Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 49.144.33.23 (talk) at 05:33, 15 November 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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


    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
    CfD 0 0 0 1 1
    TfD 0 0 0 6 6
    MfD 0 0 2 1 3
    FfD 0 0 1 14 15
    RfD 0 0 16 27 43
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (26 out of 9048 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    User talk:118.96.155.66 2024-12-20 12:38 indefinite move Inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked ScottishFinnishRadish
    Unbelievable Gwenpool 2024-12-20 04:54 2025-12-20 04:54 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
    Template:Gwenpool 2024-12-20 04:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate
    User:Johnj1995 2024-12-19 22:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by users other than Johnj1995 Isabelle Belato
    Thunivu 2024-12-19 11:36 2025-01-19 11:36 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Template:Müzik sanatçısı bilgi kutusu 2024-12-19 00:47 indefinite create Turkish for "Infobox musical artist", attracts mistaken creations Tamzin
    Khaled Nabhan 2024-12-18 22:07 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Draft:Windows 7 On A Virtual Machine 2024-12-18 21:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG
    Mikhail Shatsky 2024-12-18 20:09 2025-12-18 20:09 create WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree
    Igor Kirillov (general) 2024-12-18 20:08 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree
    Template:Certification Table Entry/Sales/NewZealandPeriod 2024-12-18 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2617 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories 2024-12-18 02:17 indefinite edit,move Requests should not be posted here; please use WP:AFC/R or WP:AFC/C Queen of Hearts
    Lucky Ekeh 2024-12-17 20:17 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Leroy Cronin 2024-12-17 17:16 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT / This page has repeatedly been misused as a battleground by users with apparent undisclosed conflicts of interest ToBeFree
    Dmitry Rybolovlev 2024-12-17 15:40 2024-12-27 15:40 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Less Unless
    KMFDM 2024-12-17 11:23 2025-01-17 11:23 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: Wisconsin school shooter wearing the band's t-shirt, same as Columbine; as a GA article, there's little chance valid improvements to the article will happen in the next month from new users. Zanimum
    Ada and Abere 2024-12-17 08:57 2025-01-17 08:57 move Persistent vandalism The Bushranger
    Draft:Nicolas Atanes 2024-12-16 22:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    Nicolas Atanes 2024-12-16 22:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    S-300 missile system 2024-12-16 21:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement -- ARBPIA and GSRUSUKR both affect portions of this article frequently subject to edit warring/disruption. Swatjester
    Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) 2024-12-16 20:35 2025-06-16 20:35 create repeated attempts to recreate using version deemed by AfD to require improvement. Force to go through AfC. OwenX
    Ramzy Baroud 2024-12-16 20:33 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Draft:Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) 2024-12-16 20:32 2025-06-16 20:32 move per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chief of the General Staff (Bangladesh) OwenX
    Template:If autoconfirmed 2024-12-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Nicolás Atanes 2024-12-16 15:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    Malayalam 2024-12-16 13:41 2025-06-16 13:41 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato

    User with 348k+ edits blocked for copyvio

    I have indefinitely partially blocked User:Werldwayd, who has over 348,000+ edits and 290,000+ edits to mainspace for copyright violations; they were legitimately warned 13 times since 2009 before I blocked them today; more background can be seen at User talk:Werldwayd#Blocked. I've opened an investigation into their edits at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Werldwayd, which hasn't been filled out with their edits yet- when it is, I would appreciate it if others could help sort through the mountain of edits. Given my previous posting here on the matter of dealing with copyright violations, and the extent of them in this case, I am posting this here so the communities eyes are on it. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 22:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest starting with their ~1,000 most edited pages, which account for ~89,000 of those edits. BD2412 T 22:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sheesh. I mean I agree with the block but still, sheesh. One of the project's most prolific editors and yes, you're quite right, a lot of copyright violations in their edits. Canterbury Tail talk 22:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Good catch, Moneytrees. CCI is a depressing place when you look at the backlog, and even after going through a fair few articles in two cases, I'd barely made a dent. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to diminish the problem, but Wikipedia falls within the DMCA safe harbor (in the U.S., at least), so the project faces no immediate legal jeopardy over copyvios. BD2412 T 16:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Does a remediation page of some form make sense? Yesterday, there was a similar issue with pages created by an SPI OlympicSport being deleted en-masse. Though that one was not copyvio. I was thinking, if we draftify these pages and then have a central repository / page of all articles that have been draftified, categorized by some logical buckets -- editors who might be interested can work on repairing the articles and bring them back to the mainspace? I have seen some projects have a 'required articles' section, I envision this remediation page being no different. Thoughts? Ktin (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If there are pages that were created by User:Werldwayd that were not heavily edited by others that would make sense for those pages. BD2412 T 16:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ktin What would probably be most effective if a project-wide drive like Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup, which successfully completed the then largest CCI ever within a few days short of a year. I could get to making a page for WerldWayd, but won't be able to for at least another month (too much real life work). Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 22:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct. This is what I was looking for, but, rather than a page just for Blofeld or for Weldwayd or for OlympicSport, I was thinking of a page where we have all articles that have been moved to some sort of a bin (e.g. Draft) and is looking for volunteers to examine and move back to mainspace. This has to be driven almost as a project by itself. Ktin (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    2021 Arbitration Committee elections: nominations now open

    Somehow, it is already that time of year again. Eligible editors are invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections. The nomination phase will end at 23:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC). Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Often considered running, but no. Not giving up any personal info, to do it. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't really need to give up personal info unless you have an account you'd need to disclose. You can sign the NDA with your Wikipedia username. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, Footnote A from the nomination page does say "Provide contact and identification information", though the Access to nonpublic personal data policy does not appear to require any ID info. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good catch. I've removed the and identification part to align with what the policy currently says. (Regarding contact information, all that is required is an email address, and many ArbCom members simply create separate email addresses for Wikipedia-related work.) Mz7 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps best to consider an RfA. Better to be an administrator first, rather then go directly to being an arbitrator. GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You would certainly provide an interesting perspective, I don't know if anyone has ever been elected to the Arbitration committee after being the named party in an arbitration case.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Also, this year there are eight vacant seats: see WP:ACE2021#Vacant seats for more details. Mz7 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're thinking of running you might be interested in my thoughts on what the job entails and questions to consider before running. As it says there I am happy to privately (or publicly) talk to anyone who is considering a run. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Steady stream of emails" from editors wanting to be un-banned? That just ended my ambitions. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I hereby nominate myself for another year of not being on ArbCom. BD2412 T 04:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My only observation is imagine the amount of work the job entails and double it. Or triple it? Ten times? Oh, and do not expect to get barnstars. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, what you say here doesn't match my experience or what I wrote in the link above. At most times an arb can stay abreast with 5-7 hours of work a week. I expect anyone the community would elect is already spending more than that on Wikipedia now. And while I haven't received any barnstars in general there is more thanks than opprobrium sent my way for my arb work. Now as the essay says it's not all roses but it's also not been unceasing misery either. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm the sort of chap who'd probably unblock Kumioko as "time served, better to keep them inside the tent pissing out than vice versa" and would have strongly opposed desysopping Kudpung and RexxS, so needless to say I'm completely unsuitable material to be an arb. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If the only people who ever run all share exactly the same mindset, will anything ever change? Primefac (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ritchie333: It's not those things that would lose you the election: many people agreed with you/ disagreed with the committee wrt Kuds and Rex. And while Kumiokio might appear more difficult, in wiki-years it was a century ago, with so much new blood in the community that enough people would probably not care like some of the old workhorses might. No, I doubt if they'd hurt you election chances.
    What would kill your Arb-run stone dead this year are the frankly bizarre events of last year's Electoal Commission election, in which the simple fact of having to sign a confidentiality agreement resulted in your your candidature descending into farce; your behaviour was described by User:Swarm as bordering on trolling ([1]) and by User:Ealdgyth as wasting people's time ([2]). You then proceeded to claim that it was all a waste of, actually, your time, blanking the discussion ([3]) and edit-warring with an arb clerk who reverted you ([4]).
    And this was just the electoral commission. You run for arb com, they'll hold the front page at WPO ——Serial 14:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, next year you'll probably be fine... ——Serial 14:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Serial Number 54129, I'd forgotten about that, but that's a good reason as well. (I declined an offer to serve in this year's Electoral Commission for the same reason). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Zemmour talk page: Abnormal and biased closure

    Emigré55, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass before you're blocked for egregious waste of the community's time. I will put a warning on Emigré's page also. Bishonen | tålk 10:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

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

    I think the closure of this chapter [1] is abnormal for several reasons:
    1/ Discussions continued, with several new opinions, by new contributors also such as Guarapiranga, and new issues raised in recent days.
    2/ The reason given for the closure, a "consensus on ..." is twice incorrect:

    2.1 On the one hand, this RfC was intended to gather comments on the qualification of Zemmour, NOT on the alternative use of the qualification far right versus right wing
    2.2 On the other hand, the initiator of the RfC was himself in favour of a double qualification, and I agreed with this opinion. So if there is consensus it is on this point, NOT on the withdrawal of the right wing qualification

    3/ But above all, the withdrawal of the qualification is contrary on the one hand to the sources, and therefore to WP:BALANCE, and on the other hand and especially to WP:NPOV.
    4/ And the last comment I made, here, [[5]] which has never been answered, addressed the subject.
    The question, which was thus introduced in this RfC, with the conclusion drawn by this closure which rules "ultra petita", with a closing summary more inaccurate and incomplete, constitute a diversion of procedures, so as not to apply the fundamental rules of Wikipedia on the neutrality of point of view.
    Dual qualification should therefore be maintained in the lead.
    --Emigré55 (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Emigré55: Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, you are supposed to reach out to the closing editor before going to WP:AN. ––Formal 🐧 talk 10:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude: Apologies if I did something wrong. I simply followed advice I got from JBchrch in a previous discussion, here, [[6]].
    Maybe I got it wrong, but never intended to do wrong of course.
    I propose to resolve the issue in a friendly manner, so that to promptly close then the thread at ANI. --Emigré55 (talk) 10:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emigré55: Very well.
    1. It sounds like you're saying I closed the RfC too early as there was still some comments coming in. I believe it had more than enough thorough discussion that had reached a definite conclusion at the time of my close. This was primarily evidenced by a general agreement amongst a majority of editors that preferred to include "far-right."
    2.1 The dispute may have started off on just whether or not to include "far-right", but that question is immediately relevant to whether or not to also include "right-wing", and as such, much of the discussion the RfC received was about just that. Several editors voiced their opinions that "right-wing" should not be included and "far-right" should.
    2.2 You and the RfC nominator alone do make the consensuses on Wikipedia. The nominator specifically does not have any special weight. There was a lot more discussion from other experienced editors just like yourselves, and I evaluated that in addition to your two's comments.
    3. "Before requesting review, understand that review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself."
    4. My close was not ultra petita, it was well within the scope of the discourse that occurred. There was no diversion of closing procedures, and all Wikipedia policies, especially neutral point of view, were considered in the weight of the arguments made. ––Formal 🐧 talk 10:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Emigré55 and FormalDude: My apologies to both of you for forgetting that step in my advice. JBchrch talk 19:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Imho, you forget WP:OTHERCONTENT, which also states that "When an editor introduces new information to Wikipedia, it may be necessary to consider whether the inclusion and organization of such material is compliant with core policies such as neutral point of view(...) ".
    Hence, pretending there is a consensus towards eliminating the other qualifications used by other numerous media, as duly cited in refs, would clearly go over this rule and would be a crystal clear breach of WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE.
    Consensus not here, and not to be used to circumvent rules, and in particular NPOV. --Emigré55 (talk) 21:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view, editors did consider those policies. I think the consensus was that "far right" is the correct, NPOV, description for Monsieur Zammour according to the reliable sources, and that it would breach NPOV not to describe him as far right.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "editors did consider those policies": I is not possible, as WP:OTHERCONTENT comment was introduced 10 days after the thread was open, way after all comments, and there was only one comment after it (on the fact that "far right" is a loaded term) before the thread was abruptly closed on November 4th;
    • "it would breach NPOV not to describe him as far right": it was never discussed "NOT" to describe him as far right. But in as much as not "to describe him as far right would be NPOV", you then cannot deny that it would breach NPOV not to describe him as "right wing", or other many qualificatives used by numerous sources which do not call him far right (precisely because the term is loaded, and all the more since there are numerous sources, as mentioned, which do not call him far right).--Emigré55 (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OTHERCONTENT is part of an essay, not a policy. NPOV/BALANCE is policy, and I agree with S Marshall that the participating editors did take those into account. In addition, of course it is possible to adhere to a policy, guideline, or essay in a discussion, even if it has not been mentioned explicitly – saying that it isn't possible for editors to have considered OTHERCONTENT until it was explicitly mentioned is a fallacy. Besides, you made that comment on 31 October, and the RfC was closed on 4 November. --bonadea contributions talk 10:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment from the RFC nominator: I consider this to have gone on more than long enough. I hereby detail the process which led to the RFC (and its two sister RFCs) in the first place: 1° I added sourced information copied and translated from the French version of the article. (in September) 2° This was partly reverted and partly modified. 3° I realised this (in October) so began discussing it on the subject talk page. 4° The talk page discussion did not lead to a clear enough consensus so I brought it to RFC 5° The initial RFC was considered insufficiently specific so I closed it and opened three others for three specific issues, of which this is the second. 6° And now we’re here. By the way, the first sister RFC is still active while the third has just been replaced with a reworded version. Munci (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is rightly pointed out in the above summary that, despite the (many) different RFCs or discussions at the said talk page, "4° The talk page discussion did not lead to a clear enough consensus". The closed thread did not either. Trying to imply answers to others questions raised after discussions was closed is "ultra petita" or NPOV. So status quo: stil no clear consensus, notwithstanding the fact that consensus cannot go against rules, in any case (such as WP:OTHERCONTENT). --Emigré55 (talk) 08:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Emigré55: There is a clear consensus to use only "far-right", and it doesn't go against any rules, certainly not WP:NPOV. ––Formal 🐧 talk 09:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude:Your conclusion is erroneous, when you use the term "only", which was btw neither in the question, nor in the debates or comments, hence also "ultra petita"; Plus, ONLY calling him so goes clearly against WP:BALANCE (as duly sourced), hence against WP:NPOV.--Emigré55 (talk) 10:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want me to name and quote each person that argued for only "far-right" specifically? ––Formal 🐧 talk 10:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Éric_Zemmour#Request_for_comment_on_the_description_of_Eric_Zemmour's_ideology
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    High Guardian Spice

    Content dispute, not a matter for AN. Sandstein 08:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    There's quite a bit of debate over what constitutes a reliable source for post-release reviews of the show. It's possible Historyday01 wants to keep the reviews skewed positive by discrediting sources that review it poorly. It's also possible that they are right about what constitutes a reliable source for reviews of content. They definitely have a potential motive to want to keep the reviews positive, so I think, at this point, it would be a good idea for an admin to take a look at the sources cited, previously and currently, and clarify what a reliable source of reviews is to prevent any potential warring. Lobuttomize (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Lobuttomize, Historyday01's removal of a "Know Your Meme" citation appears to be fine, as there is a Wikipedia-wide consensus that it is a generally unreliable source (WP:KNOWYOURMEME, red table entry). Eidako's citation of a self-published source is problematic; I have reverted it and informed the user about the problem. If there is general doubt about the reliability of a citation, you may like to start a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. If there is edit warring after a warning, a report can be created at the edit-warring noticeboard. To not let the situation get to this point, Wikipedia offers the following advice:
    Creating a thread at the Administrators' Noticeboard is a final step if everything fails. Your question and my answer are probably more suitable for the Teahouse, where editors can ask all kinds of questions including how to deal with a specific situation. I thus recommend that someone closes this section.
    Best regards,
    ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you are not sure if a source is "reliable" or not, go to WP:RSN and use the search feature for the domain name. If there has been a discussion on it, it will show up in the results. That is always a good first step, for if it has had discussion and the outcome was clear, you question is answered. You can always start a new discussion if you have a domain you aren't sure about. But ToBeFree sums it up, this is the last resort. We do NOT decide content at WP:AN, we deal with problems and right now, you can deal with your own problem. If there ever is a behavioral problem, the correct board is actually WP:ANI not WP:AN, btw. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lobuttomize, Sigh. I have said time and again, that I am willing to cite negative reliable sources and reviews, it is just that I have not come across such reviews. The sites which have been cited for negative reviews have been from unreliable sources from what I can tell, up to this point. That's my only comment on this matter. I have no vested interest in keeping reviews positive, I only want to page to be neutral and use the best sources available, which are considered reliable sources by Wikipedia's guidelines. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Mass killings under communist regimes

    There is a content dispute concerning Mass killings under communist regimes that I am trying to mediate at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Many of the regimes in question were or are in Eastern Europe as normally defined, and the article talk page carries a note that it is subject to Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. Some of the principals have already received notice of discretionary sanctions. Some of the principals and I are in agreement that the dispute may take longer than two or three weeks to resolve. I am trying to focus on content and to figure out how to let the community decide on the structure of the article in accordance with neutral point of view and reliable sources.

    Another editor brought to my attention that they were canvassed by one of the principals. I don't know what the purpose of drawing additional editors into the dispute is, because it will either be resolved by one or more RFCs, or it will not be resolved in spite of one or more RFCs, but I have already said that I do not intend to conduct a mass discussion, and I will abandon the DRN if necessary. That won't help the editors, because that will almost certainly end up either at WP:ANI or at Arbitration Enforcement, which will probably sanction some of the editors and let the survivors finish working on the contentious article.

    I am only requesting two or four admin eyes on the case, and no action at this time, because I think that the community would prefer a resolution that doesn't involve mass banning of editors due to a dispute over communism. I am about to post another moderator statement to try to make some slow progress. Thank you for any attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    An editor who has been discussing the article on its talk page has said that maybe it should be nominated for deletion. First, I understand and have stated at DRN that an AFD takes precedence over all other content dispute resolution vehicles, so if it is nominated for deletion, I will put the DRN on hold. Second, if it is nominated for deletion, I expect that the AFD will also be contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only say, Robert, that you are very brave to take this on. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the article and talk page to my watchlist, and I've been keeping tabs on the discussion. @Robert McClenon: feel free to report any issues you see on my talk. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. It appears that they are going to argue at length about how to do the arguing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Do I have the right?

    This is a content dispute with no immediate need for administrative intervention. Please use the article's talk page. – Joe (talk) 09:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello,

    I would like to introduce this change [7]. The Algerian government via its minister officially gave an assessment of the number of deaths during the sand war, assessment that I wanted to add to the article. I had used a source of the declaration from an Algerian newspaper, reverted by User:M.Bitton [8], so I brought a source from the official Algerian press agency [9], reverted too. Is my modification legitimate or the Algerian government is not a reliable source? I am asking here for your opinion because I feel that my freedom to modify is restricted. Thanks all. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It was reverted because there is nothing "official" about history and as I said to you in the edit summary, that infobox was discussed on the talk page that I invited you to read and that you chose to ignore.
    information Note: Now that you brought this to ANI, I would like the admins to have a look at your editing history (which speaks for itself), also noting that you do this every time you get a longish block on fr.wp. M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please avoid making judgments too quickly this is not the first time today and I am starting to get seriously annoyed.
    The last message on the talk page dates from 2018. [10]
    The articles are from August 2021. [11]
    Nothing official? What could be more official than the Algerian government to give these data?
    I think there is a serious problem, on each article that I intervene in months apart, you go behind by reverting for wrong reasons[12], and after you end up accepting by changing the location according to your own criteria [13], do you have a special status on Wikipedia or is it a personal approach?
    You cancel a modification then you have to insist that you leave it while its author is a specialist but only where you want to put it.
    When I intervene to explain that the sentence does not conform to the source, you revert, I initiate a debate, you answer me with a personal attack, without answering the subject. [14]
    It is very problematic, there is a certain aggressiveness which will not help anything, I try to stay calm personally but I feel the impression that you are forcing yourself to control certain articles by using wikipedia to block certain modifications which seem particularly to bother you. Are you a super user?
    You talk a lot about wiki fr, I've never seen you there yet it's strange, I wonder if you have another nickname on wiki fr?
    Thanks. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you ignored what it says right at the top of this page, including the part in red, is telling. You can say that again: there is a massive problem with your edits and your cross wiki nationalist POV pushing. The reliable sources cannot be trumped by a what is said in a newspaper in a middle of verbal war of two countries with no diplomatic ties. The previous discussion where you made all kind of baseless statements before abandoning it is there (I'd have to be crazy to entertain, yet again, another time wasting exercises of yours). I watch fr.wiki for a laugh, but most important of all, to make sure that those who turned some of its articles into a cesspit won't be able to do the same thing here. Think what you want. M.Bitton (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I thought, you are trying to explain your revert through personal interpretations. So, you judge what is right or wrong ?
    There is a real problem, we are absolutely no longer in the spirit of Wikipedia and it is very dangerous for the neutrality of the articles.
    You are confirming that you have withdrawn official and sourced information on the basis of personal interpretations.
    I think there is a serious problem with WP: NPOV.
    For information, the request was not against you, I wanted to know if my approach was correct, and if not, how could it be solved.
    If it was against you, from the start I would have mentioned the problems with the article pastilla, namely the non-respect of the Bouhlila source and your reaction to my opening a talk page dialogue.
    However, your scandalous personal attacks are intolerable and suggest that the problem is deeper. Disagreements cannot justify disrespect. --SegoviaKazar (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SegoviaKazar To answer your question, the Algerian government is a primary source, and it is not an independent source with regard to a conflict it is involved in. Unless that information is independently published elsewhere, it's best not to include it. WMSR (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:KingdomHearts25‎ possible compromised account

    Hello. I came across User:KingdomHearts25 while looking through Category:All orphaned articles. I came across Revengers Tragedy (song) which I suspected was a hoax, so I sent it to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Revengers Tragedy (song). As I suspected this was a hoax, I thought it would be a good idea to see if this user has made any more hoaxes. However, I noticed the current revision of their userpage looks like to be spam text. This user has been posting what looks like spam on their userpage since October 2020, including today (November 8th). Leading up to October 2020, this user had been making edits that look constructive. However, from October 2020 onwards, the only edits are the spam text to this userpage. Therefore, I think this user account is possibly compromised. Please let me know what you think. Thank you! :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Revengers Tragedy is not a hoax, please check it out before commenting . And yes, I have been using my userpage to make notes relating to creative projects I am involved as I like timestamps on what I add and Apple Notes, for instance, does not allow me to do so. Too busy to regularly edit Wikipedia, so not making too many "constructive" edits at the moment. My current IP, which I can always prove to anyone at any point, will match up with the user location (city, state) previously present on my userpage and I am always up for any possible tests that you may have to prove my authenticity, such as knowledge on articles majorly edited by me in the past (eg. Backstreet Boys discography). Cheers. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @KingdomHearts25: Wikipedia is not a free web host. You cannot use your user page as a notepad unrelated to the project's goals. – Joe (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not be a hoax, but the article appears to be inaccurate, so we end up at the same place. The article Revengers Tragedy (album) already exists for the album, and there doesn't appear to be a song of the same name. So this can be safely deleted. Black Kite (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Help me attack

    User:Кепреч has been blocked by HJ Mitchell — curiousGolden call me maybe? 14:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Kyivstar vandal again putting up a vandal photo. Please remove the photo, also from the commons, and block this range. thanks --Jphwra (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference to admins, I believe Jphwra is talking about User:Кепреч's edit here. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 12:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Echo1Charlie's disruptive editing

    Moved to ANI. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User Echo1Charlie is engaged in disruptive editing and edit-war with multiple editors on multiple pages while giving misunderstood policies as rationale for reversion and large-scale content removal (see 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5). The editor also questions reputable RS just because it comes from a certain country (see 1 & 2). The user doesn't understand what WP:PRIMARY means (see 1, 2 & 3) or what WP:LONGQUOTE means (see 1 & 2). Calls a print magazine a WP:SPS (see 1 & 2). The user has already been warned for such behavior. Tagging @Satrar and Samee: for more input. --119.157.254.153 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems more like an ANI matter rather than AN, so I'd suggest taking it there (and don't forget to notify the user you're reporting on their talk page). Cheers. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 17:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Egaftrawefewg

    Hi. I would like to highlight the editions of User:Egaftrawefewg. In this edition [15], [16] and again [17] he posted a fake photo [18]. And He did the same in the article List of tallest buildings in PolandTokyotown8 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tokyotown8, this is not the right venue for this. Please take this to WP:ANI and notify the user you're reporting on their talk page. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 19:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I had noticed this happening. Wasn't sure if it was malicious or just some kind of incompetence. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia

    Page protected for two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    We have this Warsaw camp hoax edit-warring ongoing again. Last time I blocked the users, and got multiple suggestions of an immediate desysop, had a medical emergency which took me weeks to recover, and who cares that ArbCom fully agreed with me. I am not going to take any action again here, but we need an admin to stop it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you note that this user [19] should not have been editing that article at all due to the 500/30 restrictions Ymblanter?[20] I hope you are not questioning the enforcement of the ArbCom restrictions now. Do you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted that you reverted a long-term user in good standing, who is perfectly entitled to edit the article. It is also not difficult to look at the edit history of the article and see very clearly that there is no consensus for removal of this material. Just somebody, based on the previous experience, is sure they are not going to be blocked for edit-warring.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And that “user in good standing” (sic) was tag teaming/edit warring together with a red linked account that doesn’t meet the 500/30 restriction imposed on this topic by ArbCom. JFC. We JUST went through the whole Esoterix/Icewhiz sock thing like a couple weeks ago. Yet here we are back again with some users or red linked accounts trying to “protect” Icewhiz’s “legacy” on Wikipedia, and here we are again with some admins bending over to enable them. Maybe the reason this keeps happening is because there’s absolutely NO CONSENSUS for inclusion of this piece of trolling by Icewhiz in the list and the only reason it keeps coming back is because Icewhiz’s old buddies from the ArbCom case days keep restoring it despite consensus and trigger happy admins protect them. Volunteer Marek 20:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by the edit summary[21] the edit warring editor in good standing wasn’t aware of the fact that the editor in question wasn’t permitted to update that subject. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you would have to discuss with her before reverting. It is still edit-warring, exagerrating by tag-teaming. Exactly as last time. Precisely the same.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And if what you are doing there is not tag-teaming then I do not know what is tag-teaming.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What? @Ymblanter - Perhaps I should have insisted on apologies back then. (do you know what I’m talking about or you want a diff?) I learned my lesson now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:21, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about an essay page? An administrator is needed to stop experienced editors from fighting over the content of an essay? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Please stop; consider gaining consensus for inclusion, as you'd do with WP:ONUS for articles." Done? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree - Breaking news! What a surprise! brand new account arrives to revert to Icewhiz’s version -->[22] So what are we going to do about this account popping up and breaking 500/30 restriction? @Ymblanter? - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why, of all administratiors, are you asking ME? You perfectly know that I can not do anything related to this page now without being dragged to ArbCom, and being dragged to ArbCom is not my first priority.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you brought this here. I’m going to enforce ArbCom remedy that can be seen here -->[23] and reads:
    All IP editors, users with fewer than 500 edits, and users with less than 30 days' tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring
    @Ymblanter if you have anything against me enforcing that remedy say it now please - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A dozen of users in good standing repeatedly restored the piece, because, well, there is no consensus to remove it to start with. However, the piece is currently not in the article, and we need a protection so that at least if it gets restored it gets restored by an editor in good standing.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @GizzyCatBella that language is no longer in effect. The current language is The extended confirmed restriction is imposed on edits and pages related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland, broadly construed. Standard discretionary sanctions as authorized by the Eastern Europe arbitration case remain in effect for this topic area. I have no comment at this time about the dispute but felt it important to note the current language. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't we get rid of these problems if the page in question was simply deleted? What purpose does it serve (any yes, I've read the 2015 deletion discussion and find the reasons for keeping far from persuasive)? I really can't be bothered with nominating it for deletion myself, but would support anyone else who did so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is always an option, indeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Page fully protected for two weeks after further reverts; possible responses to this action are finding something else to do or participating in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Can someone close this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Nur-Sultan Astana

    The move of the article a year ago, when the city was renamed after the longtime dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev, should have never taken place, as English Media and other sources always used and still continue to use the name Astana more commonly. As it was proven on the article's talk page by this source as well as a Google Trends reference:

    An exclusionary search using Google Scholar by year (as of 10 Oct 2021)
    Date range Both A and N-S Astana
    only     		Nur-Sultan
    only     		% both % A only % N-S only
    2020 1,760 6,450 3,800 14.7% 53.7% 31.6%
    2021 1,070 3,590 2,810 14.3% 48.1% 37.6%

    WP:COMMONNAME Was applied in similar situations with renamings, which took place in India, like Prayagraj or Ayodhya (district) in the past years, where the articles were NOT renamed because English sources still use the old names, but it is not applied with Nur-Sultan.

    Numerous attempts were made to correct the wrong on the talk page, but noone ever provided a source that Nur-Sultan Was the common name and noone corrected the mistake and moved the name back to Astana.

    Can someone pls help correcting it?

    --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You would need to open a RM at the talk page of the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He actually did, twice, followed by a move review I'm about to close. At this point, he should be blocked for disruption and WP:FORUMSHOPPING. No such user (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:COMMONNAME + WP:NAMECHANGES both support my argumentation, that the article shoulda never been renamed as „Nursultan“. Common name, it's clear why, Nursultan never was the common name and Namechanges, because of:
    „If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well.
    --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic-ban proposal

    Recently, Tecumseh*1301 has opened:

    I'd say that enough is enough, and propose topic ban of Tecumseh*1301 from the topic of Nur-Sultan/Astana, broadly construed. No such user (talk) 10:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Makes sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the comments below, I would support a ban from all discussions related to article moves.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tecumseh*1301's other fixation is wanting to moving the article on Allahabad to "Prayagraj".English. And he has done this on many languages, for example: Azerbaijani, Hebrew (wanting אללהאבאד changed to פראיאגראי), Latvian, Russian (wanting Аллахабад changed to Праяградж), Scots – see his global contributions. An argument he/she used in English Wikipedia in the most recent Allahabad/Prayagraj move discussion was that since Astana was moved to Nur-Sultan, Allahabad should be moved to Prayagraj. After the failure of the last attempt to move Allahabad (which also had a move review), he/she then launched the Nur-Sultan/Astana RM. I tried to explain to him how to do evidence – see User talk:Tecumseh*1301#How to do evidence in Wikipedia move discussions, but I do not think he/she really understands. I do not think he/she is good at reading and writing English. Also difficult stuff, like doing research and weighing evidence in English, seems too difficult for him/her.
    I do not think topic banning him/her from Nur-Sultan/Astana will address the real problem, which is that he/she desperately wants to move Allahabad to Prayagraj, and having failed on English-language Wikipedia he/she wanted to try a WP:RM on another city and picked Nur-Sultan/Astana. He/she is trying to get Drvengrad changed to Küstendorf on Spanish and Swedish Wikipedias and on Wikidata.Global contributions 6 Nov 2021 A better approach would be to topic ban him/her from trying to change the names of places. I have no idea whether you would be able to explain such a topic ban to him/her such that he/she understood.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Toddy1 here. The disruptive behaviour seems to expand much further beyond Nur-Sultan/Astana and the common part of all the disruption is Tecumseh*1301's attempts to change place names. A topic ban from initiating RMs/Move Reviews about place names would be a more helpful solution in my opinion. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 13:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur that the Nur-Sultan related disruptions are the direct follow-up of their opinions about a place-name in India -- a topic which should fall under India-Pakistan-Afghanistan discretionary sanctions. As a result, I don't think a topic-ban will suffice. Either they can stop disruption now, or they can get a full block. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • To a certain extent, there are enough objections to Wikipedia article-name changes specifically for places in India that those tend to take longer than article-name changes of places in other countries. I'm not saying it's good or bad or right or wrong, it simply is. At Talk:Nur-Sultan, there was an argument for titling the article Nur-Sultan: newspapers, etc. generally use Nur-Sultan. Also, the existence of organizations such as the Astana Cycling Team that still use the old name is not considered a reason to not move the city article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user also badgered myself [27], SmokeyJoe [28], and Alaich Emis [29] about the Nur-Sultan matter, and shows no signs of dropping the stick. I agree that the problem centers less on this particular city and more on moves in general, and I would support, at minimum, a topic ban from the page moving process (inc. RMs and MRs), broadly construed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are WP:COMMONNAME guidelines right? So, what gives anyone the right to not Stick to the guidelines? Noone ever has provided a source, that Nur-Sultan was the common Name. It is as simple as this. So why is noone moving the article back to it's original Name? Everybody is discussing anything, but not the core of this discussion, what is going on here?
    I have stopped the Allahabad/Prayagraj move attempt as soon as being presented with evidence, that Allahabad still is being used more frequently in English sources. Before that, I thought other arguments also play a role, because I knew of Ukrainian cities and Astana being renamed, I thought this would apply to Prayagraj as well. But this is not the case. To me, it is crazy. Sometimes the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines are applied, other times they are not. But the real strange behaviour is, when I ask if anyone can Provide a source, that shows, that Nur-Sultan Was the common Name, suddenly noone replies. I have lived in the USA a long time, I surely understand English very well User:Toddy1, thanks for suggesting, that I didnt. --Tecumseh*1301 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe some time in the future another discussion on the article's name will be had and there will be consensus to move. At this time, the normal venues have been exhausted with no consensus and there needs to be a period of calm. There is usually no "trump card" argument on Wikipedia (only if one side points to something critically important like a BLP violation; from the policy viewpoint, nothing is critically important in this naming dispute, regardless of how strongly someone feels about the issue). You may very well be right, but there wasn't enough interest in the discussion and the move initiative did not garner sufficient support. It can be very hard to move pages sometimes. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RSN closure challenge for ASPI

    A recent non administrative closure for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute entry on the reliable source noticeboard marked it as a marginally reliable source (wp:merl). Multiple editors including myself challenged this decision but our efforts to overturn it have so far been unsuccessful. The closer suggested we take this issue to the administrator’s noticeboard (wp:closechallenge) so I have brought the issue here

    These links provide the background information to the dispute. [30]

    [31]

    Pinging the editors who were involved in the post factum discussions. User:Tayi Arajakate, User:Horse Eye's Back,User:GretLomborg, User:Mikehawk10 Estnot (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Endorse closure The discussion was open for over a month, and the closure summary accurately captures the general consensus. While many of the bolded votes seem to vacillate between two of the pre-selected options, the closer wisely (IMHO) avoids falling into the trap of vote counting, and does an excellent job of capturing the consensus of the points that were being made. If you ignore the bolded "votes", there is a pretty clear consensus, and the closing statement seems to represent it well. --Jayron32 15:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Aye, seems like an obvious agreement that this source can be used with in-text attribution & people consider it an useful source but for opinions not facts. Even if we go by strict head-counting, it seems like Option 2 would have won ("Unclear or additional considerations apply") and the actual arguments give a clear indication of what the "additional consideration" is. I think the problem here is that the 4-options scheme that these RfCs follow is a bit of a Procrustean bed which does not represent nuances like "useful but needs in-text attribution" well, leading to confusion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Having read through the discussion, I agree with the closer's conclusions. Number 57 17:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    school

    We have no control over other Wikis. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello everyone, 205.237.30.142 is the IP in our school. Please don't block it forever. Could you please allow students to create an account even if the IP is currently blocked? Can you modify the block setting? Joe Pig (talk) 17:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Pig Students may create accounts at home, or can request them at WP:ACC. It is not uncommon for school computer networks to be blocked due to extensive vandalism by students. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joe Pig, unfortunately there was a regular pattern of people editing inappropriately. The good news is that anyone who creates an account (such as on their cell phone) can still edit even with this block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But our IP is blocked permanently in the French Wiktionnaire, it's not a good idea. Joe Pig (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This noticeboard is only for the English Wikipedia. If you have a concern or dispute with the French Wiktionnaire, you will have to discuss it on the appropriate board at wikt:fr:. DMacks (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already talked about this there, they understand, but they don't agree. Joe Pig (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely no way we can help you here with that. Sorry:( DMacks (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Y'all, immediate block

    ...for User:GFYCAT XXD, and revdeletion, etc. And maybe add those images to the blacklist. 207.229.101.47 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mobile editor trouble

    Semi protected by MelanieN EvergreenFir (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A major problem at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board is occurring. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Vandalism, Aspersions and calling my sister names User:Fred_Zepelin

    Hello everyone,

    I received an email today that a page Wheels (2014 film) I made years ago been suggested for speedy deletion even though it was voted keep years ago. I was new to Wikipedia (as I still am), but was having personal medical issues before. Now I am better and decided to give it a go again. I litterally just found the in window editor. Yay! So much easier! I updated the references on the page. It seems all of my references IndieWire, American Film Institute, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider were all taken down by @Fred_Zepelin. He had also taken down other references in the past the are viable. There was no discussion about any of this on the Talk page.

    I looked at his page and there are multiple mentions of vandalism from other users, that were deleted.

    Then the person went on my talk page and called my sister a name or something.

    Then he mentioned to other people, that I was another person and a sock puppet.

    I just honestly don't want to get tangled in a mess or drama. I was excited to make some edits and give this a try again. I am feeling better and it was fun to do the edits, but I am unaware of how to deal with this situation and am not interested in feeding someone's negativity. I am here to edit and have fun. Not have conflict with people.

    Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated. Also suggestions about how to get mentorship if you have any. Thank you in advance for any help you might be able to offer. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I don't think the person was tagged. I want to make sure they can defend themselves. He also did send me an email that was civil. I just want to be transparent. User:Fred Zepelin Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 06:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the talk page note as specified at the top of this page.
    Regardless, this is just messed up. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    MJL ‐Talk‐☖, that wasn't "messed up". The sockmaster claimed the Binaza sockpuppet account was his sister (although before he was blocked, he denied having anything to do with the Binaza account). I literally asked "How does your sister Binaza feel about this?" There is no "sister". Those two accounts were working on Wheels (2014 film) and Donavon Warren. Film Fanatical10069 started the Donavon Warren article way back when and immediately started working on the Wheels (2014 film) article just minutes after Ugochukwu75's appeals were finished being denied. Then he tried to erase evidence of starting the article (here) and shortly thereafter claimed that he didn't start that article. (here). Fred Zepelin. (talk) 13:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another noteworthy aspect - despite having a high level of proficiency, this Film Fanatical10069 account is asking for "mentors" multiple times, including in this discussion. The Binaza account asked for the same thing in that account's final edit; I assume they felt the walls closing in with the their sockpuppet investigation about to expose them and were trying to play as if they were a new child-like account, staring at the Wikipedia world in wonder. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Everyone,
    I figured out why I was emailed after so long. When @Fred Zepelin put the notification of speedy deletion on my talk page (or wiki did) it sent me an email. I honestly have not had an email from Wiki in years. I did not receive one for Donavon Warren, I believe because I did not create that version. But I was happy to do some quick research and update some of the links. Since then I have discovered the visual editor and it's a game changer. It really is!
    I am happy and pleased you caught a sock puppet or multiple sock puppets. Sock puppets go against policy. I am here to update Wikipedia and be professional. I obviously am not a sock or that sock or whatever is suggested. My account is 6 years old, Fred's is 30 days. I am still learning but am trying to take the proper channels and keep discussions civil. I ask Fred please stop posting on my talk page Fred.
    Vandalism - From my understanding deleting valid references repeatedly goes against policy. In the instance of Fred deleting the following references on the Wheels page. IndieWire, American Film Institute, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider were all deleted, saying they were paid promotional websites. I have made notes on the Wheels talk page regarding those references. It looks like there are multiple other past references that are taken down as he seems very emotionally involved. If you can please just look at his edits on the page Wheels (2014 film). He has been warned about vandalism by multiple users. Is this against policy?
    Casting Aspersions - He has been warned about this on multiple occasions. He keeps posting that I am a sock puppet every where he can. It's on 7 pages now I believe. Is this against policy?
    And yes. I would love mentorship. I found it frustrating before and gave up when the Donavon Warren article was deleted. But I am ready to get back into it. It's important to me to understand how this works so I can create more pages and make more edits. That's what I am interested. But it's important for me to understand it this time. To my knowledge I have done everything to have proper sources and it was marked keep. Will all my references be taken down in the future? Am I dealing with this correctly? Is this the proper channel for this discussion?
    In the meantime, I will try to focus on people who are deceased, older movies or blockbusters that have not come out. They are just tough to find and most pages have already been edited heavily and there is not much new information. I will do more research about mentorship and how to find one.
    Thank you again for every ones help. I really am thankful for any instruction, advice or knowledge you can pass down. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not forget that Ugochukwu75 deleted multiple concerns from his talk page about paid editing. He then admitted to undisclosed paid editing after he was blocked. He denied it beforehand. He was paid to edit Donavon Warren and paid to edit Wheels (2014 film). After he was blocked, Film Fanatical10069 showed up after 4 years of zero edits, started editing Wheels (2014 film), tried to delete evidence that he started the Donavon Warren article, then denied starting that article, and after I pointed out he was lying, now says "gave up when the Donavon Warren article was deleted". Evidence speaks for itself. Fred Zepelin (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL, @SVTCobra I apologize for another comment. I really am not trying to get caught up in this drama. What is the policy on this?
    BTW - Did I do that linking correctly? Thank you again. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is where you said you didn't create the Warren article. Here is the evidence that you did create the article. Here is your deletion, yesterday, of the talk page bit that points out you created the Warren article. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fred Zepelin I don't want to keep stating information I have already stated. Yes, I obviously deleted that 4 year old section. Same as you have deleted multiple warnings of vandalism and warnings about aspersions on your very own page.
    Let's keep this professional and let the advanced users advise or take action on this. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You just linked to a false positive by a bot, and also linked to Liz's warning to me, which I have not deleted, and you said I deleted it. Stop trying to deflect. Explain why you said you didn't create the Warren article, and then deleted the evidence on your talk page that you did create it. You also deleted multiple concerns on your talk page about paid editing. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not going to engage with you any longer. This was clearly articulated to you here. Film Fanatical10069 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's literally nothing at that link you posted that explains why you created the Warren article, then denied you created the article, and wiped the evidence from your talk page that you did create it, and why you now admit you created it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fred Zepelin: My apologies. I'm someone who has had people try to use MJL's Evil Sister and my sister as a means to get at me (generally offwiki), so I wrongly assumed that was happening here.
    Next time, if you are going to make a sock allegation, maybe provide a diff or something next time? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've provided over a dozen at this point. Getting frustrating. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant originally when you first confronted FF about it, but I guess that's pretty moot now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Comment: User:Binaza is a confirmed puppet per this investigation. In this edit the sockmaster (as far as we know) claimed Binaza as a sister, yet here we have Film Fanatical10069 claiming the same 'sister'. Fred Zepelin seems to have lost 'their cool' regarding this situation, but there is something going on here that is not OK. As far as I am concerned, it began at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_filmdaily.co_a_reliable_source? and it opened up a rabbit hole of sockpuppetry and paid editing some of which has extended to Wikimedia Commons. --SVTCobra 08:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am going to start from the end here, which is, I believe Ugochukwu75, Binaza and Film Fanatical10069 are all the same people or are engaging in meat puppetry. When I wrote the essay titled WP:NANE i noted that a common tactic employed by editors engaging in less than ethical practices is the act of reporting editors (who are about to nab them) to admin related noticeboards, it’s no surprise seeing this play-out precisely as I stated. They claim Fred vandalized, this isn’t true, they claim Fred also called their “sister” names, again very untrue. That all three accounts indicted here are all one and the same people or operating in the same sock/meat paid farm is undeniable. This SPI in itself is enough indictment warranting a block if Film Fanatical10069 is claiming to be related to Binaza. RoySmith tagged the SPI as technically unrelated, but hasn’t checked for behavioral evidence due to time. If or when they do so, OP would be blocked as well. Generally speaking I believe more effort should be put into consideration when handling possible sockpuppetry pertaining to behavioral evidence, any editor with Checkuser privileges knows too well how easy it is to beat a Checkuser and know they make majority of their nabs when the editor being reported “slips up”. Furthermore I’d also like to point out that the OP asking for help as though they were confused is puzzling, seeing as they have shown proficiency in the past. I think I also document that in the essay I wrote as a tactic optimized by editors engaging in socking/UPE. I have tackled undisclosed paid editing on Wikipedia way too long to know there is something very wrong here. I’m in total agreement with both SVTCobra & Fred Zepelin, the sole mistake on the part of Fred is mildly being “too confrontational” which is a very common mistake with anti spam editors due to frustration. A mistake I painstakingly learnt to correct. Having said it’s safe to say Fred wouldn’t be making that mistake again as I would teach Fred how to tackle UPE better without much confrontation, asides that this whole report in my opinion is likely a deflection tactic. Lastly let the record reflect that the OP has been here for 7 years with only 150 edits, and prior this, their last edit was 4 years ago. In my opinion, a quintessentially example of a WP:SLEEPER. Celestina007 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Celestina007 Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. It seems well thought out and I appreciate your time. Given the circumstances, I must clarify, I am not a meat farm (I don't even know what that means exactly), nor did I ever claim to be related Binaza. The @Ugochukwu75 user is the one I believe made that claim. @User:Toddy1 said "There seems to be a difference in behavior shown in the filter logs" regarding my account and that other person. So I am not sure how to refute those accusations. But I will try to offer my two cents on this. I have not touched the Donavon_Warrren page. I simply went back and added references that were missing and never put on the Wheels page, that's it. I only learned after that it can't be deleted if marked keep. It seems like @Fred Zepelin deleted valid references. Again IndieWire, American Film Institute, Turner Classic Movies and Movie Insider were all deleted. I have received no response on that. That's all I have done. Was update references for a page that was made 7 years ago and was marked keep 4 years ago because Fred marked it for speedy deletion after deleting valid references and half the article. And yes I have explained why my account was inactive, I got discouraged, just like this is discouraging. I logged on today to upload and have fun editing, yet I am tied up in the mess. I don't know if 150 edits is considered proficient, but I don't think I am there in the slightest. I honestly can't even figure out how to update the formatting on my talk page. So circling back, please help me understand your thoughts on this. What would my sock puppet motivation be? To come back to life to keep a page that was safe? If I was sock, wouldn't I have come back sooner? What would updating 4 refences accomplish? It looks like 6 other people tried to create that page, are they socks? Why have the deletion questions not been addressed? Also, last question, this is exhausting, is this normal? Should I expect this long term?Film_Fanatical10069t@lk 19:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Depends. Can you explain why you were looking to create an article about Lisa Hoggarth? Is that a paid editing gig, or just a random article you wanted to create? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry. I don't know who that is. This is from 4 years ago? Please explain. Film_Fanatical10069t@lk 21:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    More evidence of this user's socking:

    Film Fanatic: "Thank you for your long and detailed explanation. It seems well thought out and I appreciate your time."
    Ugochukwu75: "Thank you so much for taking your time to give a detailed explanation."

    Hope this sheds a little more light. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have answered this question 4 times. @User:Toddy1 has even clearly explained it to you. At this point, I really don't know how to handle this. Does anyone else have questions for me? Should I leave this alone until it's resolved? The whole point of this discussion "Which I Started" was to deal with the fact that @Fred Zepelin constantly deletes valid links and keeps vandalizing a page I created. Yet it has turned into the user who blatantly vandalized the page, accusing me being a sock puppet. Why did you delete valid links @Fred Zepelin? Why do you keep making accusations on other peoples talk pages about me being a Liar, Sock Puppet and Paid Editor without any evidence? What is your motivation to take down that page? Are you going to turn around and upload another movie with the title Wheels? I just don't understand the logic here. People are not addressing the reason I started this discussion. Is it ok to vandalize? Is it ok to delete valid links? Is it ok to name call? What am I missing?  Again, any help is greatly appreciated. Film_Fanatical10069t@lk 21:33, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked after I did some more digging. Behavioral cases can fool you, and I still won't disclose details (because I'm not here to teach them to be better socks....) but I'm very confident that this is the same person. It could be a meatpuppet, but really, I'm betting its the same person. I think we're done here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Language barriers and bias in WP:BEFORE

    I've noticed a lot of articles on Non-English (mainly Asian) films getting put up for PROD and AFD by good-faith users, but its not rare for many of these to turn out to indeed be notable when a user who is able to speak the language and read its script comes along and takes time our of their day to provide sources. It seems to me a somewhat problematic to delete articles on foreign language subjects when its very possible none in the discussion is actually able to do a throughout BEFORE check on the subject. I don't know if there is any way to try to remedy this issue, but I thought it might be worth bringing up.★Trekker (talk) 06:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BEFORE is a collection of suggestions, not some kind of holy text. If an article is unsourced and nobody has bothered to provide a source, deletion is a perfectly legitimate outcome. ("If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted by consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion" if you want the actual policy.) If someone subsequently finds multiple independent reliable sources, we can always either re-create or undelete the page in question. ‑ Iridescent 06:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Iridescent's reply may be sufficient but I do wonder if it is possible for a Group or other collaboration of some kind to work on such articles? Munci (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said it was a holy text. Its still a problem that preventable deletions happen disproportionately to non-English subjects.★Trekker (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a discussion that would be better suited to the village pump, it's not really an administrative issue. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the result of systematic bias. An inescapable reality, really. ✗plicit 13:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    it’s not systematic bias. The solution is for editors to source their articles properly. On en.wiki editors have to use their best efforts to determine notability regardless of the languages sources are in. Well sourced articles don’t tend to get deleted. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourcing definitely is an issue. Well-meaning and sometimes not so well-meaning editors often source foreign films and actors (plenty of English-based too) to press releases, imdb, instagram, facebook, etc. So the first impression is poor sourcing. With english based, it's relatively easy to abide by WP:Before and find something reputable, but the odds go down dramatically in foreign languages. AfD may be the best chance at having another editor find those sources. Slywriter (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I always thought it was strange that I can create an unverified article and other people are required to search for sourcing first before they can delete it. Seems backwards. Levivich 17:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I wholeheartedly agree! - Donald Albury 19:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Mccapra (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's almost like some of us are here to build an encyclopaedia. But other people have their own motivations, I guess. WilyD 00:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocking the /42 range

    2607:FEA8:6940:0:0:0:0:0/42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log)

    I would welcome quick confirmation whether or not I've done right thing today (see here).

    Background: Over the last 6 months I have had a blocked registered user repeatedly evading that block by IPv6 editing. Despite my blocking of numerous addresses on the /64 range, they keep coming back to edit. So, using this tool I determined that a /42 rangeblock was the most effective way to deal with this. I can see no collateral damage (as there would have been had I blocked on other ranges). But as I've never gone outside the /64 range, and am still rather new to range block matters, I'd welcome some oversight of my actions. I did try to support this editor, as deleted talk page posts will show, but have become frustrated by their constant attempts to evade their original block. Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've found the MediaWiki documentation very helpful especially the table showing how many addresses are in a range. I don't make range blocks that often, but /42 seems large. It's the size of an organization-level allocation, and if we treat a /64 as a person, it covers about 4 million people. If the only edits coming from that range are disruption, I don't think there's major harm, but you might want to consider multiple, smaller range blocks next time. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not assume that it covers 4 million people. It covers 4 million /64 ranges, yes, but with about 2 billion /64 ranges for every human being on Earth, there's no reason to think that every /64 has a person behind it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes Thanks for your comments. I did actually start from that page before I blocked - hence my concern, as I was aware of the logarithmic increase in addresses affected. I have just gone back again and looked once more at every possible set of Special:Contributions between /64 and /42, and the only other one that comes close to catching most of this person's IPv6 edits, with virtually no collateral damage is a /48 rangeblock, but many are still missed with that. Rangeblocks above /42 seem to be ineffective in catching them all - so I'd still welcome guidance as to which would be the next best rangeblock to apply to this editor's myriad of dynamically assigned addresses if /64 isn't doing the job, and I seem to be constantly firefighting and revert multiple edits from yet another set of /64 address. I should stress that I am only too happy to have a more experienced admin remove the rangeblock if they feel I've overstepped what was appropriate or acceptable, especially as I set a longer than normal expiration time for that block. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a good enough reason. You shouldn't have to play whack-a-mole across such a wide range, and given Suffusion of Yellow's comment, I'm less worried about unexpected collateral damage. The /42 struck me as big at first, but sometimes that's what's needed. Seems like this is one of those times since smaller ranges wouldn't be effective. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but I've been playing with Johnuniq's rather useful-looking rangeblock calculator at Template:IP range calculator, and think a /48 block plus a few extra /64's might have been better than the /42 to stop them coming back and trying to edit again. But I am rather learning on the fly here! See IP calculator below. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    /42 isn't that wide – /32 rangeblocks (that's 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,336 IPv6 addresses or 4 billion /64s) happen fairly regularly; heck, I've blocked /29s (34 billion /64s) belonging to webhost providers before. IPv6 address space is rather cheap compared to IPv4, so people can afford to own far more than they actually assign. I tend to not think about mathematical IP count too much when I make rangeblocks because assignment patterns vary so widely – I think "number of discernible individual logged-out users/amount of total logged-out activity" is often the more useful metric. To make an example, there are /24s (and probably even individual IPs) in Asia that have more active IP editors on them than the entire /16 that I am editing from (because a) different ISPs cram varying numbers of users onto their ranges and b) our editor base isn't evenly distributed), so even though the IP count may be 256 times larger on my range, the amount of collateral won't scale with that. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good rangeblock. All or most of Ontario who uses Rogers is on this giant 2607:FEA8::/32 range. Their geolocation is good; for many ISPs globally it's hit-and-miss. It looks like communities (which is more apparent for smaller ones, that is not something like Toronto or Ottawa) appear to be on /42 subranges. So, for example, you blocked Barrie, Ontario on 2607:FEA8:6940::/42. Innisfil, Ontario is the next range down from Barrie at 2607:fea8:6900::/42. Cambridge, Ontario seems to have a /41 range at 2607:fea8:6000::/41, but note that it's equal to two /42s back-to-back. There will be some collateral damage from this block (there are some legitimate users on the range), but as it's anon-only the effects should be minimal. There may be more Rogers ranges for Barrie other than this /42, but as far proximal IP addresses outside of this /42, they are almost certainly not who you're trying to block. Maxim(talk) 14:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blablubbs@Maxim This is good to hear - thank you. I was half-expecting a "blithering idiot!" type of response from someone who properly knew what they were doing. I still thought it sensible to link back in the block explanation to the user's talk page where the block is further explained. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    IP range table for these IPv6 addresses

    Sorted 5 IPv6 addresses:

    2607:fea8:6940:1800:532:c9ed:eb2b:9fe1
    2607:fea8:6940:da00:546e:bf26:55f6:d1bf
    2607:fea8:6941:ec00:7561:dc9a:25b7:fc7c
    2607:fea8:6961:9800:d9f:eb15:6e91:b739
    2607:fea8:6962:b100:5a4:38f1:73c6:95b4
    Total
    affected    		 Affected
    addresses    		 Given
    addresses    		 Range Contribs
    4M /64 4M /64 5 2607:fea8:6940::/42 contribs
    384K /64 128K /64 3 2607:fea8:6940::/47 contribs
    256K /64 2 2607:fea8:6960::/46 contribs
    64K /64 65536 /64 2 2607:fea8:6940::/48 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6941:ec00::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6961:9800::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6962:b100::/64 contribs
    5 /64 1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6940:1800::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6940:da00::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6941:ec00::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6961:9800::/64 contribs
    1 /64 1 2607:fea8:6962:b100::/64 contribs

    Giovanni van Bronckhorst

    PROTECTED
    Page protected by Barkeep49; closing-- Asartea Talk | Contribs 21:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    An admin really needs to protect this page immediately its getting beyond a joke over there! PP was requested 2 hours ago but the vandalism is getting more and more! Tommi1986 let's talk! 19:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tommi1986, page protected by User:Barkeep49. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 19:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Need a block review

    Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at the unblock request at User talk:Blkfrasure? This is related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bfrasure. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ah, WP:BIGDADDY, the lesser-known senior branch of WP:BROTHER  :) ——Serial 15:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you want to unblock a sock? Why isn't the sock-master himself blocked? GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The other relevant discussion here is User_talk:Bfrasure#Other_accounts. Absent strong evidence to the contrary, this does seem to be a case of father and son with the same first initial, not sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sceptical of the -it's only my son- claim, but I'll leave it with you fellas. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can never know for sure in these cases—even CU can't tell you who's behind the keyboard—but self-doxxing twice over would be a lot of effort for a lie. And not a level of effort I'd associate with the kind of person who'd create a sock with a near-identical username. (Not a fella, by the way. /lh) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Continued Harassment

    BLOCKED
    Asaturn has been blocked by Oshwah. (non-admin closure)LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 12:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Continuing the discussion from WP:NPOV noticeboard, which Asaturn started to create an unnecessary argument, Asaturn has been asked [32] to stop harassing me on my talk page but continued to repeatedly personally insult me [33][34] and spread conspiracy theories composed of original research and unsourced information (see Draft:Urnas_Abiertas). Bill Williams 11:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Williams' history and talk page speaks for itself. Bill Williams has been banned and sanctioned for this sort of thing. Bill Williams blanked my article and is attempting to gaslight, badjacket, etc. I am making good edits and attempting to act in good faith and improve Wikipedia, as agreed by multiple other users. Bill Williams continues to claim I am "not citing my claims" by ignoring 8 out of 11 of them and focusing on 3. Bill Williams accused me of being a "supporter of authoritarian regimes," "defender of propaganda," as well as a "communist propagandist." Bill Williams has been stalking me all over this site for days, has doxxed my personal identity and geolocation, has been warned by other users to stop implying I'm vandalizing articles, and continues to erase my good faith contributions to Wikipedia. After I've warned him twice and provided good faith discussion, he continues to imply I'm the person breaking the rules and now is playing the victim in his own game of harassment after not getting his way. I don't know what else to do here. This has become childish. In my over 10 years on Wikipedia I have never encountered such a completely bad faith user. I have been made to feel not only unwelcome, but unsafe. I fear for my personal safety since Bill Williams seems to know where I am located and seems to be taking all of this quite personally. He is typing in all caps and seems to think I am ruining his life by contributing information to articles that challenges his own POV. This is becoming a safety issue. Asaturn (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Completely false. You added unsourced information into an article with your IP, which I reverted. I never once publicized your location, all I did was provide an edit difference from your IP showing an unnecessary revert, and someone in AN removed it as personal information, so never again did I send another IP of yours. Additionally, I have never called you a "supporter of authoritarian regimes," a "defender of propaganda," or a "communist propagandist," I simply stated that fact that you added unsourced, original research in a highly biased manner, AKA propaganda, in support of a communist regime that recently fabricated election results, according to every reliable source. Bill Williams 11:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And you conveniently forget to mention the fact that I was previously blocked for violating consensus, when in this case eight[35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] different editors were either reverted by you or reverted you in a span of two days, therefore you have no consensus backing. Also, you forgot to tell the discussion about how I asked you six different times to get off my talk page, yet you continued to spam it, and personally insulted me. Bill Williams 11:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, he has been asked seven times to back off my talk page[43][44][45] and continues to argue there. Bill Williams 12:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Leave me alone!!!!" and then sending me another message is a bad faith argument. You aren't being harassed, I am. Leave me alone and stop vandalizing my edits. If you want to make good faith positive contributions, go for it. This isn't a forum and this isn't a soapbox. I have no problem completely avoiding you on here if you can do the same. Asaturn (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Typing in all caps" began on my side after you harassed me on my page, but had been a frequently used part of your messages on talk pages, for example Talk:2021_Nicaraguan_general_election has constant bolded, capslock, and large font text while you ranted, and you did the same on my own talk page. Bill Williams 11:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The record speaks for itself. You were warned multiple times for doxxing, falsely accusing me, and for personally insulting me multiple times — I was not. Please stop relitigating everything. Add constructive stuff to this website or move along. This is not appropriate. I feel unwelcome and unsafe. Asaturn (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [46] I was told one single time to not post an IP address, which I did not realize was against the rules, but I do now. You are the one falsely accusing me of "doxxing you" multiple times. Bill Williams 12:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't had a chance to go into this in any depth, but I do notice that Asaturn has posted repeatedly on Bill Williams' talkpage after being asked not to. That's harassment. Stop posting there immediately, or you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 12:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
      This is pure insanity. This guy has literally put my personal information out there in an attempt to intimidate me after insulting me personally at least 3 times. He was warned by an admin to stop and he continued. He can't complain that I'm "harassing him" after he continues to vandalize my edits and has started at least 3 noticeboard complaints about me after I warned him and attempted to engage in good faith. This is absurd. Just look at his edit history. I have left him alone and he continues to try to mess with my good-faith additions to Wikipedia. Asaturn (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never once intimidated you by using your personal information, I simply linked a single edit your IP made that I considered a bad edit, and my link was removed from the discussion, the end. You started two discussions (one on NPOV and one on COI) and I only started two on AN because you were repeatedly messing with myself and other users, as I have stated above. I was not warned by any admin to stop doing anything. All you have done on Wikipedia over the past few days is concern yourself with this, I was actually creating maps for articles and updating demographics etc. until you started harassing me again and made my focus shift back to this. Bill Williams 12:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those were not regarding you alone, they were regarding the article and the current editors who were all pushing one POV. It included you, but you were not the main topic of anything I was doing until today. Asaturn (talk) 12:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Asaturn is about 1/2" away from an extended block for harassing, casting aspersion, and general purposes. All this claiming about your personal safety and such is grandstanding. If you really were concerned, you wouldn't be continuing to harass and edit, so get off your high horse, I don't buy it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This guy implied I'm a secret communist agent after putting my physical location on Wikipedia. I am feeling unwelcome and unsafe, and if you're saying I'm a liar, I'm sorry you feel that way. Bill has continued to stalk and harass me on this site. My responses on his page were in good faith, and while I have become frustrated, I was trying to help him understand the entire time. If he wants to egg me on and try to make it look like I'm harassing him, he's in for a disappointment: I've figured out his game. Unlike Bill, I can easily never post to his user page and never interact with any articles he edits. Can he say the same? I genuinely hope he isn't actually deranged and doesn't show up to my house. Asaturn (talk) 12:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [REDACTED - Oshwah] You live numerous states away from me. Stop accusing me of being insane. Bill Williams 12:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So you know my age and my gender? You know where I live? But you claim you haven't doxxed me... Admins: This is what I'm talking about. This is intimidation and harassment. He'll cry now and pretend I'm falsely accusing him. Asaturn (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [REDACTED - Oshwah] Considering that you did not make your account when you were one or two years old, basic math necessitates that you are over twice my age. And again, I clicked on your IP address when I saw you edit the article, and it showed you living far, far away from me. How is that doxxing you or intimidating you? [REDACTED - Oshwah] Bill Williams 12:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins: My account is 10 years old. That gives zero clue to my age. And there's no way to just guess my gender or what state I'm in. This is what I'm talking about. This guy is playing a game. Asaturn (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [47] your account is 13 years old, and unless you were under [REDACTED - Oshwah] when you made it, you're over twice my age. This is basic math. And again, I clicked on your IP a single time when you edited the Nicaragua article, and the geolocator put you far away from me. I did nothing wrong by looking at this info... Bill Williams 12:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Adult man" is not listed anywhere on my Wikipedia profile. You have doxxed me and you are doing a really bad job of lying about it. Leave me alone on here unless you have something to say to the admins. Asaturn (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Asaturn, you make a lot of accusations without a single diff. I'm not sure how you expect admins to evaluate those accusations — just take your word for it because it "speaks for itself"? That's not how it works. See Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide, and note that Bill Williams does provide some diffs, for instance for you calling him "unhinged" here. That's a pretty nasty personal attack. I agree with Dennis that you're close to an extended block. Bishonen | tålk 12:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
      I have no idea what diff means. I said unhinged because the conversation was going in a loop where I would say "look at this (xyz)" and he would say "I already looked at (abc!)"
      So apparently I can't call him "unhinged" for seemingly coming from a parallel universe where he's responding to a different message, but he can imply that I'm some sort of evil "authoritarian defender" or "communist propagandist?" Literally painting a target on my back. As I said, I can leave him alone, I somehow doubt he will do the same. Asaturn (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't know how to link to the old discussion where Bill insulted me at least 3 different times and was warned for it. He then falsely accused me of vandalism and was warned for it. I have left him alone. He came to the article I was editing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Urnas_Abiertas) and started blanking it out. He is not the "victim" here. Let me know if there's a guide of how to find old noticeboard discussions and I'll be happy to link to the conversation that took place there. I have tried to avoid this guy and he seems focused on following me to any article I edit. Asaturn (talk) 12:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      See Bill's response above "You are an adult man over twice my age. You live numerous states away from me."
      Bill has doxxed me and knows my identity and where I live. Bill is making a veiled threat while playing victim. Asaturn (talk) 12:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bill, back off. Asaturn, either provide links to your accusations, or strike them, or expect to get blocked. You have used up all the good faith I have to extend to you already. I don't want new claims, or more chatter, I want actual links to PROOF of these things you are claiming. Or you can strike them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Here you can see his insults to me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive338#Repeated_Vandalism_on_2021_Nicaraguan_General_Election_Page
      On my talk page you can see he created two notices of "warnings" for this noticeboard after I asked him to stop vandalizing my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Asaturn
      On his talk page you can see him continue to demand answers from me (after he allegedly wanted me to leave him alone) and me trying and somehow failing to explain to him that all of my sources were from the organization's own website: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bill_Williams
      I may have a 10 year old account but you can tell I am not great at using the Wikipedia editing/board/talk systems. Let me know if there's a specific accusation you want backup for and I'll try my best to get it. Asaturn (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, you don't get off that easy. Stop playing games. You said he doxxed you. The other stuff is meaningless. Show us exactly where he doxxed you. You made the claim, a very serious claim, now back it up with evidence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment above on this page: "[REDACTED - Oshwah] You are an adult man over twice my age. You live numerous states away from me"
      How did he guess my gender and age and location based on my IP address as he claims? He clearly has looked up things I posted and figured out who I am.
      To say "you're a big scary man who lives a few states away [REDACTED - Oshwah]" is a sick game.
      his original doxxing was listed on the noticeboard (now archived) - user BilledMammal removed it via rev-del https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive338#Repeated_Vandalism_on_2021_Nicaraguan_General_Election_Page Asaturn (talk) 13:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Asaturn: I came here to tell you to show evidence for "You were warned multiple times for doxxing," I also am about to block you if you can't prove this. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      see above comment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive338#Repeated_Vandalism_on_2021_Nicaraguan_General_Election_Page his doxxing was removed with rev-del so I don't even know what he said. he claims he somehow guessed my gender and age from "just my IP address" and he keeps bringing it up (see above "[REDACTED - Oshwah]. You are an adult man over twice my age. You live numerous states away from me") Asaturn (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      there are other things I can bring up that would show he has doxxed me but by sharing them I would be doxxing myself and I would prefer not to share them outside of his obscure references. these are truly the reason I am feeling like this guy knows where I live and is implying a threat to me. I would rather walk away from this site than continue to play this game. Asaturn (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Asaturn: But that isn't what was said above. Above Bill Williams said they guessed you must be an adult given the age of your account. That's a reasonable assumption. I don't think it's so reasonable for Bill Williams to assume you created your account at [REDACTED - Oshwah] or later, indeed they seem to be an example of why not but whatever that's largely an aside. As for the gender thing, it's fairly common for people to assume editors are male. It's wrong but it happens. It isn't evidence of doxing. From what I can tell the location thing seems to arise from the fact you once edited with your IP and so geolocation likely gives a likely location at least accurate to state level in most cases. Geolocating an IP is not considered doxing. That said, if you just accidentally used your IP to edit rather than used it to sock, it's generally inappropriate to comment further on the details it revealed. So Bill Williams should stop commenting on it. If it continues, it could be considered OUTING, but it's not DOXING. Nil Einne (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I was never editing with my IP to my knowledge. Whatever the case, Bill continuing to imply he knows my age, gender, and location, is a veiled threat even if he's bluffing. It's not appropriate. Asaturn (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      But there's no implication or veiled threat. Bill Williams simply stated they as an adult man over twice their age they feel it is ridiculous for you to say you are scared of them [REDACTED - Oshwah]. I'm not sure if it's the best argument, still it's clearly not doxing or even outing and can't reasonable be called a threat. Also if you never edited with your IP, then why on earth were you complaining about Bill Williams geolocating an IP a few days ago? Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      As a point of clarification, it wasn't geolocation you complained about but 'doxing'. However FWICT, you were complaining about 'doxing' because Bill Williams linked your editing to that of an IP or at least Bill Williams clear thought that was all they did [48]. As I mentioned earlier, if you just accidently edited with an IP then Bill Williams shouldn't have linked it to you and shouldn't continue to comment on it. But while it could be outing, it's not doxing. Even in terms of outing if it happens in the middle of a dispute it's not always clear if it's an accident or some sort of sockpuppetry so I think they can be forgiven for making that mistake. Although Bill Williams does need to stop commenting on any geolocation or other details revealed even in the abstract. More to the point, if the IP wasn't even you then there isn't even an issue. And if it was you but you don't want to confirm any connection then you need to deal with this privately rather than continuing to bring it up at AN. Nil Einne (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Asaturn: please don't use this as an excuse not to reply to the doxing thing but why on earth are you complaining about Bill Williams falsely accusing you of vandalism when you did the exact same thing? I'm sure I saw it somewhere else (after my last reply to the AN thread) but in any case you did it right here on this page "Leave me alone and stop vandalizing my edits". Incidentally the false accusation of vandalism was wrong, but you harassing Bill Williams by continuing to post on their talk page and the false accusation of doxing are far worse. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be happy to chat in a private secure channel with exactly what Bill has revealed about me that makes me seriously fear for my safety from him. posting it here would be doxxing myself and bringing attention to it. I emailed the safety team directly. Bill is playing a game and it is really gross. I have never once intentionally vandalized any articles on here. the one time I allegedly "blanked" an article it was because I re-arranged the content to be more orderly. I have been more than happy to engage in discussion, as you can see on the talk page of the 2021 Nicaragua General election article (which has almost no replies to my good-faith attempts at discussion!) Bill is obviously politically motivated and feels that he "owns" the Nicaragua article along with a few other editors. this is bad for Wikipedia. Asaturn (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      also is it not vandalism to completely blank an article (or the majority of one) for no reason other than you don't like it? that's what Bill did to my article on Urnas Abiertas. He inserted a bunch of citations that had nothing to do with the article and removed 2 of the 3 paragraphs which had far more inciteful information simply because he didn't like them. He claimed they were "bad sources" but they were literally the official website of the organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft:Urnas_Abiertas&diff=prev&oldid=1055019574&diffmode=source Asaturn (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      No it's not vandalism anymore than you removing stuff from the Nicaraguan election article because you didn't like the sources was vandalism. (While we don't deal with content issues here, I'd note that official websites should be used sparingly if at all as sources for writing about the organisation.) And again Bill Williams was wrong to accuse you of vandalism but you also false accused them of vandalism. So pot kettle black and all that, stop complaining about it. And likewise, whatever Bill Williams allegedly did wrong, it was completely inappropriate for you to harass them by posting on their talk page when asked to stop. Finally, if you are unwilling to provide evidence of doxing here, then you can privately email arbcom but you need to withdraw your accusations here as they are without evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      At this point I don't care. I have wasted so much time on this website trying to make good contributions only to be accused of "vandalism" and be tacitly doxxed and threatened [REDACTED - Oshwah] who somehow knows quite a bit about politics and even abortion.
      I never "removed stuff from the Nicaraguan election article because I didn't like the sources," I added information from the existing citations and moved content and Bill and other users removed my additions because they didn't like them because it challenged their admittedly anti-FSLN POV (who else would go on and on about conspiracy theories and "authoritarian states" etc?)
      If this is the level of quality Wikipedia wants in politics articles, I want nothing to do with it. it sounds like editing political articles is off-limits unless you are [REDACTED - Oshwah] with 5 people willing to back you up in removing anything that doesn't fit your narrative.
      as for doxxing details, I don't know what arbcom means - at wikipedia dot com? Asaturn (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I cannot seriously believe this man is allowed to accuse a [REDACTED - Oshwah] of a serious crime. I do not want to engage with him, but I cannot sit idly by as he accused me of lying about being a [REDACTED - Oshwah] and says that I am issuing veiled threats because I supposedly know everything about him. He has absolutely no evidence, besides me clicking on his IP address a single time, and me basically saying "he lives no where near me so I am no threat to him." No where near me includes millions of square miles with hundreds of millions of people. I [REDACTED - Oshwah] wasted some time two years ago editing the abortion article, I don't know how that makes me no longer [REDACTED - Oshwah], and I certainly don't know how me editing political articles to update sources and information requires the brainpower of an adult. Now he is adding to his userpage that I am a threat to his safety. I did not ever want to get involved in these extended arguments after my block years ago, yet here I am dealing with this. Bill Williams 13:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

          • @Asaturn: if you are going to edit logged out you shouldn't be surprised when someone sees it and comments on it. It's something you need to avoid. It was correctly suppressed (so even most Admins can't see it), not rev/deleted, and User:BilledMammal certainly didn't do it, they simply removed it and suggested an Admin might deal with it. It was correct to suppress it, but as it was public for a while it isn't WP:OUTING. Ah, just noticed that you've been blocked for a week by the same Admin who suppressed you IP address. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I hope you all don't mind if I crash this discussion here, but after reading through both AN discussions between these two editors, and all of the issues, warnings, and requests for evidence and other information - I had to put my foot down and say that "enough is enough". I've blocked Asaturn for seven days, and have left the user a custom notice with an explanation and some information on his/her user talk page. Any administrator is welcome to extend, shorten, remove, overturn, or modify the block that I placed if you wish to do so; you don't need to consult me for approval or input before-hand. Just message me and let me know what you changed and why is all that I ask. Sorry, but with all of the factors taken into account, if anything, this discussion was just going to go further into the wrong direction. Enough is enough... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are legends, whose origins are shrouded in mist, that once Oshwah has blocked a user for 2 weeks, and protected a page for 3 weeks... El_C 08:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IP blocked but never made an account?

    Well I've tried to make an account this evening and its informed me my IP is blocked from doing so and that it was only done last month so how does that work?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.22.93.234 (talk) 11:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Account hijack?

    (non-admin closure) IPBE granted for one month by zzuuzz. — curiousGolden call me maybe? 08:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Please see: User talk:Dr Salvus. I don't know how to handle this, but this would appear that an IP address was blocked on an account. Someone requested a reset of their password. They still can't edit. Possible account hijacking? Can someone answer on their talk page? — Maile (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Maile66, this is normal behaviour for IP blocks as blocked editors can only edit their talk page and send mail. Not an account hijacking in my opinion, but the IP address may have been blocked for good reason. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    ACE2021 election spam

    As a reminder, for the 2021 ArbCom elections, eligible users are invited to submit a nomination statement for the Arbitration Committee elections at the elections page. There are about 60 hours remaining to self-nominate. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 12:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Only ~59 hours to go for a rush of nominations, then :D ——Serial 12:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please folks, there are only 3 candidates so far. I've already taken my punishment had two terms and various changes in my personal life don't leave me with the time or I'd sacrifice consider running again. We need more good candidates for the eight vacant seats. Doug Weller talk 15:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can User:Beeblebrox please announce on WPO that Serial Mumbler is standing for ArbCom. That should stir things up a bit! ——Serial 15:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As last time, I expect there will be an ebay-style rush at the last minute. There had better be! If not, I think I'm right in saying that not all the seats have to be filled. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bid sniping they call it. In my halcyon days on eBay I had become quite the sniper, better sometimes than the sniping software, more immoral than the prevailing immorality, but I don't have the long fuse needed for administration, dispute resolution, and arbitration. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There will be a rush at the end of candidates hoping to avoid proper scrutiny. And honestly, we don't need to encourage people, no-one's going to just look at this and think "oh yeah, I need a year of pain". There are plenty of people waiting in the wings for the last-minute nom dash. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How does a last-minute nomination help to avoid scrutiny? I am not seeing it.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen this accusation before, but the question period remains open well after the nomination period, so I don't really buy it. What I do know is that sometimes people feel like they should wait and see if enough good candidates come along that they don't feel compelled to run. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It reduces the time the community has to assess the candidates, and allows the candidates to let questions linger a bit and then head into the voting period. There is, of course, literally no excuse not to add nominations from the get-go, especially this year, I cannot fathom why anyone is still just hanging on for the last minute for any other reason than reducing the likelihood of a tricky issue being dug up. After all, don't forget we did recently have an RFA which nearly resulted in the promotion of a sockpuppet to admin, and who had utterly overwhelming support from the community. These things are altogether possible. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is pretty clear that people do not want to go through elections and wait until the last moment whether there are other candidates. But they do not want to go through elections not because they want to avoid scrutiny, which is impossible once they listed themselves as a candidate, but because they want to avoid additional mud throwing which is part of the process.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't really follow that. But whatever, as I said, mudslinging/scrutiny etc, it's all a bit artificial anyway, just ask the 123 people who were satisfied that a sockpuppet should be an admin. This bizarre "wait until the last minute" nonsense from Arbcom contestants is quite unbecoming. I would default to oppose on them at this point for not submitting to the process as soon as possible. But hey, two days to go, anything is possible, expect to see Willy on Wheels making a last-gasp dash for the committee. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to The Rambling Man, collapsed to avoid distracting from the main message of this thread Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be an inherent contradiction in claiming that there are a bunch of people who are waiting to submit at the last minute to avoid scrutiny and claiming the only reason to wait is to avoid scrutiny or it's impossible someone is waiting because they only want to run if they feel there aren't enough other good candidates and/or they have a chance of winning. If there are a bunch of people so waiting, then we can assume that there may also genuinely be people waiting because although there are only 3 candidates now, they expect there to be more at the end whatever the reasons these other people are waiting. If you feel that waiting for other candidates isn't a good reason, fine. But it doesn't mean other people don't genuinely feel that way especially about the lack of desire to run if there are people they'd prefer to win than them, or simply are more likely to win making it a wasted effort; rather than having some desire to reduce scrutiny etc.

    In any case, your focus here seems to be in the wrong direction. We should always assume candidates may nominate at the last minute for a variety of reasons. If candidates nominating at the last minute is causing problems, we should resolve that by shortening the nomination period, lengthening the period between nominations and the vote opening or something else which deal with the problem rather than making a fuss over last minute nominations. If you haven't tried to do that and you feel there is a problem, sorry but the person at fault is you (and anyone else who feels there's a problem of course). If you have tried to do that but the community has rejected it then I guess the community doesn't share you concerns, sorry. While you're entitled to your view there is a problem including to reject any candidates who nominates so late, as always we care about what has consensus not what one individual editor thinks so it's irrelevant to the process.

    I'd also note that if a candidate nominates at the last minute and then fails to answer questions, or does but their answer raises issues and there isn't enough time to deal with this in followups, it seems likely most voters are going to say "well it's (at least partly) your fault so tough luck" or "maybe you had good reasons for waiting to the last minute but ultimately my concerns aren't addressed so I can't support you", rather than "okay this candidate hasn't satisfactory answered my concerns, but that's because they didn't have enough time because they nominated at the last minute so I'll give them a pass". At the very least, you've presented no evidence this isn't what would happen since the RfA definitely isn't that whatever mistakes may have been made there. There's also the question of the likelihood something new will come up, or whether it's that much less likely people won't raise an issue when voting is still open even it it's near the end meaning the difference between getting in your nomination at the beginning or end is only about 33% more time. I think there's a good chance as with a lot of things in the world, most of the scrutiny happens with a week or at most 2, with most people bored of it by that time.

    As I understand it, nominations close at "23:59 UTC, 16 November 2021" and voting opens at "00:00 UTC, 23 November 2021" which by my count leaves 6 days for post nomination scrutiny before the vote opens. In the case you highlighted the candidate accepted at 2021-10-17T05:50:46. The editor concerned was arbcom blocked at 2021-10-20T01:00:03 less than 3 days later. So whatever mistakes were made there, it doesn't seem to provide evidence 6 days of intensive scrutiny is not enough. Even accepting this was one editor and there could be 8 more arbcom candidates or something, it seems to me the much greater concern and focus over arbcom means it's likely they could still be dealt with in that 6 days time. If you want to start of the period from when that editor was first nominated for RfA at 2021-10-14T18:29:43 well it's still under 6 days. Not to mention we still have the question over whether it's reasonable to scrutiny stops the moment voting starts since in this administrator case it didn't vote the !voting.

    Ultimately we do have to accept that it's unreasonable to expect everything to be uncovered given human nature, the volunteer nature of Wikipedia, the fact for good reason we don't require editors to link their account to real life identities, the length of time Wikipedia has been operating, our privacy policy and other limits we place on what editor may discuss and look at especially publicly. We have to accept the longer we go on, the likelier it is we're eventually going to have an arbcom member who is a sock.

    Nil Einne (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just as a further reminder, the nomination period may end in this timeframe, but the voting does not begin until 23 Nov. There is still plenty of time for examination, scrutiny, and questioning of the candidates. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, and the 123 people who supported Eostrix's RFA are a timely reminder that "examination, scrutiny and questioning" isn't a big part of this process really. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Deadlines spur actions. The reason that Eostrix's case went from backburner issue for the arb who did the investigating to top priority for them and the rest of the committee was because of the RfA. The deadline spurred the action. Personally I think we could safely shorten the nomination period to a week and put a couple extra days in the question period. But that still would have most people going on the last day or two it would just be over a shorter time frame. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No one wants to run unless they have to, and they don't know if they have to until the last day when they can see who else is running, so it's normal that there would be a last minute rush. I don't think it has anything to do with avoiding scrutiny since there is still plenty of time left for that. Also, no one who wants to avoid scrutiny would run for arbcom in the first place, since it's like the most-scrutinized role on the website. Levivich 23:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Being an arbitrator would be too much of a headache for me. Besides, nobody's gonna support me for the role. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal of topic ban for Paul Krugman for User:Deicas

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

    Please link to where the topic ban was discussed and address whatever the concerns raised there were. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So you were editing the article and the talk page today, aware that you were topic banned from the article? Paul Erik caught it, they might know more about the circumstances. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq and Muboshgu:  Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782 § PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas 192.76.8.91 (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I also saw on Decias's talk page that they claimed to believe that the topic ban was temporary, not indefinite, which would explain editing the page before being corrected. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Unban/unblock of ParillasAndrie

    Hi, I want to support to unblock the original account, ParillasAndrie after a 1 year from blocked. 49.144.33.23 (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1055321892"