Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jabbi (talk | contribs) at 12:02, 19 July 2021 (→Appeal of BLP ban for Jabbi). 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 Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
    CfD 0 0 0 5 5
    TfD 0 0 0 11 11
    MfD 0 0 0 3 3
    FfD 0 0 0 3 3
    RfD 0 0 0 24 24
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (29 out of 8873 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Battle of Hostomel 2024-11-24 14:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Battle of Brovary 2024-11-24 14:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    User talk:AlwaysPutsMeFirst 2024-11-24 01:25 2025-11-24 01:25 create DatGuy
    Yoav Gallant 2024-11-24 01:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Spore (2008 video game) 2024-11-23 18:48 2025-11-23 18:48 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Template:Like 2024-11-23 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Algeria 2024-11-23 17:07 2025-02-23 17:07 edit Persistent disruptive editing EdJohnston
    2025 Indian Premier League 2024-11-23 07:51 2025-05-23 07:51 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: semi-protection expires tomorrow, and confirmed socks already found their way here Ymblanter
    Luca Allam 2024-11-23 07:41 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    User:CFA 2024-11-23 05:24 indefinite edit Page-move vandalism Reaper Eternal
    User talk:CFA 2024-11-23 05:16 2024-12-07 05:08 edit User talkpage under siege by LTA with any number of easily autoconfirmable sleepers Bishonen
    Human safari 2024-11-22 20:33 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    2024 Kafr Kila clashes 2024-11-22 20:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Kushwaha 2024-11-22 20:14 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (17 October 2024 – present) 2024-11-22 20:03 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Karim Ahmad Khan 2024-11-22 19:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    ???-type Pokémon 2024-11-22 17:43 indefinite edit,move Blacklisted name, best to add some protection Anachronist
    Law & Order: Special Victims Unit season 6 2024-11-22 12:03 2024-12-22 12:03 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts UtherSRG
    Pam Bondi 2024-11-22 00:39 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement

    Will log at AEL

    		Ad Orientem
    State of Israel 2024-11-21 22:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter
    Hindko 2024-11-21 22:02 2025-05-21 22:02 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
    Oreshnik (missile) 2024-11-21 21:54 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: per WP:RUSUKR Swatjester
    RS-26 Rubezh 2024-11-21 21:02 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Karbi people 2024-11-21 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    1995 Palestinian prisoners' hunger strike 2024-11-21 19:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    International Criminal Court arrest warrants for Israeli figures 2024-11-21 15:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Fathoms Below
    Cleveland School of Cannabis 2024-11-21 03:38 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Anachronist
    Sandeep Lamichhane 2024-11-20 21:52 2025-11-20 21:52 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree
    Draft:Vansh Sayani 2024-11-20 19:42 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Isabelle Belato

    Restarted proposal for topic ban : User:J-Man11

    In accordance with previous discussions at WT:MILHIST and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive334#Proposal_for_topic_ban:_J-Man11 I now propose, for the second time a Wikipedia:Topic Ban for J-Man11 from military and order of battle articles, widely construed, for any date after the year 1850. As has been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_161#Repeated_massive,_shoddy_additions_by_J-Man11, this user has large-scale problems with proper use of primary and associated semi-primary sources (WP:SPS, such as "Mackinlay, Gordon Angus (2007). "A Moment in Time": The British Army at a moment in time - 1 July 2007: A look at and from it of the Makeup of the Regular and Territorial Army. Self publish.") which are widely referenced in his/her articles. S/he does not appear to have the competence to edit recent military articles, anything after maybe 1850. However, s/he has been recently editing articles about the Napoleonic Wars, which are now exclusively the province of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. This presents the possibility that this user could gradually learn how to properly use sources while still being allowed to work on subjects of interest to him/her.

    Secondly, since I made the previous topic ban proposal, with a 1900 date, J-Man11 began to create yet another sandbox article which in this case demonstrates (1) a lack of understanding about how U.S. Navy Carrier Groups and Cruiser-Destroyer Groups were arranged in 1990-91, and what their higher command structures were; (2) a misunderstanding of the coalition command structure in 1990-91; and (3) awful unsupported opinions about why states might or might not have wished to place their naval forces under U.S. command, entirely unhinged from referenced facts.

    Thirdly, again since the previous after-1900 topic ban proposal, I had to remove the sentence "..new force was an administrative formation rather then an operational formation" from 1st Reconnaissance Brigade (United Kingdom). This just demonstrates *again* that J-Man11 does not have the Wikipedia:Competence is required to edit military articles, at the very least after 1850, where this user continues to try and utilize widely available WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. This ad-hoc, not administrative formation, during the 1980s, would have been, after Transition to war, under a brigadier controlling the armoured reconnaissance regiments of I (BR) Corps providing the corps covering force, the very first force to face multiple motor rifle & tank division first echelons of 3 Red Banner Army ('3rd Shock Army') and possible East German MD III. Not *administrative,* rather right on the very sharp end!!

    This user does not fully understand the terms or organisations they are using. In addition, I have had to correct several references to the 1999 SOHB and remove unsourced material.

    NB. To my discredit, at diff on 1 Recce Bde I used angry, foul and intemperate language which I should not have used, and for which I need to apologise to J-Man11 for using. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks applies to all concerned. I could give reasons, but they would probably sound like excuses.

    Thus to recap I would request a topic ban for this user from all military and order of battle articles, widely construed, after 1850. Choosing this date would allow J-Man11 to continue to learn about proper use of sources for which the citing rules, and with the elapse of 170 years, the events in question, are much more widely agreed upon. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support indefinite TBAN on military articles related to 1850 of later per OP, in the first instance. I have had extensive interactions with JMan-11, and some time ago made a significant effort to help them properly source and cite articles and lists. Throughout their editing history they have consistently demonstrated lack of competence regarding identifying reliable sources, they have been using online wargaming-type SPS extensively, and they have been fixated on orders of battle from the end of the Cold War or other poorly temporally defined major change points in global military structures which are of dubious encyclopaedic value as they do not relate to a "hot" conflict per se. They have been quite prolific, and this, combined with the lack of competence, causes serious deterioration in any articles they edit and an incredible level of frustration among the editors that come across their editing. This latter point is not to excuse Buckshot's outburst, but to place it in further context. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support TBAN for military/orders of battle articles - What I feel has been shared by other users in previous discussions. This type of military fancruft with dubious sourcing is most unhelpful and if J-Man wishes to continue editing they need to practice in other areas. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LaundryPizza03 Thankyou for the advisory re WP:CR. Looking at his previous work, I was not particularly comfortable with the idea of J-Man11 trying to analyze the Franco-Prussian War. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Female bodybuilder enthusiast unblock request

    Given the age of the block(2013), and the number of unblock requests that have been reviewed in the past I have decided to take this unblock request to the community rather than handle it personally.

    In addition to the unblock requests on the talk page there is also UTRS appeal #45084 and UTRS appeal #39150.

    I understand that they are admitting to some sock puppetry, and claiming that other sock puppetry was not true. They are also "willing, but not requesting, to abide by a topic ban around zoophilia, broadly construed".

    I am not familiar with the events prior to their block and at this point am withholding my personal opinion.

    A checkuser has verified that there is no technical evidence of recent abuse of multiple accounts[1]. This is a standard offer request.

    Here is the text of their unblock request:

    I am requesting to be unblocked after six months of being blocked, which has been verified though Wikipedia:Check User, for sock puppeting. I am applying under WP:SO. My initial block was inappropriate (not checked though Wikipedia:Check User) and the overlap between the two accounts (Latitude0116 and me). However, my other bans were appropriate for sock puppeting afterwards. I have been blocked for six months and had time to go over my errors. I will never sock puppet again and identified my old sock puppets. I am willing, but not requesting, to abide by a topic ban around zoophilia, broadly construed. I will stick to Female bodybuilder enthusiast account going forward. Female bodybuilder enthusiast (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

    Thank you for your attention on this matter. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Reaper Eternal: the original blocking administrator. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support w/ TBAN From Zoophilia, or really all animal related articles, broadly construed. They were caught socking just in December, and that last sock needed to be tbanned if they were a legit user. Valeince (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support w/ TBAN Admits wrong and states wants to go forward, after 10 years it responsible to want to return and given another chance. Des Vallee (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support On 25 April 2013, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast was confirmed to User:Fbbfan according to the CheckUser data, see here. Fbbfan never edited the English Wikipedia, but edited Ann Coulter article at Wikiquote, the same article one of their socks User:AHC300 edited 36 times, see diff. On 3 May 2013, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast was blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Latitude0116 per behavioral evidence, see here. In this unblock request, User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast is claiming that they're not User:Latitude0116 and Latitude0116 also confirmed that User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast is innocent and not related to them, see here. Since User:Female bodybuilder enthusiast has not socked recently and understood that what they did in the past was wrong and willing not to do it again, I'm willing to support this unblock request and the TBAN around zoophilia, broadly construed as that will stop disruption in that area. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 05:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unconditional - as Nnadigoodluck pointed out, no technical link was ever established between Female bodybuilder enthusiast/Fbbfan and the Latitude0116 case, however the behavioural evidence was quite compelling (significant unrelated topic overlaps). Regarding "no edits", there are other events that show up in checkuser data that can be used to establish connection, so I don't doubt the confirmation of those two accounts, however they should be re-tagged as "suspected" (they are not cu-confirmed to Latitude0116). I don't see where Female bodybuilder enthusiast's editing in the topic of zoophilia was ever discussed, they were just lumped in with the disruption of another user, and without any conclusive evidence of disruption I can't see why a topic ban is necessary here. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If Female bodybuilder enthusiast's editing in the topic of zoophilia really hasn't been discussed, it should be. Starting with their repeated creation of articles such as Death by horse cock, Two Guys One Horse etc. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      (edit conflict) Okay let's talk about it, then. I don't know the history of everything here but frankly, on the surface, all those creations seem to be legit. First they were trying to create an article about the website which was at the time apparently hosting the video referred to in the lede at Enumclaw horse sex case (or this contemporary revision, anyway), which evidently was 2guys1horse.com (I didn't go check). The final revision before deletion read in the lede: "2guys1horse.com, also called 2 Guys 1 Horse, Mr Hands, or Death by horse cock, is an Internet shock site/viral video, that has lead to over 500 reaction videos on Youtube. It was also featured in the 2007 documentary film Zoo and is regarded as the video of the incident that killed Kenneth Pinyan." The content was referenced (I didn't review the references but they were there) and covered a notable and sensitive topic without being gratuitous. It might not have been appropriate to have it separate from the Enumclaw article but I don't see any discussion about that, it was simply speedy-deleted by Fram for having no credible claim of significance, which without more information seems absurd. Another version at Deep Thrusts was deleted by Boing! said Zebedee as vandalism, which also seems absurd. Female bodybuilder enthusiast then simply tried to redirect these titles to the relevant related article, which was then deleted for being an implausible redirect (also absurd), except in one instance where The Anome deleted one as a redirect to a "joke page" (even more absurd). I say "seems" absurd because I would prefer to believe there is a related discussion somewhere that I haven't found, which would provide a better explanation than that a bunch of veteran admins ganged up on this user to censor their article. Female bodybuilder enthusiast seemed to be in conflict with Little green rosetta, who was Arbcom-banned a month later, and I also don't know what that's about.
      Anyway, all of this happened eight years ago, and so I still don't see why a topic ban now would prevent any sort of ongoing disruption. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The December SPI report lists some of their disruptive activity on zoophilia-related articles. To add on to what AndyTheGrump stated, the majority of their edits where to Legality of bestiality by country or territory, Legality of bestiality in the United States, Timeline of zoophilia, Zoophilia and the law (notice how the sock tried to redirect move that article to Zoophile rights by country or territory), which are all now (rightfully) deleted, so their edits to those articles are not visible in their contribution histories. Some1 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC) correction, Some1 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It's confusing but I think you've got the timeline at least partly wrong. Zoophilia and the law was moved to Zoophile rights by country or territory, which was then moved to Legality of bestiality by country or territory, which was then deleted, however all three of those titles were the same article which has a continuous history going back to May 2006. Legality of bestiality in the United States and Timeline of zoophilia were both separate articles. The deletion discussions for all three indicate that they were deleted for being poorly written original research, not because they were inappropriate topics nor because of any editor's disruptive editing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      On 20:31, 6 January 2017, AHC300 sock moved Zoophilia and the law to Zoophile rights by country or territory. Admin BD2412 moved the page back from Zoophile rights by country or territory to Zoophilia and the law on 15:11, 7 January 2017 stating: (No consensus found for likely controversial page move.) Those are all the same articles as the Legality of bestiality by country or territory, which was created by Female bodybuilder enthusiast, and the bulk of the content came from those socks. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Legality_of_bestiality_by_country_or_territory, where an editor stated: According to XTools [3] this article was primarily authored by AHC300 (talk · contribs), .... who is a pro-zoophilia user [4]. I didn't mention any timeline, just pointed out that those were the articles the socks frequently edited. My parenthetical above regarding the page move was to show how the user believes "bestiality" is a "zoophile right." Some1 (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC) correction, Some1 (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm sorry but you're wrong, and so was the editor referencing Xtools. Zoophilia and the law, Zoophile rights by country or territory, and Legality of bestiality by country or territory are not three copies of an identical article, they are the same article which was moved around. It was created under the title Zoosexuality and the law by FT2 on 19 May 2006, and FT2 was the principal contributor. It was moved to Zoophilia and the law by Avalik in 2010. At the time in 2017 that AHC300 moved to Zoophile rights by country or territory the article was a plain list of countries and their laws under the headings "zoosexual activity", "sale and distribution of zoophilic pornography", and "ownership of zoophilic pornography" (the list was present before AHC300 ever edited the article) so "zoophile rights by country or territory" was a reasonable move; BD2412 moved it back because the move hadn't been discussed, which is a pretty standard reason to revert a move (essentially WP:BRD). AHC300 then expanded the redirect at Zoophile rights by country or territory with a copy of the same list but they greatly expanded it, and that was then moved to "Legality of bestiality by country or territory" after a talk page discussion started by Flyer22 Frozen. That page's history was later split and now lives at Legality of bestiality by country or territory (version 2), and that's the big reason why Xtools will get this wrong.
      In the move discussion that I mentioned, AHC300 wrote this: "Oppose Because there are various zoophile rights organizations thoughtout the world and various legal cases in places like Canada and Germany that upheld legal zoophilia. There are organizations in the 20th and 21st century that have been documented to be zoophile rights organizations. The oldest documented zoophile group I could find is the "Students of Objectivism for Rational Bestiality". It's not Wikipedia's job to declare what is and isn't a right. I try to be as neutral as possible on these issues. Some libertarians, Objectivists, anarcho-captialists, liberals, etc. would either argue that animal abuse laws already cover harm to animals and sexual activities between animals and humans should be allowed. The issue of zoophile rights are evolving and maybe in a few decades they will be viewed as another part of civil rights movement." That last sentence is an awfully bold (and maybe offensive) prediction, but otherwise I basically agree with the statement. Flyer inaccurately equated zoophilia (a medically recognized paraphilia with notable advocacy and support groups) with bestiality (human sexual activity with animals, illegal in most places) and AHC300 was not the only editor who pointed out the distinction in that discussion. I do agree with that page's deletion: it was synthesizing conclusions from unrelated sources, and also probably not a notable separate topic, but I don't agree that its creation is evidence of promotion of a POV by AHC300 or Female bodybuilder enthusiast, if they are the same person. I also don't agree with your assumption that these moves imply that "the user believes 'bestiality' is a 'zoophile right'", as you said; in fact they were arguing against that position. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ivanvector: You might be aware of this, so please excuse me if the following is not useful: the term "zoophilia" is actually a dog whistle used by people actually engaging in bestiality (i.e. actually having sex with animals) to encourage support for their cause and to advocate for the legalization of bestiality. In Germany, for instance members of the Zoophiles Engagement for Toleranz und Aufklärung, a self-proclaimed "zoophile" organisation, is in fact made up of people advertising on social media their romantic and sexual relationships with their domestic animals. I'm always willing to AGF, but we should be skeptical of people making conceptual distinctions between bestiality and zoophilia: in a lot of cases, it's just a way to move bestiality in the mainstream by arguing (or suggesting) that there is nothing wrong with zoophilia. JBchrch talk 13:11, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Some1, you aren't an admin, for obvious reasons it's probably not worth arguing with an admin over the history of deleted pages.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That is true; if I could see the revision history, then I can bring up diffs showing the user's disruptive editing in that topic area. Legality of bestiality in the United States is the article that I was thinking about, where it was created by Female bodybuilder enthusiast socks and was mainly edited by those socks. Admin JBW deleted that back in January when AHC300 was blocked for socking, stating: (G5: Created by a banned or blocked user... in violation of ban or block. (Despite the long time for which the article has existed, no substantial content appears ever to have been added by anyone other than the creator, using various sockpuppets. Other edits have all been minor or reverted, or both). Ivanvector said: AHC300 or Female bodybuilder enthusiast, if they are the same person I already included diffs in my !vote comment below where they confirmed that they (Female bodybuilder enthusiast and AHC300) are the same person: [5][6]. It's even visible right now on their talk page, third unblock box: I am User:AHC300. AHC300 also made this edit to Zoophilia in the "Arguments for bestiality section" [7], would you have kept or reverted it and why? Some1 (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you, Some1, in fact I did miss that admission. That changes my opinion entirely, see below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not going to support or oppose, but Female bodybuilder enthusiast should at least be:
      1. Restricted to only one account, since they had a sleeper account Fbbfan at the same time as the Female bodybuilder enthusiast account for whatever reasons, then engaged in sockpuppetry as CentrumZero, Snowden supporter, 61-1099lm, Chiseled abs cutter, GayTenn, Dawkinsfan44 (there's probably more); User:AHC300 was their latest sock that was blocked in January (they confirmed it here and here), and they had the GregThomas93 and Lupertazzi342 accounts at the same time as that AHC300 account.
      2. Topic-banned from zoophilia (or all animal-related articles, as another editor above suggested), broadly construed. Some1 (talk) 20:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock w/ TBANFrom Zoophilia, User is ready. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see a one account and no logged out edits as a given, but I need to be clear. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • if this user is unblocked - something I won't vote on, but about which I'm skeptical - they need to be aware that there won't be a lot of tolerance for disruption in some other non-zoophilia topic. If disruption begins in some other area, it will be nipped in the bud with an indef block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblock w/one-account restriction, TBAN from zoophilia (broadly construed). I'm supporting the tban because they've been a bit WP:BATTLEGROUND in this area before, and a tban gives the highest possibility of success going forward. Much as I personally dislike that subject area, I'd be willing to vote in favour of lifting the tban at some point in the future, when this user has a substantial history of constructive contributions and no significant disruption. --Yamla (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support unblock w/one-account restriction, TBAN from zoophilia Yamla has convinced me to support this request tentatively, though I was originally on the fence. Both of those restrictions are a deal breaker for me. There should be a very low tolerance to disruptive behavior. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose, convert to site ban - by their own admission, this user used sock accounts to evade a block for nearly a decade, and they're only agreeing to abide by the rules now because they were caught. Six months is the bare minimum for the standard offer; this user ought to sit out for a lot longer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:52, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to ask the user, if they are unblocked, how do they plan to contribute to Wikipedia (in non-zoophilia-related areas)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    She said in the UTRS ticket, but did not carry it over to her talk page. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose I'll be the jerk that says it: Why are we ok with someone who blatantly used a number of socks for over 10 years to avoid a block to come back, all because they said "Oh you caught me!" Add to that their editing history, and I don't see a reason they should be allowed to edit. Just because this is the encyclopedia anyone CAN edit, doesn't mean it is the encyclopedia anyone SHOULD edit. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Second unblock/unban request from Zenkaino lovelive

    I will unblock the user with a restriction that all editing be performed via their signed in account. --Yamla (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, admins. I'm asking for an unban. I've left enwiki because of my ban for socking. I think that the ban was necessary to make me change my ways. I understand now that socking is very wrong, because it is lying to the Wikipedia community. I'm sorry that I lied about socking December 2019. I just wanted to ignore it. Therefore, I'll disclose ALL my socks (Zenkaino lovelive (original), ABOChannel (sock), Steven Hansen (sock)), and I DIDN'T EDIT ALL WIKIPEDIA since Dec 2020, and did not sock since my last sock day. I evaded my block by using 3 IPs (198.16.76.28, 175.223.27.43 and 175.223.3.71). I'm told to and must not edit ANY Wikipedia. So, I'd like to ask that my ban be lifted. I'm strongly asking that the Wikipedia community would welcome me back into their midst. I understand that I will likely never be trustworthy, but I ask that I would at least be given another chance at the English Wikipedia. I understand that what I did was wrong. I understand that I initially got block for socking in the RfC, and then I tried to evade my block by socking again. I'm sorry for these. If I am allowed back on enwiki, I will only use Zenkaino lovelive account, in any edits, discussions, and votes. But sometimes IP will be used. At first, I thought that I was extremely mad about having the block, but as too long time went on, I came to realize that the blocking admin did the right thing, that my behavior at the time was getting out of hand, and that I take full responsibility for my actions that led to my block. Fortunately, 27 months have passed since I was sitewide indeffed from enwiki, and my mental health has recovered enough for me to contribute to Wikipedia. I have learned several things and I have grown in several ways during the time I was indefinitely blocked sitewide: I now understand that Wikipedia is built more on cooperating with other people than simply expanding easy access to knowledge, and that failing to do so may cause a systemic bias in Wikipedia's content or even result in losing my ability to contribute, especially when one of the two results in the other. I will never sock again. I understand that this is my second chance. I haven't edited ALL Wikipedia since December, including UTRS. Reliable sources are needed for any content and I won't cite unreliable sources. Also, if it seems incorrect, discuss first before putting it. I would make productive contributions by adding true information only, and if a conflict is occurred, I'll talk or discuss it first. I would like to contribute in language-related and Microsoft Windows-related articles, etc. Zenkaino lovelive (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Vandalism/ spamming from sockpuppets of Birdsflyinghigh123

    Gaingroo & 83.187.96.107 are socks from Birdsflyinghigh123--WikiBayer (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Reported at WP:SPI to have a checkuser look at this for sleepers. Hopefully, one will notice this here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now blocked by Discospinster; the SPI request remains open. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    CU confirmed; SPI now closed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Closure by a non-admin User for Equity Mates Media

    Hi Everyone,

    Not agree with the recently closed discussion which is closed as Keep by a non-admin user User:TheChronium. Still the website does not pass WP:GNG and lacks WP:RS. I have a strong feeling of covert advertising and there must be a Sockpuppet investigation for the users User:JaredDaEconomist, User:DmitriRomanovJr and User:Larryeos. GermanKity (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I also disagree with the NAC. Non-admins shouldn't be closing a deletion discussion that isn't cut-and-dried. I will revert the close. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You Jéské Couriano. GermanKity (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GermanKity, I've informed the users you named. Feel free to self-apply the {{trout}}. Cabayi (talk) 10:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC) ...I should also point out that making accusations of sockpuppetry without evidence may be seen as personal attacks and handled as such. Please file an SPI as soon as you've gathered your evidence. Cabayi (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These three users are of different ages and 2 of them have a non trivial amount of edits. Other than all voting keep in this AfD is there anything else to support the suspicion of sock puppetry? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You HighInBC. GermanKity (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GermanKity, this aspect of your report seems to have been handled now, but for future reference the procedure to appeal a close of a deletion discussion is to first discuss the issue on the closer's talk page, and if you are not then satisfied to start a discussion at WP:DRV. To report well-founded suspicion of sockpuppetry the procedure is described at WP:SPI, and suspicion that is not well-founded should be kept to yourself. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You Phil Bridger, I will keep this note for future suspicion. GermanKity (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Need someone to move this into the mainspace

    Hello! I have a draft in my userspace for a manga series, titled I Think Our Son is Gay at User:Link20XX/article, however, I can't create it directly due to *is gay* being on the spam blacklist. Can someone move it into the mainstream for me! Thanks in Advance! Link20XX (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. created talk page too, not sure if you would have been prevented from doing that or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this sort of thing is likely to become a recurring issue with mangas and light novels, especially those in the ecchi category.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Book namespace deleted

    A couple of hours ago the book namespace was deleted. Just like with the recent Education program namespace deletion, I don't expect any issues to arise because of this and taken precautions to make sure everything goes smoothly. It is however difficult to know with certainty as namespace removal is very rare. If you see any issue you think may be related to this please ping me. --Trialpears (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RIP. jp×g 05:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trialpears the long thread at WP:VPT#Implementation of book namespace deletion paints a somewhat less optimistic picture. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    RoySmith What specifically are you reffering to? Resolved minor issues with the notice displayed at any page that would formally have been in the namespace or the concern that we might not index one page? I don't think there's anything actionable there. --Trialpears (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying you can make everybody happy all the time. It just seemed dicordent to have read that thread where at least some people are obviously unhappy and then seeing your cheerful notice. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, re-reading it I see that I may have gotten the wrong tone in the message. My purpose with the notice was just to inform about the situation and where to report possible issues.
    I have to say though that it is quite sad to see it go given that it took a lot of editor work. I'm still unsure if deletion actually is the best way forward (see my neutral !vote on the RfC), but I do believe the consensus there should be implemented. If you (or anyone else) have concerns or questions about the implementation plan I would appreciate to hear about it. --Trialpears (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just like to take the time to commend Trialpears for their work in doing this largely thankless task. Wikipedia has an awful lot of - for want of a better phrase - failed experiments, sitting around, and I'm glad to see the loose ends being tidied up. Obviously I'm probably the wrong person to judge given I supported deprecation, but I don't see this notice as "cheerful" - it's reminding administrators and the wider community that the process has been completed. Some people are indeed unhappy about the result of the RfC, which is unfortunate but ultimately inevitable on such a large project (heaven knows there have been plenty of RfCs where I've not personally liked the outcome) firefly ( t · c ) 06:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI Backlog

    I’m not even sure if posting here might be of help or even necessary but FWIW, It does seem like a backlog is building at SPI, I note here that some requests have been made since (2021-7-11) and are yet to be attended to. For transparency sake, I initiated one of such cases that have been open for a while, see this file. Please, if my thought process of what constitutes a “backlog” is wrong, and me posting here , equally wrong or (premature) please do revert accordingly. Thank you all for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/K.D_Manikya_Tripuri from April is still awaiting administrative action. You can sort the table of current SPI reports to get an idea of how large this backlog is. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    EDIT: SPI clerks have been notified of this backlog. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I try my best to take care of SPI reports that require a CU to handle so that they can be followed-up by an admin and things taken from there. I had a couple of users express that they don't like things to sit in the "completed" status, while others were completely fine with it. I'm not sure what the consensus is on that; all I know is that I'm just trying to do my part. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RM backlog

    WP:RM has a large backlog of discussions awaiting closure or relisting, including 11 from 7 days ago and 1 from May 24. A total of 85 discussions are more than 8 days old. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RM is perenially backlogged. Good news is that anyone can close those discussions. Bad news is many tend to have insufficient participation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poola Rangadu

    Can someone fix the above AfD? It wasn't created properly, and I'm not confident in my ability to fix it. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorted, it was just missing the header. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Malcolmxl5: Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban clarification

    Wow, that turned into a shit-show pretty quickly... I think that I can speak safely for the community when I say that, given EurovisionNim's uncivil and childish behavior in this discussion alone, that his topic ban will not be lifted nor will it be any time soon. EurovisionNim has been indefinitely blocked for repeated civility violations and behaviors that do not align with someone who is here to build an encyclopedia. It sounds like EurovisionNim is going through some personal and health-related issues that he needs to get sorted out. In the end, Wikipedia is not therapy, and we're not here to tolerate behavior that is not in compliance with policy. I wish EurovisionNim the best, but he needs to get his personal matters worked out and he needs to get himself healthy before I'd even entertain having him edit Wikipedia again. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 17:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, I was chatting with Oshwah and I would like some extra clarification on the ban. I didn't realise my ban covered every aspect of transport, and I got completely lost so I just wanted to ask just in case --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    For context, EurovisionNim is "banned from all edits and pages related to automobiles, broadly construed, subject to the usual exceptions." In my chat discussion with EurovisionNim on IRC, I told him that "automobiles" include boats, airplanes, trains, cars, trucks, buses, helicopters, motorcycles, rocket ships, ...anything that moves by an energy source (fuel, solar, etc). He asked if he could come here and challenge that definition, and I told him that he could. He might also want to appeal his ban, but I'll leave that decision to EurovisionNim and whether he chooses to appeal or not to. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am looking for more clarification and advice. Because the ban was enacted on 19th January 2019 and I took a two year break until July 3 2021, so I have only recently come back and getting my head around things :) and didn't make any edits on the last two years, but I just want to apologise and start all over again. I am a good faith user who wants to prove to myself. Maybe a probation/or unban condition could work. I am no longer the person I was back in 2018 and I've promised to behave and no longer edit-war anymore (last one I apologised and stopped ever since). I apologised to everyone and want to move on --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am confused. I went back and looked at the discussion at ANI that led to the imposition of the ban, but how did a ban related to automobile articles get broadened to a ban that included almost every other form of energized transportation? I read what Oshwah said about IRC, but I don't understand what gave Oshwah or any other admin the authority to broaden the ban without additional community input? But I'm hardly an expert on topic bans; the only sanction more problematic than a topic ban is an interaction ban. So maybe I'm missing something.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Bbb23 - Okay, I apologize - I went too far with the examples here. I hardly think that a rocket ship is an automobile, obviously. :-) I gave EurovisionNim the definition of "automobiles" to include boats, planes, trains, and other transportation. The "broadly construed" part is what had me including other methods of transportation into the definition of "automobiles". I'm just trying to make sure that EurovisionNim doesn't cross the line and find himself in hot water. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)If this user is to be banned from all forms of vehicles then automobile is the wrong word to have used in describing the ban. This word applies to road vehicles. Was this a discretionary sanction ban or a community decision? Where did this choice of wording come from? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the link User:Bbb23. That discussion is about automobiles, which are 4 wheeled land vehicles. Even broadly construed I would only go so far as motorcycles and busses being included. By no stretch are boats, aircraft, and rocket ships what the community decided on. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    HighInBC - I would say that "four-wheeled land vehicles" is a fair definition to put for "automobiles". Thank you for the response. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No, I thought the ban only related to cars. If that was so, then of course being banned from taxis, police cars, ambulances and vans would make sense, but not buses, trains, aircraft as they are different objects altogether. I found the wording very poor. The ban was a community one HighInBC. Its just didn't make sense and threw a tantrum and left and after two years, I wanted to just go back to editing constructively, but the ban never thought would expand to other road vehicles. However, my behaviour two years ago was very bad, but it was due to my uncontrollable addiction to the computer, but I sought psychological help and now have become a changed individual and no longer have daily fights and conflicts and now edit constructively. Hence I just. want some advice, that's all. It just sounds overkill to me and in hindsight some editors seem to be getting away with it and I never attempted to evade my ban/edit car articles, never ever during the period of my ban. This is somewhat a difficult piece to digest. How come another users gets an image restriction, yet me who gets banned from everything, where I haven't caused any problems outside the user in question and with the other articles, I don't know whats going on with Wikipedia!!--EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 12:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Duration of topic ban

    The original proposal was "I also propose a topic ban for Nim on automobile related article for a short period". A couple members of community supported and indefinite topic ban, but about the same number support shorter durations ranging from 1 month to 6 months. It was closed by @GoldenRing: as an indefinite topic ban.

    I am wondering if we can call this time served with the understanding that further disruption in this area can result in the reintroduction of the topic ban. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a problem with that. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23 brings up good points. I'm standing neutral for now. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 13:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the community wants to lift the ban, that is their perogative, but to do so because of "time served" is disingenuous. As Nim says, he stopped editing right after the ban was enacted and made zero edits until this month. Normally, a banned editor demonstrates reform by (1) not violating the ban and (2) continuing to edit productively in areas unrelated to the ban. One doesn't demonstrate reform by leaving the project. Moreover, as I understand it, he's already gotten into some trouble for disruptive editing, even though he keeps apologizing. I would not endorse lifting the ban at this time. If the consensus is to leave the ban in place, I think it should be clarified as to precisely what is included by "automobiles, broadly construed". I would not favor including busses or motorcycles just because they are land vehicles. If we did, that would have to include medium-sized trucks and semi trucks and I'm not sure what all else. From what I saw, without reading everything in detail, we're talking about non-commercial vehicles used by ordinary people. "Broadly construed", which is thrown into every topic ban that I've ever seen, might include other passenger vehicles like SUVs, small consumer trucks, vans, things like that, and maybe even motorcycles, although I don't think that was an issue in the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bbb23. I never want the ban itself to be lifted necessarily. All I wanted was a clarification. In essence, automobiles could include SUVs, and daily transport like people. I was not disruptive in other sections, it was only selfie was the one that launched me into an edit war which I was told off and apologised. However, considering the nuances, the ban was very very badly worded, almost to the point I couldn't understand and I'm a uni student. To be frank, Davey requested I take a break for two years, which I did, but if I'm editing planes, trucks, buses then yeah why is that I can't edit these being the problem. I don't need the ban lifted at this stage, and I know its very unlikely to happen as I haven't satisfied the criteria yet, due to my 'cloud' absence for two years which demonstrated my immaturity, but since its 2021, I just want to edit as a mature person. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @EurovisionNim: Do not revert any part of this discussion under any circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But i do not want my topic ban lifted. I can't just randomly say I have edited, when in fact I haven't. I hate lying, I am a good human. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I came here to make a proposal regarding the ban but was derailed by Nim removing this entire subsection, apparently because he doesn't want the ban lifted. This really poor judgment on his part is disturbing and makes it harder to discuss his ban. Perhaps, the encyclopedia was better off when wasn't editing. It strikes me that whatever progress he has made during his long break is insufficient for him to edit maturely and collaboratively.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for clarification. Do realise, don't you that I was a problem editor way back in the automobile project, and it is very unlikely for the ban to be lifted as per the WP:STANDARD OFFER. I mean, if i just 'vanish' and then come back for no good reason, is there really an expectation for the ban to be lifted? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 13:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you were going for a Cleanstart then no that wouldn't get you out of the restriction. Clean start only applies for accounts that don't have restrictions. Somebody who vanished and then returned with a new account editing in the area that the old account was topic banned from would be at risk of a block. ϢereSpielChequers 14:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If EurovisionNim edits productively for 6 months in areas unconnected to the previous problems, then I would be willing to consider a review of the topic ban. ϢereSpielChequers 14:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    6 months is a bit too much. Is a WP:PROBATION or WP:ER/UC possible? I am aware of the WP:CLEANSTART, this typically applies normally for good-standing account. At the moment, I'm on a probationary restriction so that would not apply, and I'm not dumb enough to sock as I am aware of the consequences fully. 6 months is quite long. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user recently filed an ANI. It's about a different article/topic area but, just glancing at the 2019 discussion, seems similar in behavioural concerns. ANI link (relating to the Selfie article). Judging by the events on Selfie, I think it would probably be better for the user to keep the topic ban in place for now. I note that his photography interest appears to be in automobiles. Removing the ban will increase the volume in edits, and without adequate time to adjust to community norms could lead to behaviour that results in harsher sanctions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew this would happen Oshwah said i should post an appeal. I just knew it would not work. I am just to the brink of vanishing once again --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a suggestion to avoid you feeling the need to vanish, not a boldwords oppose. If I were you I'd want to keep the ban in place. It's substantially more unpleasant to have the community criticising your editing history at ANI than it is to put up with a ban for a couple more months until you're sure you won't end up in that position again. Sometimes taking it slow is a good strategy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict). I think that sounds like a plan. I will consider the ban appeal to relift the ban around October or November per say. In fact, I want to readjust myself to community norms and just help where i can. But I am not trying to be stupid where possible and yeah maybe October when I make more productive edits and less edit warring is when I'll reconsider for the ban to be lifted (appeal). Anyone agree? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 14:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is probably not a good idea to plan an appeal. The best way forward is simply to edit outside of the areas mentioned by HighInBC (road vehicles), and become more familiar with Wikipedia norms over time without imposing arbitrary deadlines on yourself. CMD (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry but this is probably the stupidest idea you have come up with. There is absolutely no way I am waiting that long. In fact, I feel like I'm a worthless editor. I took my break, I thought everything was fine, yet I return and this is the welcome reception I get. As it is, I've created a strained relationship with my family and friends (blocking my ex-best friend today) and yet alone I get this. I do not even know where to begin first of all with User:Sjeintspen having gallery issues so I conformed to this expectation, yet User:Davey2010 with his bad habits reverted me and I cannot fathom whether my editing performance is not worth the energy. DO NOT lift the ban, as I know I will just return back to my old habits and I do not want to take that risk --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if it's a good idea me commenting here given we've both butted heads recently (and the recent Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Davey2010_ANI ANI thread too (archive link)) but given the recent issues that have happened in the past few days IMHO it would be unwise to lift it - Maybe give it till January and see how things progress and then maybe this can be revisited. Nim has also in the past few days made a comment about being drunk which I don't know if that's legit or whether it's an excuse for their incompetence (Tried finding diffs for this but discussions have happened all over the place) so honestly I don't know whether blocking would be a good idea or not, Anyway I personally don't believe the topicban should be lifted. –Davey2010Talk 14:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to be blocked Davey2010. I cannot edit here anymore, what I'm going to do next, go crazy, get my head shaved bald, blast inappropriate music at a religious site? I can't edit with you constantly reverting me for no reason. I have had enough and I want to leave for good. I don't like anyone here its just not the place for me. On YouTube I could act as stupid as I want and no one will have consequences, yet you keep reverting me for no good reason. I won't be back until at least October. I cannot stand this bickering, reverting and disagreeing bullcrap. I can't fathom why WP:NOTAGALLERY cannot be followed per this with the amount of images added to gallery and its because of your version when you know clearly that its a direct violation. In fact when I removed the gallery you told me to f**k off, and yes the 'drunk' comment was a sideline joke which sadly you cannot handle. Go on Blokes Advice on Facebook and you will see this is the norm in Australia. Oh and how did you do in your GCSEs i wonder? --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you really feel that way immediately after unvanishing, and felt that way two years ago as well, then I think it's time to consider whether another hobby may be better suited for you. It's probably not worth doing something that leaves you stressed all the time. Plenty of hobbies that allow one to explore photography other than the English Wikipedia. Just in the Wikimedia universe there is Commons. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Yeah, that was an awful idea and probably warrants a block. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm that's true, but I am fretful Davey2010 will just go to his WP:OWN ways and revert me everywhere specially the the Simple Wikipedia for no reason. I think a temporary block would be sufficient. I cannot handle editing here anymore. When I first started, it was a very collegial atmosphere, but recently, I think it just got worse and I'm tired of it --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 15:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume I reverted there because it wasn't an improvement however that edit was 2 years ago..... again I revert anyone and everyone who replaces images which aren't better than the ones they're replacing. Again I did state on Oshwah's talkpage to steer clear of images but again it's instead been your main focal point and even after Edit warring business you're still meddling with images, As I keep saying I have no problem with people replacing images providing they're better than the ones they're replacing.
    Anyway I shan't reply further as my intention was never to derail this thread but to simply offer my 2p, Please stop pinging me here, Thanks and Have a good day. –Davey2010Talk 15:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah don't and also if you want to avoid this issue, please stop reverting people. It doesn't work and makes you look like a fool. There are better things to do with your life than going all 'Karen' on people's edit. Does it matter really if someone makes an improvement not to your satisfaction. In hindsight, 90% of my edits were not my own photos, rather were from Flickr. Also the selfie blanked faces were because of privacy protection and my friends who were in the photos were going to sue me so I had to be careful or i'd have to sell my parents house. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 16:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Block - not only is Nim now resorting to childish behaviour such as reverting me[8] and then undoing their revert[9] but they now seem to believe I'm racist[10] amongst other personal attacks[11]. It's one thing disagreeing with someone on a talkpage (or 5) but it's another to blatantly call me a racist amongst other things. I'm certainly not a racist nor would I ever revert someone based on their race!. –Davey2010Talk 16:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to be blocked temporarily. Its just not worth the effort to behave anymore. I just think User:Davey2010 is the biggest idiot in town. I can't handle this site and I am going to be leaving for a bit (I am not retired/vanished like last time) but I am going to abandon my account until such time as Oshwah suggested. Its better to be blocked as my mental health is too stressed out that I want to cause problems for others --EurovisionNim (lets talk!)(contributionnes) 17:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I thought the GCSEs jab[12][13] and the related comment on your user talk Talk:Mercedes-Benz Citaro was also highly inappropriate. plus hostility to other users here [14]. Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks would've been the smarter idea if they don't think they can stop editing voluntarily; I don't think the editor realises they cannot control the duration of PA/harassment blocks, but this is firmly in that territory now. Since they're already subject to one IBAN but have issues with other users too, unfortunately I think this is perhaps not the environment for them. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:UBX/female and User:UBX/male categorized as fully protected despite being template protected

    The title really says it all. I couldn't figure out where to post this so I'll put it here, given that only admins and template editors are probably able to fix this problem. I don't know why this is, the doc subpage doesn't seem to show anything that would cause this categorization. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply)Template:Z181 01:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It is coming from Module:Documentation somewhere - will need to dig in to it more. — xaosflux Talk 01:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think this is Module:Protection banner. I raised the issue of broken protection categories on that page's talk last year, and fixed a few cases. IIRC the problem is that not every combination of protection is accounted for. If there is a protection without a corresponding configuration saved, it defaults to the fully protected category. I suspect in this case it's because template-editor protection is not expected on User pages, and not expected in Module talk either.
    I didn't want to fix these because it's a useful way to find cases where template protection is probably being used inappropriately. For example I remember finding a few cases of template-protected articles last year. They would blend-in in the 'proper' category, but would stand out like a sore thumb in the near-empty fully-protected category. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The same issue applies to multiple Module talk:Location map/data/x/doc pages ( Template protected yet are in the fully protected category).Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Socking

    A SPI case page has been created and acted upon by Oshwah. -- LuK3 (Talk) 12:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I've got a pretty obvious case of sockpuppetry. Do I steam in and exercise the banhammer, or should it go to SPI to make it "official"? Mjroots (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mjroots - Create an SPI report. This way, the sock puppetry is documented for tracking and record-keeping purposes. Let me know when you create it, and I'll check it out with my checkuser eyes and see if there might be any sleepers. ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oshwah: - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bhushan m bhandari. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Mjroots - Perfect. I'm taking a look at it now... ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A question regarding an incident involving an Administrator

    Hello @Doktorbuk:. I noticed your edit here (diff) and I agree with you. In addition, @Stephen: has reverted the edit 3 times in less than 24 hours - Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement. Please see @Deb: @Doc James: @Gamaliel: @Ixfd64: @Ixfd64: @Pegship: @Vanjagenije: @Rosiestep: @Amakuru:. Do some rules not apply to Administrators? Can content directly related to a talk page be purged like that? Ear-phone (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I see only 2 reversions. Deb (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonetheless I think the reversion of talk page content is to be discouraged. Personal talk page control is fine within limits. Perhaps something for ANI if it's not improved doktorb wordsdeeds 20:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree with you @Doktorbuk:. I'm not sure if you can restore the content? Otherwise something for ANI awareness. @Stephen: Ear-phone (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ear-phone has two issues with their editing: first, they are copying signed comments across talk pages for no good reason. All 4 of the comments above this one were added by Ear-phone to WP:AN in the same diff. Second, they seem to be more interested in picking fights than in improving content; their insistence that an obviously mistaken date of "Saturday, 13 July 2021" is proof of bias against the Global South would be comical if it were not so serious an accusation. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ear-phone: Collaboration is required at Wikipedia and your approach (along with pinging the kitchen sink) indicates an inappropriate attitude. Is this fuss based on diff? You posted at User talk:Stephen#Date of picture (diff) with an absurd claim of "classic example of systematic bias by an administrator"—please assume good faith and try reading the explanations you received. There was no need for any prolonged discussion, and copying it to article talk was pointless—if you believe a wrong date is in the article, fix it. If you are reverted, politely post on article talk to explain your reasoning. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq:: @Stephen: introduced an error into the article i.e. 'Saturday 13 July' (the 13th of July 2021 was a Tuesday). So I reverted the error diff with the reason in the edit summary. After this @Stephen: undid my edit, again introducing an error diff (the picture was taken on 3 July 2021 not 13 July 2021). I am not the only editor who found @Stephen:'s reverting contentious diff. Ear-phone (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Missing RM

    A bulk RM at Talk:Actinium(III) chloride disappeared off the WP:RM page after it was relisted on June 3; see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#Requested_move_at_Talk:Actinium(III)_chloride#Requested_move_25_May_2021. I relisted this again in hopes of fixing this technical issue. Is there another open RM like this? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    EDIT: Looks like this was a case of WP:BADNAC [15] by an involved user Keresluna (talk · contribs), which was then seemingly withdrawn by the same user [16] without re-adding the RM header. I've restored the template as thisclosure was clearly an act of gross misconduct. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I notified this user about the improper involved closure at User_talk:Keresluna#involved_closure. The user simply reverted the closure of the RM, but this did not relist it at requested moves. I arguably should have done so manually as LaundryPizza03 has now done, but did not want to perform an involved relist myself. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The move discussion has been reopened properly and now is on the talk page at Talk:Actinium(III) chloride. Nothing more to do here, since Keresluna states that they are no longer active. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User repeatedly adding copyright content to articles

    User Jowinshaju96 (talk) has been repeatedly adding copyright content such as images and parts of Autocar news articles to many Mahindra vehicle articles as well as damaging formatting to articles. I and other users have reverted some of their edits but I believe this user should be blocked from editing since they have not responded to any messages on their talk page and keep re-adding the content after it has been reverted and persist with more copyrighted content additions. At this point it is becoming very disruptive. WaddlesJP13 (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've tagged Mahindra TUV300 and Mahindra XUV500 for RD1 redaction, as they added copyvio text from pages on https://www.autocarindia.com. It also appears that they have uploaded 26 images from that same source to Commons, which are listed at commons:Special:Log/upload/Jowinshaju96; 6 have already been deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeated self-promotion by user

    HammadMuhammadKhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly created the article(s) HammadMuhammadKhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Hammad Muhammad Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (both carbon copies of each other and recreated twice just today) and repeatedly used their own userpage and user talk page to essentially paste said article(s), despite warnings from other editors [17] [18]. It seems really cumbersome to deal with this, especially since this dates back to August 2020. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 10:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked. In the future you can report this sort of thing to WP:AIV. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Salted. Mjroots (talk) 18:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure request

    Not done by an admin, but done. WP:ANRFC is thataway (though I will echo the implementer's comment that a {{TPER}} would have worked just as well). Primefac (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could an uninvolved admin close Template talk:Infobox UK place#Proposal - remove automatic capitalisation from post towns please? Thanks. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 20:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I may have overstepped

    I just blocked Wikkedout for making personal attacks. I then realized that I might be seen as involved, as I had commented in a thread (Talk:Los Angeles#Language in lede) in which Wikkedout made the first of his attacks. I did not see the attacks as directed against me, but I now realize that the optics are bad. Any admin is free to take any action on the block they deem appropriate. I do not plan to formally notify Wikkedout, as I am not reporting his behavior, but rather my behavior. - Donald Albury 16:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    (non-admin comment) As far as I can see you had not interacted with the editor, only with the thread, and blocked them following their comment on the issue, without ever having interacting with them. In my opinion thats not being involved, but simply enforcing the NPA policy. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 17:04, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donald Albury Given Special:Diff/1033980528 and related comments on their talk page, I think your block was just fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for your comments. - Donald Albury 17:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict) Why does it always seem to be the people who get nearly everything right who are the ones to admit that they might possibly be fallible? If only those who make a habit of getting things wrong would do so. The editor needed to be blocked, and you were there to do it. I don't see anything wrong with that. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism

    Hello. Ongoing vandalism. Ear-phone (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/2600:8807:A70D:2D00:0:0:0:0/64 blocked 1 month. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unban request from Pointer22

    Pointer22 has requested (ticket:2020092510012529) that I place the following request so they can be unbanned, as per WP:UNBAN. A history of involved accounts is documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ACM7/Archive, which ultimately resulted in a community ban under WP:3X. In my capacity as VRT agent, I can verify that the person making this appeal is Allen Meadors based on information in that ticket, and could mark any active account under his control as a {{verified account}} if needed. I make no comment for or against this appeal. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 02:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to request that my Wikipedia standing be reinstated, the following is some history and my reasoning for my request.

    • Four or five years ago, I was suspended from being able to add updates to my Wikipedia page because I and others had tried to correct some misleading information or delete it from the page. These attempts were removed and the original information returned. On several occasions, as my email address was denied access I used other address(accounts) to try to accomplish the above. I now understand that this is a violation of the Wikipedia policies and apologize for this error.
    • The account ACM7 several people used it, don't even remember who now used it to add comments. No one has attempted to use it since my account was suspended.
    • If reinstated, I will obey the guidelines as presented. If I have question, I will ask for clarification prior to making any attempted changes or additions.
    • I will not use multiple addresses in my interaction with Wikipedia
    • I have also asked any colleague that I know submitted changes back then to please not get involved. (as far as I know none have tried to intervene since then)
    • I will request clarification and understanding of any future question regarding my participation with my personal Wikipedia page.

    Thank you in advance for your consideration.

    ACM

    • I verify that I am Allen Meadors
  • This account was CU-blocked and therefore, in addition to community consensus, needs permission from a CU to be unblocked. That should come from a current CheckUser.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr Meadows is reminded to not edit about himself directly, by himself or via anyone acting on his behalf. To discuss content and sourcing on the talk page. To raise issues at WP:BLPN as needed. To contact the WMF at info-en-q@wikimedia.org if issues cannot be resolved by the foregoing. I can support unbanning under these conditions that are expected of all users. Further, I would like to know what areas Mr Meadows would like to contribute in. If managing content about himself is his only purpose, I see no use in unblocking. Any concerns about content about him can be addressed via WMF as indicated above without unblocking. Single account restriction/no shared accounts and CU approval go without saying, but there they are. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Appealing topic ban for Raymond3023

    I was topic banned indefinitely per this ARE discussion. The topic ban concerned all edits and pages related to the conflict between India and Pakistan. I am appealing the topic ban since 3 years and 2 months have elapsed and I am completely confident that I can contribute constructively here.

    Since the topic ban, I have made hundreds of edits in these years, including the creation of Space industry of India which was promoted to DYK.[19] Furthermore, I haven't engaged in any behavior for which I had been sanctioned, namely battleground mentality.

    In order to avoid repeating the issue from happening again, I have learned to assume good faith as much as possible and only raise the issue when it is necessary and ensure not to violate any policies. This is mainly because enough time has passed and I am evidently more aware of the policies and expectations here.

    I am also noting that I never violated the topic ban or had any other sanction since. If the topic ban has been removed, I will still continue to contribute in such a productive manner. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wikipedia has over 6.3 million articles, of which I would hazard more than 99% have nothing to do with the conflict between India and Pakistan. Why is that an area in which you feel the need to edit? BD2412 T 05:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is one of my most favorite topic areas and I find a number of articles to be missing information. I would like to start working on geographic articles related to the area for starters. For a name, Wagah lacks details about 2014 Wagah border suicide attack and in turn, the suicide attack article has not been updated for years given it lacks any details about the convictions happened last year. One by one, I will be updating some of these and others. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That AE is really long and involves a lot of participants, so I'm not going to sift through it. The enforcing admin (GoldenRing) seems to be retired now, as well as some others in the discussion (like NeilN). @Bishonen and Vanamonde93: seem to be some active admins who might be familiar with those events. I found this declined (individual) AE appeal, and this declined (mass) ARCA. Otherwise, the appeal above reads reasonably, and it has been 3 years. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support lifting tban. 3 years is a long time and I don't see any evidence they've been disruptive during that time (they haven't edited much at all). They sound sincere. The worst that could happen is they go back to the behavior which got them tbanned in the first place but we'll figure that out pretty quick and can deal with it then. The best that could happen is we gain a productive editor in a topic area known for conflict. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Pretty much for the same reasons mentioned by RoySmith. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - There hasn't been any complaint against this editor in 3 years other than an AE report filed months ago by a later indefinitely blocked user and it was declined as frivolous by El C.[20] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A long time since the ban was put in place and I have not seen anyone present evidence of disruption since it has been in place. They have worked on the topic of India specifically and no trouble. I say we try and see what happens. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 07:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    CodeLyoko reappointed as a trainee clerk

    The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome back CodeLyoko (talk · contribs) after a period of inactivity to the clerk team as a trainee!

    The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

    For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:03, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CodeLyoko reappointed as a trainee clerk

    Need help with DS

    Sigh. As I've noted more than once before, I find the WP:ACDS process so confusing, I've never used it. At this point I feel the need to impose a WP:1RR sanction on COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis per WP:COVIDDS. I've once again dug into the documentation for how DS works, and I've once again come away unsure I understand it well enough to use it. So, could somebody who actually understands how DS works please impose that? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To impose 1RR I believe you need to do three things:
    1. Add |restriction=1RR to the Ds talk page template
    2. Create Template:Editnotices/Page/COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis with the content {{ds/editnotice|1RR|topic=covid}}
    3. Log it at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#COVID-19. Usually with a new bulleted list entry with the name of the page, type and duration of restriction.
    ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd separately add that a) I think no admin action is necessary at this exact moment and b) I think 1RR is the wrong tool for the problems on that page in any case, and will simply frustrate legitimate editing as it does on Israel-Palestine or some American politics articles. It would apply to all editing, rather than simply the redirecting/stubbifying. I also think it would raise a serious concern with fairness in applying the COVID DS sanctions, where some groups of editors are sanctioned individually and others are too sensitive to deal with so "page restrictions" and "topic-wide DS authorisations" are used instead. I think the avoidance of consensus processes here (and in another similar case at ANI) is no different to that by Normchou which rightly resulted in an indefinite topic ban. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Roy, here's a handy link to remember: T:DSA (mostly for the bottom part, which transcludes Template:Ds/topics/single notice). HTH! El_C 16:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Appeal of BLP ban for Jabbi

    Almost 6 months ago I was banned for a year for violating BLP. See this notice. I have learnt from that experience and am now more sensitive to BLP policy. Since then I have not touched a BLP article. I have made several substantial edits on notable articles which have, in my opinion improved them considerably. I would like to be allowed to edit BLPs again because before my ban I had started a review of Alexander Lukashenko, and had reached his first term in office, which I would like to continue with. My violation was with an article I created myself, which has since been deleted for lack of notability. Thanks for reading. --Jabbi (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You were not banned six months ago, but 4.5 months ago. Your first reaction was to protest the ban at WP:ANI, but you gave up on that when you got pushback from other editors and administrators. I think it's way too early for you to be appealing a one-year ban. You appear to believe that the fact that you apparently have not violated the ban deserves some special award. No violations might be considered in an appeal if you were to wait longer. In any event, I oppose lifting the ban. I also think you should notify Nick of this appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input, Bbb23. The ban was about two different aspects. I did not go into that in my appeal because I thought that wasn't really relevant anymore. I contested one of the two aspects and desisted when I inadvertently repeated sensitive information in my argument. What I learnt from that was to exercise more caution when it comes to BLP. If you consider lifting a ban a special award, then yes. Otherwise we would not be discussing this no? I have almost served half of the ban and I remain a valuable editor. The guidelines on appealing do not suggest a point in time relative to the appeal or any other characteristics that would be taken into account. I'm happy to notify Nick and El C who were most active. --Jabbi (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When I said to notify Nick, I meant pursuant to the instructions at the top of this page, which, apparently, you did not bother to read. Instead you pinged him, which I had already done anyway. I struggle to understand how you became an administrator and bureaucrat at is.wiki.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose lifting ban. Reading through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive330#User:Nick and arbitrary and unreasonable block of editing BLP shows a failure of understanding and acceptance of the circumstances of the ban. I don't think near enough time has passed since then, nor do I see these issues being addressed here and now. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input HighInBC. Yes I did contest a part of the reasoning for the ban at the time. How exactly can these issues be addressed here and now beyond me saying that I have a fuller understanding and take greater care around BLP? --Jabbi (talk) 23:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you want me to tell you what words you need to say to demonstrate an understanding of these issues? That is not how demonstrating an understanding works, nor is simply saying that you understand. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point. I have been an active editor in the Icelandic Wikipedia for longer than I care to remember and only recently become very active here. My violation was twofold, limited to the talk page of a person whose article I had created; 1) I cited the words from a recorded interview with an academic of a respectable university in which he alleges possible criminal activity and 2) I used a value laden term that alleges corruption to refer to this individual. When reflecting on this admins should be very conscious that there is not economic, or otherwise, freedom in Belarus, it is in some ways more akin to China than it's neighbour Lithuania. In other words, people do not rise to the top unless they have political favour with Lukashenko. I wrongly assumed that this was not contested and that the fact that someone achieves success in Belarusian business was acknowledged to imply collusion by default. Anyway. I understand that this is not acceptable. I read up on BLP and was particularly curious about a sensitive issue concerning an Australian minister and how BLP is handled on WP in that case. What I took from that was to exercise more caution. --Jabbi (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If I understand this correctly, Jabbi was BLP banned because of serious BLP violating edits surrounding Lukashenko and people around him. Considering that last month, they created and defended Europe's last dictatorship (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Europe's last dictatorship) and Draft:Europe's last dictatorship, I think it would be better to strongly remind Jabbi of the topic ban and where it applies, instead of lifting the ban. Many of their other mainspace edits seem to be about Lukashenko as well, e.g. this unsourced bit from this month. Fram (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Fram, you might be interested to know that the article was generally considered not to be notable enough. It's not a POVFORK. At the end a redirect was re-created, the article existed before I put in well sourced content there. --Jabbi (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch. These are not only direct violations of the BLP topic ban, but are in the precise area that resulted in the ban. In addition to not removing the ban I think the duration needs to be reset to the point of the most recent violation. I also think more attention needs to be paid to their edits. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fram, that's not correct. The violation was only around one person related to Viktor Lukashenko. You can seek confirmation from Nick or El C. I was not topic banned, I was banned from editing BLPs see notice. It is difficult to edit Belarus related material without mentioning the president and his actions. It is an authoritarian country. --Jabbi (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose lifting ban and restart 1 year at the conclusion of this thread @Fram: Well done, I say! @Jabbi: You attempted some sort of detour around your TBAN. You created a sneakily article titled about the very subject that merited your TBAN. Your doing so shows a supreme cynicism toward the Community and/or a supreme obsession with Viktor Lukashenko. Clearly, your TBAN must be maintained to prevent disruption. Clearly, you need to let go of this subject and find something else to edit about. Please understand that the TBAN applies to the subjects of Biographies of living people, regardless of how the article is titled. And that it includes writing about the subject anywhere in Wikipedia. (added post reply above) OK. No editing about any living person anywhere on Wikipedia. You violated the TBAN. It must not be lifted. The Wikilawyering is not a good sign. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra Viktor Lukashenko is the son of Alexander which is the president. I have an obsession with neither thank you. There was nothing sneaky about me creating that article, it does not show cynicism. That article title is well documented to be a synonym for Belarus. I have not violated any guidelines. Your comment here is highly misguided. Please point to a violation and explain why it is a violation. The term Europe's last dictatorship refers to a country, not a person. You can seek the confirmation of Robert McClenon if you want. --Jabbi (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In this edit I point out that there's a difference between Europe's last dictatorship and Europe's last dictator and that I support the decision to have the article changed again to a redirect. I have not violated anything. I hope you will reconsider your stance Deepfriedokra --Jabbi (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Girmit Global Museum

    Hello I was recommended to check here to have my page with original submission made available so that I can do the required editing. My draft is athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Girmit_Global_Museum. I also need to know from an administrator why my requester submission was declined. 'Background' & 'History' sections were deleted, here i have used my own words or provided citations. If I don't know what the issue is, I will not be able to do the editing. Also many of my references were removed. If you look at the Wikipedia sited for 'Indo-Fijians' & 'Girmitiyas' some of my references appear here, they are well know publications e.g. Coolitide and Chalo Jahaji (titles). Appreciate your feedback as I have spent much time getting references etc and wish to have the page published soon. Many thanks AwesomeAubergine (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1034359524"