeatedly accused me without evidence of using AI to draft my response" — OK, I'll bite. Have you used AI to generate this post? Daniel (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Unblock request for Aman.kumar.goel

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

---

This has gone unactioned for > 2 weeks. Any admin want to take a crack at it? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak support - Amar realized that meatpuppetry is a mistake. Amar, I hope you shouldn't share your account. As per SO, you need to come clean on other projects before appealing. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

This is not intended as an unblock discussion. They rejected carrying their request to the Community. Just looking for an admin to take a look. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing support. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, Aman.kumar.goel has accepted to discuss the unblock request on WP:AN.[15] Lets hope some admin will consider posting their request here. Nxcrypto Message 15:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I've made the offer. -- asilvering (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, a checkuser. Two CUs so far have declined to unblock, so no non-CU admin can lift the block either. -- asilvering (talk) 04:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Unproductive discussion probably needs closing

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Opt-in content warnings and image hiding is a very long and rather tedious discussion of a WP:PERENNIAL issue that has achieved nothing constructive and is producing “more heat than light”. There is very little fresh air here, just the same few editors getting stuck in repetitive arguments. I don’t think anyone is in the wrong here beyond the WP:TROUT level of informal admonishment (including me, mea culpa), but an uninvolved admin might want to look at this. If nobody else thinks this needs closing feel free to mark this as “not done”. Dronebogus (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

As has been suggested to you on multiple occasions in that very thread, you can simply disengage and find something else to do. Izno (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Page's name blacklisted

Dear Administrators,

I am writing to request the creation of a Wikipedia page titled nCircle - it is about BIM software. I see that pages with the term "nCircle" have been restricted due to past issues involving the now-deleted nCircle Entertainment page which is another entity. However, I would like to assure you that this proposed page is entirely unrelated to nCircle Entertainment and is a different subject entirely. Introducing a story (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

nCircle has been create-protected by the administrator Toddst1 since 2009. You should ask them how to proceed on their talk page at User talk:Toddst1. They will likely agree to lift the protection, especially if you can show them a draft article, which you can create at Draft:nCircle, that demonstrates that the topic is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:GNG) by citing independent reliable sources that treat the topic in depth. Sandstein 13:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Todd is no longer an admin.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23, thanks for the notice. @Introducing a story, I can create nCircle through the title blacklist for you. Please ping me as soon as you have drafted the article, as described above, and I'll move it to main space. Sandstein 16:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sandstein

Hello, thank you for your advice. But unfortunately, I can't create Draft:nCircle either, because this page is also blocked from being created. What should I do in this case? Introducing a story (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping User:Ivanvector, who blacklisted. —Cryptic 19:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Introducing a story: Sorry for the trouble, I didn't think that the blacklist would also catch draftspace. Can you try creating the article at User:Introducing a story/Draft? Sandstein 11:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sandstein, thanks for your advice. I have created the page User:Introducing a story/Draft. What are my next steps? Introducing a story (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Introducing a story, the next step would have been for me to move your draft to nCircle, overriding the blacklist. But in this case I decline to do so because I am not convinced that the draft establishes the notability of the topic. The sources cited appear to be of a superficial or promotional nature, leading me to question their reliability and/or independence, especially in view of the issue of paid news in India. You remain free to amend the draft with better sources (see WP:GNG for the criteria) and to ask for another review at WP:AFC. Sandstein 12:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sandstein, okay, thank you for your advice, I will work on it. Can you tell me when you will remove the block for creating the nCircle Tech page? Because the current block is illogical and concerns a completely different company called Ncircle entertainment, which operates in a different industry. Introducing a story (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You should discuss this with the admin who blacklisted the page, Ivanvector, on their talk page. There may be reasons to maintain the blacklisting, such as possibly ongoing spam by the other Ncircle. Sandstein 11:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've moved the page to Draft:nCircle Tech, overriding the blacklist. I'm not in favour of removing the blacklist entry, but fine with overriding if the draft is approved. I have not reviewed it but I did add the AFC draft banner. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

History/-ies of Kambala Srinivas Rao

There's a new article at Kambala Srinivas Rao, which seems to have been created by the author Durgaprasadpetla developing the content on their user talk page, and then moving it from there to the main space, leaving behind a redir from the talk page which could be confusing. Some of the history of that article is actually the history of their talk page, which probably should be split?

There's also a corresponding draft at Draft:Kambala Srinivas Rao, with a history that possibly should be merged with the main space article. (There's yet another copy at Draft:Kambala srinivas rao, but that doesn't have much history, so probably not worth bothering with.)

Any suggestions for how to best sort this out?

Note: I have not notified the user of this discussion, as I didn't want to create a new copy of their talk page, in case that complicates matters further. I hope on this occasion pinging them will suffice. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like JJMC89 already sorted this out. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Bot block request

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

---

Could somebody please block the JJMC89 bot III? It is making a series of unauthorised moves. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It is doing exactly as instructed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you give some examples please? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

JJMC89 bot III talk contribs moved page Category:Australian military personnel of the International Force for East Timor to Category:Australian military personnel of the International Force for Timor-Leste. There was no such military unit. The force in question was the International Force for East Timor (INTERFET). The category is not on the list of categories to be moved at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy so the move is unauthorised. The bot is not respecting the no bot template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Of course it isn't on CFDS now – admins instruct the bot by moving it from CFD/S to CFD/W. It isn't meant to respect {{bots}} for moves, as documented in its BRFA. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

@Voorts: Please block it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Just remove the instruction from the task list. Better still object to the proposed speedy category change in the minimum 48 hours between being proposed and processed. No need to block the bot over a single category. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I cannot do that! Only admins can edit that page. Better to block. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Because the move was never proposed, I had no opportunity to object! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

If it is moving random categories, it should be blocked.

However, if it only moved one category in error (now seemingly rectified) then no block is needed. However, we need to understand how the untagged category came to be on the list of categories to be moved... GiantSnowman 18:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. It was tagged and listed on 24 December. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor here... It was tagged on 24th December and moved on 26th December so anybody with an objection would have to raise it on Christmas Day (give or take a few hours) when many editors would be away from their computers in the interest of domestic harmony. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Then, respectfully, what is Hawkeye on about? GiantSnowman 19:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I failed to spot the notice on the category due to the time of year and only saw the erroneous edits when the bot started to make them. The bot cited Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy as the location of the relevant discussion but I found nothing there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:45, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes it gets removed after being processed. So it appears we have gone from "the bot needs blocking because the category was never tagged" to "the bot has been performing as expected"? GiantSnowman 20:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Assuming that the bot is expected to make bad moves. There is no way to stop it without admin assistance, so I had to come here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I note you raised it with the bot controller (good), but then edit warred with the bot (bad). GiantSnowman 20:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be blocked. It is working as intended and authorized. As previously advised, you should discuss your objection to the move with the admin that instructed the bot. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

As previously advised, you should fix the bot to honour the {{nobots}} on categories. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Previously advised where? It was approved to function that way. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

JJMC89, it would be more helpful if you could link to where this was authorised, or at least name the admin involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot III Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything there about the {{nobots}} template. And I was asking more about this specific page rather than the general request. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you looking for this and this, linked above? GiantSnowman 20:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Not exactly, because the user who made those edits is not an admin. But my second sentence was answered by Pppery below. I'm not so sure about the gobbledygook with which they started the answer. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exclusion compliant: delete/move: no; edit: yes is the relevant reference. And this specific move was approved by Timrollpickering in Special:Diff/1265319871. Timrollpickering has already realized his mistake and delisted the nomination, so there's nothing more for anyone else to do here. And the bot is behaving exactly as it should IMO. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Not the way I think it should. The bot should be modified to be exclusion compliant, and should not override edits by human editors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Redaction needed for non-free file

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

---

Could an admin redact the earlier, non-free revision of this file? A bot has already shrunk it but it would be a copyvio to keep the high resolution version. If you reply here, please ping me. Thanks, TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, please disregard. I just saw the notice that it will be deleted on 2024-12-28. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Please remove my PCR flag

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

---

I haven't used it very much lately, and now have little need for it. JJP_Master (she/they) 19:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

philip ingram vs. phillip ingram

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

---

one, philip born in Tyrone Ireland, phillip born in the US.philip:military specialist; phillip rocker. But in comments and wiki questions, both are completely mixed up! Why not check up on that, thanks! 80.217.14.114 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't have an article for Philip Ingram. If there is content in Phillip Ingram that applies to a different person, just bring it up at Talk:Phillip Ingram. Schazjmd (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

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

ISA99 Committee

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

---

An account claiming to be the chairs of the ISA99 committee has made some edits recently. I have seen matters of professionals editing on Wikipedia handled very intentionally before, so I thought I would ask whether the team is in contact with Wikipedia admin, or if a qualified user could ensure their work has met Wikipedia's guidelines. Tule-hog (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User BubbleBabis

I have noted my issues with the edits of a particular user by the name of User:BubbleBabis many times. This editor is a hoaxer, a plagiarizer, and has trouble making competent contributions to articles. They have frequently displayed their inability to provide real citations, added copyrighted content to articles, and do not attribute text they steal from other articles. I have noted a few of the many hoaxes they have added at Talk:Qasem Soleimani and Talk:Mohammad Reza Zahedi. They are often unable to edit in a neutral point of view and overall their work is detrimental to this wonderful website, its editors who always have to clean up after their work, and its readers.

• Contains sentences stolen from Foreign support in the Bosnian War and not attributed [16]
• Adding off-topic information about Al Qaeda to other articles not concerning it [17] [18]
• Adding other off-topic information [19] [20]
• Adding clearly unreliable sources (spongobongo, pdfcoffee, dokumen.pub, etc.) [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
• Misrepresentation of sources [26] [27] [28]
• Original research [29] [30] [31]

It is my hope for this not to continue. Aneirinn (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed this in Ahmed al-Sharaa as well. we started talking about the issues on Talk:Ahmed_al-Sharaa#On the "Attacks" section after some further edits today. Looks like like to me some blantant NOR/BLP/synth problems, as well as using unreliable sources. Cononsense (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Pizermmmmmmm76486 and USERNOCAT

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

---

Can an administrator take a look at Pizermmmmmmm76486 and their continued use of article categories in their username space on pages like User:Pizermmmmmmm76486/List of tallest buildings in Albany, New York? For some reason, they keep re-enabling these categories with edits such as this even though it been pointed out here and here on their user talk page that this isn't really good practice per WP:USERNOCAT. Similar enabling of categories has also been taking place at User:Pizermmmmmmm76486 and User:Pizermmmmmmm76486/List of tallest buildings in Colorado Springs, New York, though these have not been re-enabled as of yet. Pizermmmmmmm76486 just blanks their user talk page without responding to comments posted there, which is fine per WP:BLANKING, but makes it hard to figure out if there's something about USERNOCAT that they don't understand or don't agree with. A message posted here on their user talk about copy-pasting entire articles onto their user page was also blanked without response. It also might be a good idea to take a look at User:Pizermmmmmmm76486/Fuck ahah per WP:PROFANE. I totally get WP:NOTCENSORED and that this is a userspace draft, but it's hard to see how the "title" of the draft is related to the content of the draft; it also seems like it could possibly be mistaken to mean "Allah" or "Ahad". Pizermmmmmmm76486 has many userspace drafts they're currently working on, most without their categories enabled and most without more suitable titles; so, it seems they're familiar enough with relevant policies and guidelines to know what they are and how to work in accordance with them. FWIW, I asked an administrator named Bearcat to take a look at this here, but it's the end of the year and people get busy with other things. Since this isn't really urgent, I'm posting about it here instead of ANI. If, however, it's better off at ANI, please advise and I can move the discussion there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

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

User:Redrose64 conduct at VPT

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

---

I want to file a report on Redrose64 (talk · contribs) for their conduct at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#List-defined refs. Simply put: has this administrator acted improperly in their discussions with DuncanHill (talk · contribs)? --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd really rather not have anything to do with this editor or this thread. I have asked him to stop trying to help me. I regard this report as harassment. DuncanHill (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Not every warning or comment that an admin makes is made with their admin hat on. This post is not harassment, but it was an unnecessary escalation in my view. Both of you should just walk away from each other. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why an editor/admin is filing a report on AN about themselves. It seems pointy to me especially when the other editor refuses to have anything to do with this complaint. I recommend this just be closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Reporting oneself & then notifying oneself of that self-report on one's own talkpage? What??? GoodDay (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse - draft article about a future film seems to be a long-term draft

I have not come across a situation like Draft:Spider-Man: Beyond the Spider-Verse before. Maybe this is fairly common and I have just missed it.

It is a draft article about a film that can not have an article, per WP:NFF. I think the idea is that there is some valuable content there and it would be a shame to delete it when it seems likely that the film will enter final animation and voice recording in the next year or so.

The problem is that it is attracting the sort of speculative edits from IPs that we want to avoid. Both on the draft and the talk page.

I became aware of this because there is a request at WP:RPPI to EC-protect the talk page. But it makes me think we should have some kind of protection for the draft too. But I can see arguments for weaker than ECP (speculation is just by IPs) and for stronger... like... why are people editing it anyway? Maybe there are reasons I am not aware of.

Is anyone more familiar with how we got here? Anyone got any arguments for or against applying semi, EC or full protection to the draft and its talk page?

Edit: Anyone got any thoughts on the concept of having a draft article for a film that doesn't meet WP:NFF?

Yaris678 (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, articles on films are allowed so long as principal photography has occurred (principal animation in this case, I guess?). That has clearly happened for this film, even if they are having to scrap and re-write things. And notability is certainly not in question, so having an article is fully within the policy rules. If there are harmful edits happening, then semi-protection seems like a normal response. Silverseren^C 00:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

People say that on the draft's talk page every so often and get rebuffed. Maybe you can be more persuasive, but the general argument is the existing animation was created for "Spider-Man: Across The Spider-Verse" before it was split into two films and no "final animation" has begun on this film. Yaris678 (talk) 01:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Are they basing that claim on any reliable source as evidence? Since what exists in that draft currently with reliable sources clearly indicates work has started. Silverseren^C 01:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the editor who has requested the protection for this draft. Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace. Final animation is different from standard reels being produced, which as sourced, is currently what this film has produced while no voice recording has occurred. It seems to still be very early in development, and much of the earlier work when this was the second part was reportedly scrapped (as sourced in the draft). I do not believe the mainspace viability ought to be discussed here as that is more for the draft. As for the protection request, it appears to be the same person making these disruptive comments which have become unnecessarily excessive and are detracting from the content of the draft itself. I requested protection (initially as ECP though semi works for the talk) because these comments have not benefitted any actual constructive progress and have largely ranged from the IPs attempting to enforce their own opinions about the delays and trying to remove sources they don't like, which has been ongoing since the end of October. As a draft, not many other editors are editing this, so it becomes quite unrelenting and tiresome to deal with these repeated disruptions. Glad to see this has garnered more attention. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NFF, final animation or voice recording are the requirement to move a film draft to the mainspace ...I'm pretty sure that BtSV meets WP:GNG already, regardless of the state of production, and that should be the main factor. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no problem with the draft being moved, this is just not the normal route to do so and typically NFF is followed for film articles, but I digress. I do caution that this article could be susceptible to further unconstructive comments in the mainspace, but that is a price I'm willing to handle. I can make the move as needed, no worries, I am primarily concerned about these type of comments continuing and if any protection is necessary to prevent or temporarily postpone them from continuing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be enough disruption to the draft page to justify protection at this point. Draft talk definitely should get semi-protection. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Really? That seems excessive for a few FOURMy IP comments (likely from the same person). If they continue with it, block the IP, maybe. Protecting talk pages should really be a last resort. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Some people overly use NFF to block any film article that has not confirmed start to production, which is really a bad black/white approach. Most films prior to production are not notable or may not even happen when they are first hinted at, and thus it is absolutely appropriate to use NFF to hold back on a standalone until production starts. But then you have some exceptional cases like this (the 3rd of the animated Spider-Man movies that have earned a massive amount of money and praise, with a lot of attention already given to the film even before production) as well as my own experience with Akira (planned film) which deals with a film that has numerous delays and other incidents that its still nowhere close to production, but its journey that way is readily sourced. NFF should not be used to block creation of articles on films that have this much detail about the work that is otherwise suitable by notability guidelines. For this specific article on the Spider-man film, I see no reason why it could not be in main space at this point as to avoid the whole draft problem. — Masem (t) 05:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a point to be made that even if this final film somehow never finished production, it would still be notable because of the coverage of its attempted production history. There's several films (and video games, among other cultural apocrypha) that meet that notability requirement, even without ever actually having been completed and released to the public. Silverseren^C 05:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, a number of aborted films projects are notable exactly because they wound up in development hell. Jodorowsky's Dune is a film about my personal favorite never-got-made film. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 02:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting here that Trailblazer101 moved the article from draft space to main space at 22:44, based on the discussion here and WP:GNG. I have not seen any objections to that move since it was done. I have not seen any more speculative or forumy edits recently. There is a good chance they will come back, but if they come back in a serious number the article and/or talk page can be given an appropriate level of protection at that point, or, if the responsible IPs/accounts can be blocked. I think it is probably time to close this discussion. Yaris678 (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The IP has made three unconstructive and uncivil comments on the talk today (see this diff, and they show no signs of stopping. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for assistance with semi-protected page edit

Hi, I’d like to suggest an update to the page A1 Srbija to include more accurate or additional information. Since the page is semi-protected, I’m unable to edit it myself. Could someone assist me with making the changes? What would be the next step? Thanks. Jelena Cvetković 1 (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Please use the edit request wizard to create an edit request, which will then be placed on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Jaspreetsingh6 unban request

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

---

The following is copied from User talk:Jaspreetsingh6#Unbanned on behalf of Jaspreetsingh6:

I am requesting to be unbanned. I was banned for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's guidelines even after receiving warnings from admins, and I will not make any excuses for that because it's entirely my fault. I shouldn't have violated Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry and should not have created new accounts again and again to evade blocks, misleads other editors, avoid sanctions, etc. If I get unblocked, I promise you I won't create new accounts and will only use this one

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Support unban. The difference between being 16 and 18 is huge. Jaspreetsingh6 said on their talk page when I look back at my past behavior, I feel very embarrassed. I think it's worth giving them a shot at proving that they've changed. Jaspreetsingh6 also seems to have improved their English. Schazjmd (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per WP:SO and @Schazjmd. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Support after reading their talk page and seeing the evolution in language and maturity. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 00:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per above. Seems like a reasonable request . JayCubby 01:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. Unblock request is refreshingly honest and to-the-point. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Support This sort of situation is what the standard offer was created for, thanks for bringing it here. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 02:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support, including the self-proposed one account restriction (I promise you I won't create new accounts and will only use this one). Two years seems like a reasonable amount of time for someone to mature. Should we encounter socking issues going forward, we can deal with it then, but let's give this editor another shot. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SO. Here's a little bit of rope...be careful... Buffs (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support for successfully meeting WP:SO and agreeing to 1 account use. Nothing more is needed here. Nxcrypto Message 03:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per standard offer. --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SO - This user appears to be reformed, which is the whole point of WP:SO. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support While I am not sure about their editing capabilities, the block only concerned abuse of multiple accounts and that has been addressed. Shankargb (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – This is not an issue of general interest to administrators. Maybe try the teahouse El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 02:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What article would the term "WP:IDONTLIKEWHOCREATEDIT" fall into? Because in my opinion it could be classified as disruptive editing, but also the same spot as the term "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". GojiraFan1954 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with this noticeboard?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Conflict of interest - Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra Article

Veeranjaneyulu Viharayatra, I think there is a conflict of interest here. The director himself has created an account and working on the article - Herodyswaroop (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You should report this at WP:COIN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Gave the purported director a COI welcome template. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for Deletion of My User and Talk Pages Due to Personal Attacks and Mismanagement

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

---

Aliazizov (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aliazizov They have no contents, thus your request needs clarification. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aliazizov: Administrators here have zero authority on az.wp; you need to make the request at az.wp's equivalent of this page. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 09:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Request for Complete Deletion of My User and Talk Pages

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

---

Dear Administrators,

I am writing to formally request the complete deletion of my user and talk pages on Wikipedia. This request is based on recent personal attacks and accusations directed at me, which have created a hostile environment and made it impossible for me to continue contributing to this platform.

Given the circumstances, I no longer wish to remain active on Wikipedia and would appreciate it if my user and talk pages are deleted entirely to prevent further misuse or misinterpretation.

Thank you for your understanding and support. Please let me know if further clarification is needed.

Best regards,Cavidnuri44 Cavidnuri44 (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Based on your signature, you don't have anything on your user or user talk pages.

What you are asking for is a vanishing, see WP:VANISH. 331dot (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't have any edits other than this one- did you create this account for the purpose of making this request? 331dot (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I created this account solely to request the complete deletion of my user account and talk pages from the platform Cavidnuri44 (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You'll need to tell us what your original account is in order for us to do that- you can do that as WP:VANISH describes.

We can address personal attacks against you if you identify your account. We want everyone to feel safe and comfortable here. 331dot (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I will say user talk pages are not normally deleted. 331dot (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Given Cavidnuri44 also has edits primarily on az.wp just like Aliazizov above, I'm going to assume this is the same person as them, and give them the same advice I have above. @Cavidnuri44: Administrators on the English-language Wikipedia can't do anything with regard to the Azeri Wikipedia. You need to request this on the Azeri Wikipedia's equivalent of this page; requests here on en.wp are a waste of time. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 10:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Noting the user has been WP:VANISHed -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think these requests are a waste of time. Given their frequency, apparently many editors don't understand that Wikipedia projects are separate domains. The editor had a question and it was answered, how else would they know? We might get tired of answering questions like this one but we don't have a FAQ for this page and since this noticeboard is intended to be a way to communicate with admins, it seems like it is serving that purpose. Just because the regulars get tired of answering the same questions doesn't mean we can expect new editors here to already know the answers to them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Unclear policy

If an RfC about policy -- i.e., things that one is and is not allowed to do -- was closed with no consensus, but the current state of policy is contradictory (as in, existing policies contradict one another, or more specifically policies contradict guidelines), what is the path forward? I would really like there to be a hard ruling one way or the other, because I am receiving feedback that implies that I would be breaking the rules somehow for following policy that exists.

For disclosure this is about this RFC on reverting vandalism to talk page archives, and this follow-up, about the more than 2,200 instances of undetected vandalism that people are telling me I am not allowed to revert, citing a consensus that does not actually exist. I cannot emphasize how absolutely wild it is that there is controversy over whether one is allowed to revert vandalism and that people are actually angry at me for trying to revert vandalism, which is something existing policy actually tells you, explicitly, to do!, and I was under the impression that policy trumps guidelines, in general. But here we are.

I apologize for the repeated questions about this but I am very frustrated about this, and existing methods of trying to come to some kind of clarity about what our policy actually is have not proven fruitful. It feels like a dispute resolution issue -- there are certain individuals who are giving me more grief about this than others -- but I don't really know the right venue for that, nothing is obvious. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the source of your interest in archives that the vast majority of readers and editors are unlikely to see. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The source of my interest is that I think vandalism is bad. I don't have a particular interest in archives; they're just what's left now since I've already done the same kind of sweeps for the obvious undetected vandalism in articlespace, Wikidata, Commons, etc.

This isn't just my opinion, it's Wikipedia policy. It's one of the most fundamental policies we have, just short of WP:5P (you know, the one that says "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited"). It's also more than a little contradictory to claim that archives are not important, yet simultaneously so important that there are harsher restrictions on editing them than almost anything else on the project. We have a way of indicating things shouldn't be edited, it's called protecting the page (which is also policy). Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question; I understand the desire to work against vandalism, but shouldn't you be concentrating on pages that are more visible? We're also not talking about vandalism caught in the moment(i.e. by watching the Recent Changes feed). I'm (and I think others) just wonder if you think that's really the best use of your volunteer time.

There are reasons to not routinely protect archives; bots or humans fixing links, for example. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

• I may not be understanding the problem but if an editor has vandalized an archived page, it's completely okay to revert that edit. But if an editor has vandalized a regular page and that page THEN gets archived, it should be left alone. But we have vandals causing mischief to, say, ANI archives and their edits are just reverted if they are discovered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  Any reason why the ANI archives (and similar archives) are simply not fully protected to avoid vandalism? GiantSnowman 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  I assume vandalism to archives is rare, and there are sometimes legitimate reasons to edit them. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you should move this complaint to WP:ANI. You will get better response there. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

If this belongs on either of the noticeboards, it belongs here, not at ANI. Aslo, I think Liz's comments are spot on.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Continued subject of a sockpuppet investigation, and request for neutral third party intervention

I am posting this here because I need advice. A couple of weeks ago I was involved in an edit dispute on a contentious topic page, I noticed that an editor had made a serious of edits which seemed to me to be clear violations of NPOV. This was a very senior and experienced editor. I left a message on their talk page regarding it, I was not aggressive or unreasonable. A week later a sockpuppet investigation was initiated by that user into me, claiming that I have sockpuppet accounts, to accounts I have never heard of. They also claimed that I was being aggressive. Despite it initially being set to close by a checkuser, it was re-opened when 'new evidence' was given by the aforementioned user, making claims such as that my 'excessive use of commas' is similar to the other users, and other claims which I see are very much as 'looking for things to find'. Since, other editors have joined the investigation, these users all have edit histories which focus almost entirely on the aforementioned contentious topic area. I feel that all it will take is a rogue admin who also shares the POV (with regard to the contentious topic) and I will be unjustly blocked or somesuch. I am very anxious about this because I have put a lot of work into wikipedia since joining a few weeks ago, and I feel like these editors are targetting me. Is it reasonble of me to ask that there be some guarantee here that the admins, checkusers, and such, who oversee my investigation have a mostly unrelated to this contentious topic area editing interest? I will divulge the details if so, I just want to keep this as brief as possible while I broach this question. Many many thanks 𝙏𝙚𝙧𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙢𝙖𝙣地形人 (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Humans sharing accounts with machines

My apologies, as I'm certain this has already been addressed and I've neglected to keep-up with the latest.
If a human ("Editor ABC") is writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by process of cognition, but is also writing and posting comments to a Talk page generated by an LLM (as opposed to merely machine-translating thoughts which originated in their own mind), are we inclined to view this as a violation of our WP:SHAREDACCOUNT policy in that both the human and the LLM are contributing using the same account? Or is the dependence of the LLM on the human to actually post its output to the Talk page sufficient to overcome any concerns about sharing? Chetsford (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

There have been several discussions about LLMs, but I don't remember this specific issue being addressed. I would say, as I think about just about everything, that if the editor is upfront and transparent about what they are doing then most things should be allowed, but that if the editor tries to hide things or is sneaky and underhand in any way they should be blocked. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I know there has been a lot of talk but I don't recall anything regarding what you specifically asked. If I understand you correctly anyways... If both talk page posts are coming from the same logged in user and is signed as such, I'm not sure if there is much of a difference between what I actually say versus what an LLM spits out as a response to a prompt generated by that same user. However, that user would be held accountable for both their direct statements, as well as those generated through a LLM, and there is no real excuse that "I didn't mean that" when they posted it, regardless of how the actual text/words were generated. I guess the other way LLM could be used is say to take someone else's post/reply and feed that into an LLM and ask the LLM to generate a response. But again, not sure how big of an issue that is, as long as they're both being attributed to the same person behind the post. They just cannot use some sort of shared account principle as a defense. TiggerJay (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

43.249.196.179 (again)

See their previous thread here, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1174#User:Augmented Seventh. Continuing to disrupt and remove categories without explanation, decided to gravedance on my page after restoring edits without any talk page discussion, and has now moved onto disrupting user sandboxes and user pages by removing categories without said user's permission, calling my reversions 'vindicitive' and now considering me their personal 'nemesis' because they don't understand why they're being reverted. Nate • (chatter) 21:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

User:MrSchimpf is not familiar with some of the WP policies and guidelines especially WP:UOWN and WP:CAT. Also, his obfuscated username is somewhat fustration and is not conducive to efficient editing. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1266485663: Editing user pages has no 'hard policy' prohibition, as this is a wiki. 'End of discussion', seriously? Also see WP:NOBAN. Then, Category:Wikipedians is a container category, which clearly says it should only contain subcategories. Even I don't understand why they're being reverted. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: WP:USERNOCAT was cited in this edit (a sandbox used for drafting a larger edit needing discussion, where categories were copied along with the rest of the article's content). (Category:Wikipedians is mentioned explicitly in that guideline.) Tule-hog (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Whatever the case, user sandbox space is sacred and unless you have permission to edit there, you don't touch them, that's an unwritten rule. Mathglot certainly didn't appreciate it. That's the main issue here and if I was wrong on the cats so be it, but they should not be playing in sandboxes they shouldn't be in. Nate • (chatter) 02:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I have no qualms about others making improvements to pages in my users space—which belong to the community and are not "mine"—as long as they are improvements. That said, IP's edits in my userspace look like vandalism to me. Mathglot (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I only just noticed this AN discussion, after placing this warning at User talk:43.249.196.179 about vandalizing a Draft template in my user space. Their edits seem somehow to be related to categories, but near as I can guess from their edit summary here, they also had some inscrutable complaint about me using my userspace as "social media". Maybe interested parties here will understand what they are talking about, because I certainly don't. As of this point, I cannot tell if they are well-meaning, but highly misinformed and uncomprehending, or if they are simply trolling everyone. I suspect the latter, but am willing to be proved wrong, especially if enceforth they stick to guidelines and talk things out, instead of ignoring advice given previously and edit-warring. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, now I am sure: see this edit at my Talk page, quickly reverted by Remsense while I was in the process of reverting it. This is clearly intentional, malicious, vandalism, as well as retaliation. Therefore, I propose an indefinite block on 43.249.196.179 (talk · contribs) as it is a vandalism-only account. Mathglot (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Remsense

I was instructed to report this here.

The editor in question: Remsense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Claiming a user "can't read": [32]. Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
• Calling a user a "scoundrel": [33]. Clear violation of WP:NOPA.
• Telling a user "get the hell off my page" for leaving a mandatory notification: [34]. Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY.
• Claiming a user is "baiting" for seeking enforcement of a 3RR violation [35]. Clear violation of WP:CIVILITY and WP:GOODFAITH.

2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C306 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Per the helpfully linked diff, I'm not going to be further baited by this person. In disputes like this one I've behaved too cattily for my own liking after being dragged to ANI and the like, and I'd prefer to turn over a new leaf in 2025. If anyone else has questions, let me know. Remsense ‥ 论 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@2001:569:7FEA:2900:8049:8F17:E1E:C30: You have wasted too much community time. After being reverted at WP:AN/3 (diff) you are extending your complaint to here. If this continues, I will block your IP range and any other IPs or new editors that pop up with a continuation of this dispute. Discuss disagreements about article content at article talk pages per WP:DR. Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

(For the record, I will not be participating in any WP:DR process pertaining to this. I am not interested in correcting the errors introduced to the page at the moment, and trust other editors to competently follow our content guidelines.) Remsense ‥ 论 22:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

You were not instructed to report this here. The relevant sentence in the diff contains "if". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

IP, just drop the stick. Please stop trying to get Remsense sanctioned. It's just gonna get you blocked per WP:BOOMERANG, as you haven't shown sanctionable and repeated misconduct on your diffs. I concur with Phil Bridger. Codename AD ^talk 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year to the administrators of the English Wikipedia! Here's to a vandal-free 2025. Well, as vandal-free as y'all can get without having no more work left to do. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year to the whole English Wikipedia community! Ahri Boy (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. And Happy New Year to the non-admin watchers here too. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025

At their request, the CheckUser access of Ferret is removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks them for their service.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the CheckUser team, January 2025