Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive354

This section was originally posted by a fairly new editor at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), but that is clearly not the best place for it, so I am copying it here.

Hello, I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask. According to the block log, the IP range 2401:4900::/32 appears to have been blocked from Wikipedia, with account creation also blocked. According to the WHOIS info and APNIC info, this range is allocated to Airtel India, which is India's 2nd largest mobile ISP with more than 300 million subscribers.

A huge /32 range has been blocked in this case. According to IPv6_address#General_allocation,

This source [1] also seems to show that the 2401:4900::/32 range is essentially the entirety of Airtel's IPv6 range. I was also able to anecdotally confirm this as I had addresses in this range (and was blocked from IP editing) in two cities separated by over 1,600 km in the last week.

Is this massive block really what was intended?

Thanks. NS-Merni (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, NS-Merni, I would have thought that the administrators' noticeboard would be a more appropriate venue for this, as what you are questioning is an administrative action, not a technical issue. Secondly, if you think an administrative action is questionable, almost always the best first step is to consult the administrator in question. Very often the issue can be resolved very easily that way. Thirdly, if, whether for good reasons or not, you do decide to question an administrative action on a noticeboard without consulting the administrator in question then you must at least inform that administrator, which you didn't do. Certes informed me of you post here (for which I am grateful) no doubt because my name appears on the block log as the last administrator to make a change to the block. However, my contribution was just to remove talk page access; apart from that, the present block was imposed by Ad Orientem, and later extended in scope by Drmies, and they need to know about this post. Also, previous blocks on the same IP range had been imposed by the following administrators, who may wish to express opinions: NinjaRobotPirate, Favonian, Daniel Case, Malcolmxl5, and Materialscientist.

As I said, my own contribution was just removal of talk page access, which was because of persistent misuse of talk page editing. A few examples are [2], [3], and [4]]. I think it quite likely that leaving the talk page block in place for a little while and then removing it may well be enough, in the hope that it will be enough to get the disruptive editor in question to stop, and I had that in mind when I removed talk page access.

It is not for me to defend, justify, or explain any other aspect of the block, for which I am not responsible, but I will make a few observations. The scope of this block is certainly unusually large, and I would be very hesitant to impose one like this. However, there certainly has been a considerable amount of unconstructive editing, even via anonymous editing, and from what has been said in the block log it looks as though there has been more via accounts, which is visible only to CheckUsers. The fact that so many different administrators have all thought so wide a block reasonable does suggest that this may be one of the rare occasions when such a large block is justified.

On the general question of anon-only IP range blocks causing collateral damage, as opposed to this particular case, I sincerely have 100% sympathy with innocent editors affected in this way, because way back in the early days of my time as as a Wikipedia editor it happened to me. It was frustrating; it prevented me from doing any editing for a while, until I had got an account. However, I accepted that it was unfortunately made necessary to prevent damage caused by other people, and that sometimes, unfortunately, causing that kind of inconvenience for some legitimate editors is the lesser of two evils. JBW (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello JBW,

As you might see, I have a total of around 30 edits. I have absolutely no idea as to where the proper location for this kind of discussion might be. I was initially planning to post it at Wikipedia:Helpdesk, but decided on posting here as it seemed to be related to "technical" issues. I hope the community will not judge my concern on my procedural mistakes.

I don't know what information administrators or check-users might have with them. But isn't it the case that an IP range of a whole ISP, used by 300 million+ people (even if some of those are companies or duplicate subscribers, say 100 million) would be likely to have hundreds of disruptive editors in any case? If blocking a whole ISP is the only way to resolve this, then why allow IP editing at all?

Please advise me on how to move this discussion to a proper location -- whether that might be one of several admins' talk-pages, or the Administrators Noticeboard.

Thanks. NS-Merni (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@NS-Merni: I see now that you started your post by saying "I'm not sure whether this is the right place to ask". I must have seen that before, but it didn't register on me. Yes of course when we start editing none of us really know our way round Wikipedia, and no new editor can reasonably be blamed for not knowing the best way to do things. Rereading my comments above, I see that the way I expressed myself may have come across as critical, which wasn't what I intended, so I apologise for that. JBW (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Glad that you raised this. My state has 10 crore (100 million) residents as of 2011 census, and my home & college are almost at the two extremes of the state. No matter what network I use (Airtel, Jio, or local broadband service (except BSNL)), and no matter what device I use (mobile, tablet, laptop; mine or family members'), I always end up in a range that is blocked, sometimes even from account creation. Probabilty says that the vast majority cannot edit Wikipedia from at least my state, unless they had an account before the blocks. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Most of what I did was 1) a hard partial block to stop one sock puppet from editing a specific series of pages, or 2) trying to limit collateral damage caused by other admins. I eventually gave up on both. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Any registered account caught behind that range is free to go to WP:IPECPROXY and follow those directions to request IPBE by email, as I have advised hundreds of people over the last year or so requesting unblock for exactly this reason.

We do not do a great job communicating this, however. It boggles me why we don't put this in the message those users see when they try to edit ... it would save a lot of needless work explaining this to everyone who uses the on-wiki unblock process. Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not always possible. On 6 July, I was in the range Special:Contribs/2401:4900:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, which blocked me from even requesting a password reset (VPT discussion). Since account creation is blocked, it is difficult to create an account. Although, my current range is different (on same ISP, same device), it doesn't have account creation restrictions, but is blocked from several namespaces anyway. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You can request IPBE by email through the instructions at the link. You can also request an account be created for you. Daniel Case (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I may be missing something, but I don't see how IPBE would be of any use here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

For registered users, it would be. We get many unblock requests of this type. Daniel Case (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

1500 entries in the CU log since February 2021--I don't think I've ever seen a range that has caused us so much work. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll say this: I didn't need to look anything up before posting this, I recognise that range strait off the bat because it so frequently crops up in cases of abuse. I'm not saying that I endorse the block, exactly - I haven't looked into the specifics - but it might well deserve the award for the most often-abused range in the world. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

If NS-merni is correct that it represents the entire Airtel IP range, then huge abuse is expectable, because Airtel is the 2nd largest internet provider in India, which is now the most populous country of the world. Not that I blame admins for this, I myself have led to the block of some Indian ranges due to persistent abuse. Just that better technical solutions will be appreciable. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

From your lips to God's ears. The Admin corp and CU team would love something other than blunt and broken cudgels to curb abuse.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

If only Airtel would split that range up into chunks. It's not completely unique, but you don't see very many ranges as wide as that one that just bounce users around randomly across the entire range. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

What all data is collected from users besides IP? Any sort of device data? So, blocks can be applied on a per device basis rather than on an entire range with several users. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

We do not have the ability to narrow down blocks based on device data.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And I can see why it would not be a good idea. It would mean either having to have all admins sign an NDA (which means identifying themselves to the Foundation) in which they agree to keep confidential all those fields (and whether that work is uncertain; a few dozen or so Checkusers can keep that secret but can a few hundred admins?) or resigning ourselves to letting it become public knowledge and making it at least a little easier for determined sockmasters to evade (granted, in that case they get so confident that the behavioral evidence usually makes up for their technical prowess). I could *see* perhaps limiting this ability to Checkusers, but we'd probably have to take on more.

There has been some discussion of allowing the same sort of screening adjustments in blocking IPs/ranges that we currently allow in protection, i.e., hardblocks that would allow autoconfirmed, or extended confirmed, accounts through if desired. Something to take up at the next Community Wishlist Survey on Meta. Daniel Case (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

If device data were/is collected, there could be some automated process that filters a blocked IP range's edit by devices, visible to CUs, but not admins or others. If most disruptive edits emanate from one or two devices, they could apply a device-block on them leaving the rest of range open to editing. To the public, the device can be identified by a set of random letters, which is something, I believe, the WMF is working on. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

That information is confidential for what should be obvious reasons. Daniel Case (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am not unsympathetic to the inconvenience being caused by such a wide-ranging block. However, I am at loss as to how else to curb what appears to be a shocking level of disruption all emanating from the range. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
• It would be very helpful if the ISP were to suballocate into smaller ranges, but we can't exactly control that decision, and it's actually probably not a bad design decisions as far as user privacy is concerned. That being said, while we're not blocking the ISP in its entirety with the block mentioned above, and while the ISP also owns other large ranges, it doesn't look like many of those ranges are actually used for IPv6 traffic. For example, Special:Contribs/2404:A800:0000:0:0:0:0:0/32 appears to have made all of two edits to Wikipedia ever, while the other /32s of that /30 have not made any contributions that I can see.
  This sort of hard blocking is (if I recall correctly) also how we deal with T-mobile ranges in the East of the United States. The devices within T-Mobile's ranges are extremely dynamic (and WP:T-MOBILE indicates that they can be gamed), because T-mobile is more or less providing all of its users with a proxy service. We're not dealing with a proxy provider here, but if the IPs are dynamic enough, I don't exactly see anything different in terms of how that would hamper our ability to identify individuals who are conducting abuse.
  We've had issues where we've had entire countries coming through very narrow ranges (or even single IPs, such as Qatar). We generally handled Qatar with short-duration (1 day or so) blocks whenever vandalism was getting really bad, but that had much less traffic than does this /32. Given some LTA(s) within the /32's propensity for spam and mass account creation, I don't think we can treat this range like we did the entire country of Qatar; we'd be opening up windows for account creation shortly after each block expires, and we'd need to block the range much more frequently.
  Obviously, we're going to have to accept a large amount of abuse if we're dealing with a range that has 300 million+ people randomly bouncing around it (the range would likely have nearly the same spam/LTA/vandalism output as the entire United States due to sheer size). The whole range having been checked 1500 times in the past 2.5 years means that it was checked (on average) about 1.7 times per day. And if/when IP masking happens, this is going to be infinitely harder and more time-consuming to deal with should the range be unblocked.
  Has anybody considered asking the WMF to try to get into contact with Airtel India about this issue of ongoing abuse? This seems like a problem that Mediawiki doesn't give us a good solution for, but I imagine the ISP could identify and nip the spammers/LTAs in the bud if they wanted to. It might be worth looking into if our only other feasible option is to resort to blocking the range from making accounts and/or editing anonymously.
  — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The TWL aspect of this can be addressed by emailing wikipedialibrarywikimedia.org. As to the rest, @Vlaemink: If you again comment on this particular CLEANSTART anywhere on the English Wikipedia, I am going to siteblock you indefinitely. While that would not be an "appeal only to ArbCom" block, please note that, per policy, if you wished to appeal based on off-wiki information, that would have to be to ArbCom. (The same goes for appeals of your current partial block.) Furthermore, it is my finding that your usage of the RogerDE account served to evade scrutiny and thus violated our sockpuppetry policy. Please disclose the connection between the accounts on its userpage if you wish to use it in the future; if you use it again without doing so, I will treat that as sockpuppetry and block accordingly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello all, For over a month now I've been finding myself in an increasingly kafkaesque predicament concerning a single-page block. I've tried to resolve the situation by way of the regular unblock-procedure but it regrettably came to a procedural standstill, which is why I have now turned to the Administrators' noticeboard in the hope that the matter can be solved here instead. On the 12th of June, I asked another user (with whom I had already had prior, and rather negative, interactions on Dutch Wikipedia) about whether he or she made use of sock puppets here [8] as well as tampering with sources [9]. I had suspicions about the existence of alternative accounts for some time, as this involved a rather activist single-issue editor who clearly knew how Wikipedia worked despite being seemingly new to the project. I used the Editor Interaction Analyser tool on the sole article this user edits and it correlated with another account, which I then checked out. It's hard to explain while remaining purposely vague, but the users username (in Dutch) directly referred to a village some of whose inhabitants are known to make a rather fringe claim of being the supposed place of birth of a renowned 15th century painter, which he/she had done on Dutch Wikipedia previously. I discovered that the account that came up in the Editor Interaction Analyser had made similar claims here on the English Wikipedia and used a username which uses a dialectal term for a small forest animal corresponding to the particular dialect spoken in the aforementioned village. I understand if this kind of 'logic' is rather hard to follow for English-speakers, but it's as if two users, one named "New Yorker" and other named "Fuhgeddaboudit", both made the claim that the "New York Yankees won the '55 world series on two different Wikipedia projects. I asked the user about this and they confirmed that these accounts were indeed operated by the same person. [10]. He/She claimed that an alternative account had been created to avoid being harassed by a user who, in their words, had since left Wikipedia. I thanked the user for confirming the sock puppet and, after mentioned that there didn't seem to be any harassment of the account and that I found it strange that the old account purportedly abandoned due to harassment by another user was still actively being used, left it at that. It is at this point, where things go south, because the user then contacted administrators claiming that he/she had been outed and harassed by me and that this was related to an ArbCom case on Dutch Wikipedia. As a result I got an indefinite partial block, being unable to edit this particular users' talk page. Now I want to state very clearly, as I have done before [11], that I do not blame the administrators for their initial reaction. I fully understand that if a user comes to you for help with something as serious as outing, they have to act quickly and rigorously. I also understand, that administrators here do not always have the time and/or means to get to the bottom of the nature of Arbcom cases or other running conflicts on other Wikipedias prior to issuing blocks here. I also have to admit that, although I very much disagreed with the rationale given for the block ("Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: related to ArbCom case on nlwiki"), I initially wasn't particularly concerned with it as it only pertained to a single user talk page and thought the matter wasn't worth pursuing further. However, I then found out that this block directly affected my access to the Wikipedia Library Project. I use this open source collection of academic sources on linguistics and history constantly for finding sources and references to accompany my edits, but as long as I am blocked here (even if it only concerns a single page), I am forbidden of accessing and using the Wikipedia Library Project. This was the main reason for me to appeal the block on the 16th of June. In my unblock-request I also tried to prove that I had been incorrectly (at least in my opinion) branded as a doxer and harasser. I explained that I did not out this user (that is, I didn't publish a name/address/personal details or anything similar) and that it was in fact me, who requested the Arbcom-case on Dutch Wikipedia against this and another user for seriously disruptive behavior there; and not the other way around. I also attempted to defend myself against the harassment charge. While I was successfully able to argue that no outing had taken place, the topic of harassment proved more difficult. English is not my first language and I think the subsequent misunderstanding concerning my intentions while discussing this point shows this. On the request of the two administrators involved, I reworded my initial reaction on the 19th of June. I politely asked them to respond to this newly formulated reply on July 6th but I did not receive a reply and the unblock-request was declined pro forma on the 26th of July for being open longer than two weeks. I would therefore kindly like the administrators here to again review this case. As stated before, I would very much like to be "rehabilitated" when it comes to the charges of outing and harassment, but my main concern is having access to the Wikipedia Library Project again. If the lifting of this partial block is dependent on me promising to not edit this page again, I will of course agree to this as already mentioned in the original unblock-request on my talk page. I have never been blocked before and am a serious editor on multiple Wikipedia projects. I hope you can help me. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Vlaemink - it's worth noting that the Wikimedia Library does make case by case exceptions for Library access not being affected by partial blocks/bans. Can't recall the exact procedure but @Samwalton9 (WMF): is the person to ask. Obviously that can stand alone from this thread, but given your phrasing it felt worth pointing out to you as an additional route. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Nosebagbear is right! Per the note you should see when attempting to log in to the library, you can drop us an email at wikipedialibrarywikimedia.org and we'll review this. Partial blocks are quite a common reason for us to give users exemptions to the block criterion. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) This. So you can use TWL is not a reason for unblock. — xaosflux Talk 14:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Vlaemink - on your talk page, I see a discussion with Seraphimblade and Primefac, where they seem to be very clearly telling you to stop posting about the connection between the two accounts because the new account had been made to escape harassment of the former account. Yet here you are, posting the connection between the accounts (anyone who follows your diffs will see it) at one of the most public noticeboards on the project. I appreciate the predicament you are in, but after so many warnings I'm concerned that the only way to get you to stop doing this is to indefinitely site-block your account (followed by deleting and supressing this thread). Girth Summit (blether) 09:59, 27 July 2023 (UTC) For what it's worth, what needed to be suppressed has been suppressed (i.e. information that goes above simply linking the two accounts). As you indicate, I find that this continued "but I was right!" cry is missing the entire point that it wasn't the account-matching, but rather the continued regurgitation of that information, that is the problem here. Primefac (talk) 10:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Girth Summit: I'm very sorry, but I don't know how I can possible address this issue without mentioning the reason for my single-page block. I've tried with this post to make the wording as opaque as possible, as I tried with with my second reply to Seraphimblade and Primefac on my talk page after they told me not to mention the other account.[12] but never got a responds; which is why I came here. I did not come here to spread any information about these two accounts being linked in the most public way possible, I really didn't! I just don't know how to properly explain my situation in a way that doesn't touch on the subject. It's almost impossible to defend myself in any other way. I beg you to look simply at the facts, because what's happening here is not right. The administrators involved (including you just now) assume that the claim of the user of being harassed in the past is an established fact, but it is not. I understand why they and now you got angry with me for mentioning the alternative account, because you assume that the user was indeed harassed and that my mentioning of the accounts can potentially tip of the harasser to resume their harassment of the user. I understand that this is unwanted behavior and I understand that it then makes me look ignoble to then continue to mention it elsewhere (I only did so on my own talk page and here, by the way) but the premise is a false one: there appears to have been no harassment to begin with. It's the user with the alternative account who claimed to have been harassed by a previous user (not me, someone else) and having to make a new account because of this, but while the claim of harassment was made it was never substantiated by the user making the claim in any way. I don't know if there were harassing edits in the past have since been deleted by administrators and is invisible to regular users (I think you can verify this), but based on the visible edit-history of the account it does not show any harassment taking place. Even the person who supposedly harassed him, is unknown. The initial account has very few edits (under 50) so it can easily be verified I'm speaking the truth here. The user also continued to use both accounts, the new one and the one supposedly subjected to harassment to the point of requiring an alternative identity -- which also goes against his claims. He made a claim of harassment and the administrators went with it. Again, I do not blame them for this; harassment and doxing is real and destructive and I understand why anyone claiming this would be given the benefit of the doubt, I also understand why the administrators who handled my unblock request got angry with me because I (in my ignorance, not in an attempt to spread the information about the two accounts further) repeated what I had said on his talk page (using diffs, that were/are still available) because they assumed that this was an harassed user who sought safety by creating an alternative account. I understand all of that, but in this case the claim of harassment was merely a ruse. I don't care about linking these two user accounts, I care about being able to access the Wikipedia Library Project and having my name cleared. So please, permanently delete every edit on this page, my talk page or his mentioning these two accounts if you still think what I'm doing is completely unacceptable; but please also allow me to protest my innocence. If it preferred that I e-mail the administrators, I will do so and this post can be deleted straight away, but I don't know any other alternative to defend myself in this matter. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Primefac: I'm very sorry, but there were/are no edits of mine which went beyond the linking of the accounts. I have never posted personal information of this user (I have none) anywhere. Nothing I have ever posted on this user has gone beyond what I have written here and on my talk page. I've purposely avoided to mention the name of the alternative account here, and while I did mention it on my own talk page I quoted myself from diffs still available. If the controversial information got deleted and I'm only repeating the still available diffs, then I don't understand. I don't understand what you mean with "continued regurgitation of that information" when that information has not been deleted/found problematic. Vlaemink (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC) First, yes, you did post personal information about them, which has since been removed and suppressed. Second, the entire reason why they started a new account was to avoid harassment. You have now, in four different locations, made the very connection which they have been trying to avoid. A clean start is not a "get out of jail free" card, and users must still abide by the rules about socking and multiple accounts, but in this case they have done that and all you have done is say "HEY LOOK, THEY HAD AN OLD ACCOUNT WHICH THEY ABANDONED BECAUSE OF HARASSMENT!". Your point was made the first time you commented, and repeatedly bringing it up (and now, as mentioned, in the worst forum possible) is above and beyond what was strictly necessary. You are continually trying to justify your actions by saying "I was right". Sure, you were right, but you have been going about it in entirely the wrong way. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Primefac: I'm sorry, but I really did not post any personal information. I don't know anything about this person! The only thing I posted that could be construed as personal information, is that in linking the two accounts I voiced the assumption that (Redacted). If that is what you are referring to by referencing personal details, then yes, I did that; but I vehemently deny have posted any personal details, names, addresses, age, work or whatever else in relation to this user. Like I said, I don't know who this person is, at all. Please read what I wrote here. I'm not trying to be right, I'm trying to get access to the Wikipedia Library and clear my name. Please look into the account which was claimed to have been abandoned because of supposed harassment. You'll find that you and the other two administrators' good faith was abused. There was no harassment to begin with. A spiteful user created a fable because someone disagreed with him on an article talk page and found his sock puppet and lied to administrators. Yes I might formulate my posts stupidly from times to times or lack the proficiency to express myself in the best way possible, but that lie us what has ultimately caused all this. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 11:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict × responding to first para) Yes, I am, and clearly they do not want this information on Wikipedia because that is what kicked off this entire situation. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Just as a procedural note, I have let Seraphimblade and Daniel Case know about this thread. Primefac (talk) 11:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC) @Primefac: I'm sorry, but is that reasonable? Is it reasonable for a user named "New Yorker" to not want people to make the assumption that he or she is from New York? More importantly though, I'd like to stress that I didn't mention the town name in my second reply to you and Seraphimblade or here, and hence only did so once. I did not go around and spread my assumption that this user was from a particular place. I also did not go around writing "HEY LOOK, THEY HAD AN OLD ACCOUNT WHICH THEY ABANDONED BECAUSE OF HARASSMENT!" that's a caricature and not even an apt one. I claimed multiple times on two locations, here and my talk page, that I did not intend to harass anyone, that the information I repeated was publicly available (ie. not purged) and that the initial claim of the additional account having been made and the initial one supposedly abandoned because of harassment was a false one. I also never attacked anyone personally, which is also in the block rationale. This is what happened: A user, with whom I had a content-related dispute and pending Arbcom case (on my request) on Dutch Wikipedia, had made a dubious use of a particular reference. I addressed this on their talk page. Not long afterwards, I added an inquiry about whether (s)he and another account were in fact the same user. I provided a rationale for my suspicions, which included no personal information at all, beyond an assumption about a village linked to the user due to this village being mentioned in their username (i.e. "User: New Yorker") The user confirmed that the two accounts were indeed theirs, claiming that they had been forced to make a new account due to harassment by another user some time ago. I replied that this rationale seemed to be dubious given that no evidence of prior harassment could be found in the initial accounts very limited (< 50) contributions and due to the account remaining active alongside the new account; i.e. no "fresh start". I then did not pursue the matter further. The user then, by falsely accusing me of outing, personal attacks and harassment, contacted the administrators. In doing so, they falsely claimed that they had been outed, they falsely claimed to have been subject to personal attacks and they slyly and falsely used a fabricated backstory of prior harassment, whereby my discovery of the linked accounts would supposedly put a (non-existing) harasser back on their trail. I was then immediately blocked from editing this users talk page. I contacted the administrators via an unblock request when I discovered this one page block made it impossible for me to access the Wikipedia Library Project (WLP). The administrators who responded to my request, and understandably but mistakenly assumed that the users claim and fears about being revealed to their harasser were genuine, i.e. they assumed that harassment by another user had indeed taken place in the past and that by referencing the discovery of the two accounts being linked, I was (willfully) opening this user to more abuse. I explained on my talk page that this was not my intention at all and that my only concern was getting access to the WLP again and (later) with clearing my name. I signaled from the very start, that I did not mind not being allowed to edit this users' talk page and would gladly refrain from doing so in the future, should they request or demand this from me. For over a month I received no reply. When my unblock request was declined for administrative reasons (i.e. not receiving a reply/no decision being reached) I tried to explain my predicament on the Administrators noticeboard in the hope of receiving help. The cycle (and I'm sure this is partly due to me not presenting my case perfectly) appears to repeat itself, with an administrator again assuming that the supposed harassment by another user was real and that hence the very attempt to explain is harassment, even though I'm merely desperately trying to explain that I did not disclose personal information (per WP:Outing) to begin with and that no prior harassment of this user by another user took place either -- and hence I couldn't be endangering him by mentioning his double accounts. Again, I'm not blaming any of the administrators for this, they were lied to and/or had to act quickly. But please, look at this case now and see it for what it is. This is not about me willfully attempting to stop another user from making a fresh start (there was no fresh start, the accounts were used simultaneously) or outing them (I know nothing about this person save for what is clearly and obviously stated in their username and even that is merely speculation). I just want to be able to edit Wikipedia (not just this one) with the Wikipedia Library and clear my name. Vlaemink (talk) 12:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Adding: I noticed you (I'm assuming Primefac) have redacted part of my post above. I don't think that's very fair, because it now makes it look as if I disclosed something very personal there, which I did not, but I also think it's a prime example of what I meant by the Kafkaesque nature of all of this: I gave the analogy of having assumed town a user was from, the same way one could/would assume a user named "New Yorker" would be from New York. You redacted that, fine ... but "New Yorker" is still his username. Anyone from Belgium will still be able to discern or assume she/he is from "New York". I mean, what are we doing here? This is what I meant when I asked what is reasonable to expect in this matter. Isn't this going beyond that? Is it really reasonable for a user called "New Yorker" to want no reference made anyone to the possibility that he or she is from New York? Is it reasonable to block someone for doing so in order to defend/explain themselves? Vlaemink (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Perhaps I'm missing something, but I really don't see what Vlaemink did so terribly wrong here in connecting the two accounts? The lead of WP:CLEANSTART statesThe old account must be clearly discontinued and the new account must avoid editing patterns or behaviors that would allow other users to recognize and identify the account. It is expected that the new account will be a true "fresh start", will edit in new areas, will avoid old disputes, and will follow community norms of behavior. and the entire section "Returning to previous articles and topics" warns that going back to your favourite articles will result in the accounts being connected. Briegelaer uses a similar username to their abandoned account and went straight back to the same articles they were previously editing, it's hardly surprising that someone noticed they were the same person. Vlaemink themselves seems to be misusing multiple accounts, RogerDE (talk · contribs) was created by Vlaemink as a "privacy" account and immediately proceeded to head off to the same article Vlaemink was editing, with Briegelaer noticing that they were the same person and connecting the accounts [13]. Getting involved in the same drama with a new account as your old one is not a valid clean start or privacy alt. I think both editors need to read WP:CLEANSTART and WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. If you're being harassed and want to start over you need to put some effort into making it non-obvious that you're the same person - you should use a completely different username avoid immediately editing the same articles you used to frequent. If you get involved in a dispute with someone you cannot create a "clean start account" or a "privacy alt" and re-join the editing as a new person - that is sock puppetry. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Just a minor note, when I created RogerDE (talk · contribs) (indeed intended to edit an article in peace after previous harassing by Briegelaer) I only did so, as he and another user had been wikihounding my edits. When I did this, I indicated right from the start [14], that this was an alternative account and used it to edit an article I had never edited before. Also, for those interested in cycling, the name wasn't very subtle: Roger de Vlaeminck. I managed to get in two edits before being 'outed' by the two I sought to avoid, and it has been a redirect to my original user page ever since. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC) The way that I see the situation is that you got involved in a dispute on the Dutch Wikipedia regarding the "Limburgish" article which made it all the way to Dutch Arbcom. You created a "clean start privacy account" and used it to edit the same articles on a different language project, and ended up getting involved in the same disputes with the same users. That does not look like a valid clean start or a valid use of a privacy alt, it looks to me like you avoiding scrutiny. If you wanted a privacy alt account you could use to edit without risk of running into Briegelaer you should have been avoiding topics that you knew they edited in where you previously ran into conflict. I recommended that you both read the policies on clean starting and appropriate uses of multiple accounts because in my opinion a lot of the behaviour by you two is getting very close to sock puppetry. Both of you seem to have got involved in drama related to the article on the Limbugish language on various projects, "clean started" then instantly gotten into the same drama again. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC) (edit conflict) 15.238 makes an interesting note, but I'm also a little confused reviewing. Are we indicating that if Vlaemink had not duplicated pairing the accounts after the first instance, they wouldn't have the PBAN? I get their concern that making an actual appeal (as opposed to an unblock request) without bringing up the basis for it is seriously tricky. They are entitled to pursue such a route - normally on-wiki pairing that someone figured out purely from on-wiki information is not normally restricted. If we don't want them to pursue this route because we'd like the appeal in private, perhaps we should ask arbcom to handle it as a private motion. Their sharing of info which is now surpressed could make it so that even if the other aspects are successfully appealed the sanction should remain. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) I suppose the IP is probably right about it not being a particularly smart move to edit that particular article with an alternative account, though I would like to emphasis that I did not do this to avoid scrutiny but rather to edit that particular article without being wikihounded/harassed. I know it's being the scope of this inquiry to include the (still pending) Arbcom case on Dutch Wikipedia (which I requested myself, red.) but a rather big part of it concerns the lack of respect WP:Cite and dubious use of sources. I very much stand on proper source use and using references, which is why the access to the Wikipedia Library Project is so important to me. @Nosebagbear: Thank you for tersely summarizing the conundrum I've found myself in, I'm very wordy myself. Vlaemink (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Vlaemink, you keep using the analogy of New York. The location you name dropped is in the ballpark of 5-10 thousand times smaller than NY. Citing New York & New Yorker is a grossly disingenuous comparison. Access to the Wikipedia Library is only given to users in good standing. Fudging the question of your good behaviour just in order to regain your access to TWL is approaching the question from completely the wrong angle. Cabayi (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In that case I will contact the Arbcom as soon as I am able to do so. As mentioned on this page, my alternative account already redirects to my main account. I have used it for no more than two edits in the past and I do not intent to use it in the future. I will also contact the Wikipedia Library Project as mentioned earlier, I sorry @Samwalton9 (WMF): I completely missed your comment. Vlaemink (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Can someone please merge the articles that were proposed? It’s been a while since closed and none actioned so far.108.58.27.76 (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can merge the articles, ideally some of the people who took part in the discussion. It's not something that requires an administrator. There is quite a backlog of articles to be merged, so it may be a while before someone else can take care of it. Joyous! Noise! 20:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• MKL123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Problematic user? I don't know but this user in his edits tends to add stats on stats and interviews on interviews. This is not a website stats and an interview website either, rather a simple Encyclopedia. Plus, he tends to add <ref> link </ref>. This is not how it should be. Island92 (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Island92: First, please notify MKL of this thread, as is required. Second, a complaint or concern about another editor's conduct should be accompanied with evidence, usually in the form of relevant diffs. Both of these things are noted in the bright orange editnotice when you notice this page.

Now, as to the merits (based on what I can see in MKL's contribs, since you've not pointed to any particular edits) your concerns seem to be regular content/style concerns. Bare-link references are discouraged but not on their own disruptive. Whether information like this merits inclusion is subjective, and should be discussed on talkpages.

On the other hand, MKL has made over 3,000 edits and literally never edited their talkpage. In fact, they've only made 63 edits outside of mainspace. So that's not great, and maybe, once you notify MKL as required, they can address that apparent communication issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I would like the paragraph in the history section of the page to be restructured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicktoons_(European_TV_channel)

65.92.90.228 (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

how would yoy like it restructured? Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so please feel free to be bold and make the changes yourself! Or you can suggest changes on the article talk page. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 00:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

124.168.45.118 has made a series of stats changes citing a website. The url leads just to a download I did not complete. Unsure what this is, but thought I'd raise here in case it should be revdelled. CMD (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: It's just a mostly empty html file. It has php code in it, but I guess their server isn't setup correctly, so it's not working. Currently, it's not harmful, but could be if they fix it. Closhund/talk/ 06:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I did find this page at the site, which is what I think the IP was trying to cite, although that page does not have any statistics by country. I was unable to locate any other pages at that site (none of the presumed links work). It appears to be a blog, and the comments on that page are eleven years old. Obviously not an RS. - Donald Albury 17:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• Mmd1193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure how this noticeboard thing works quite yet, but can we please have a look at this user? He/She keeps removing sourced content from articles mainly List of United States wireless communications service providers and also the pages for AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile US. I have warned them multiple times now about removing or changing sourced content and they keep changing it, with outdated information. I am thinking they might be an employee or really big fan of one of the companies in relation to these articles. Completely Random Guy (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist today for 24 hours for harassment. I think this should stay open, however, since harassment and a block that is about to expire do not address Completely Random Guy's concerns. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know. This case is complicated by the fact despite Completely Random Guy saying "I have warned them multiple times now about removing or changing sourced content and they keep changing it", this never actually happened. There have been no talk page posts related to this dispute either on Mmd1193's talk page or the article talk pages by Completely Random Guy related to these disputes. I'm not counting edit summaries which it's well accepted is a way to offer a brief explanation of your edits, but is not a way to talk to another editor. The first person to actually warn Mdm1193 was Untamed1910 after this thread had started [15], probably partly in response to this thread since Untamed1910 also gave them the compulsory notification that Completely Random Guy failed to give [16]. Of course Mdm1193's response to someone finally actually warning them was completely inappropriate [17] but they've been blocked for that. While the response also makes one wonder if they will actually change their behaviour, perhaps the block will be enough to convince them they need to change. Either way, I think this is an important reminder that edit summaries is not the way you warn or talk to another editor. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey sorry for the delay in getting back, through edit summaries of my reverts I warned the user many times about removing unsourced content. I didn't realize it should be a talk page discussion rather than an edit summary. I apologize! Completely Random Guy (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I've extended the block to indefinite. I don't think anyone who attempts to make an edit like this will be a productive contributor. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Odds of productivity after that is about zero. Courcelles (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Due to personal issues, I do not appear to be active on Wikipedia this year as much as in previous years. So, could an administrator please remove all of my user rights except for extendedconfirmed? Also, please remove my username from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPageJSON. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Done for the rights. Thanks for your diligence. Courcelles (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

My username is still listed at the AWB check page. Could some administrator please remove my username from the check page? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Deor (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Paradise Chronicle

I've been talking to Global Salmon Initiative on their talk page. Obviously the username is an issue, but that appears to be heading for a resolution. As I've talked to them about COI I've realized that, while I do not have a direct COI myself here, as an Alaskan I have pretty strong feelings about farmed -vs- wild caught salmon. I feel like everything I've said to them so far was within reason but I don't want my judgement to be clouded by my personal feelings as I feel like I'm probably talking to a PR person for Big Salmon. Thanks in advance. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

<To the tune of 'Big Bad John'> 🎶 "...Big Sal—mon... Big Bad Salmon!" 🎵 SN54129 16:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Incredibly helpful response. Non-Admin comment, clearly. Good grief. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Swastika image being used on Childish Gambino's redbone single page 124.254.96.90 (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Some troll is adding swastikas to various articles and user pages using a variety of IP addresses. I got a swastika link on my talk page a few minutes ago. Cullen328 (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nazi flag. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that ToBeFree (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.

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 e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § ToBeFree promoted to full clerk

This talk page, where non-admin closures at CfD are listed for processing at WP:CFDW, has become backlogged. Any admin is invited to move the listed procedures to WP:CFDW, where they will be processed by a bot. Be sure to collapse the processed requests. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It has come to my attention today that I was the subject of a post on this notice board on July 21 [20]. I would like clarifications on policies.

1. Is WikiProject the correct place to reverse longstanding consensus rather than article talk page? Is it acceptable to "sneak through" a new consensus on a WikiProject with no note, no notification, no reminder on article talk pages that said discussion is secretly taking place on WikiProject? Shouldn't the point of Wikipedia:Consensus be allowing as many lay editors to participate as possible rather than being held in virtual smoke-filled room? Are all of these behaviors above-board or violations of Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Tag team? I earnestly raised all these questions in my last edit [21] on WikiProject:Golf, but no one has given an answer to this day and instead I was arbitrarily blocked. As I wrote in WikiProject: Golf, it isn't a requirement to join WikiProject:Golf to be allowed to edit golf-related articles, but how are lay editors like myself supposed to participate in consensus-building if they're all done in WikiProject rather than the broad daylight of article talk pages? I wouldn't have even responded on WikiProject:Golf that day if I weren't tagged because I wouldn't know a discussion about myself was taking place. In fact, I wouldn't even be writing on this board if I didn't get a notification when I logged in.

2. I was arbitrarily blocked for 48 hours while I was away, despite another administrator User:SarekOfVulcan wanting to hear from me before any action was taken. Furthermore, the editor who aggressively edit-warred with me User:Wjemather was not sanctioned, even though he abused his automated rollback privilege in a content dispute [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] and refused to engage in any discussion on article talk pages. How is this fair and proportional? Perhaps I should've been less aggressive in restoring the removed content, but User:Wjemather was equally aggressively in edit-warring and even abused his automated rollback privilege. Therefore, I don't understand why I was sanctioned and he was not. I was under the impression that Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is normal. I posted numerous notes on article talk pages [27] [28] [29] [30] [31], but he flat out refused to discuss on article talk pages and continued to be intransigent even on his home turf WikiProject:Golf [32]. Even User:Phinumu, who reported me to this board, expressed misgivings about Wjemather's Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND attitude [33]. As SarekOfVulcan pointed out, consensus can change. Moreover, as I wrote earlier, using WikiProject rather than article talk pages to alter longstanding consensus is underhanded and reeks of canvassing.

3. User:Girth Summit posted on my personal talk page that someone (not her) falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet and having links with the late Muammar Gaddafi. This is beyond the pale and flat-out bullying. They are trying to throw the book at me for daring to question their golf WikiProject and see what sticks. From what I can gather, User:IceFrappe, User:Skitash, among others have contributed to many articles on Arab nationalism and the Maghreb in the year of 2023. I assume they are also Arab like myself. However, it is irresponsible and frankly reeks of racism to accuse all of us being the same person.

I must apology in advance for the awkward English; it is not my primary language. Jamahiriya (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

With respect to my use of rollback, see WP:ROLLBACKUSE #5. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, inflammatory comments on article talk pages are not an invitation to collegial discussion. They were also inaccurate as it was User:Nigej who did most of the work in originally removing these tables in accordance with the consensus established and reaffirmed through several discussions. As you were advised, one individual does not get to unilaterally overturn consensus (without discussion) just because they don't like it and reject the centralised venue (a perfectly normal process when dozens of articles are involved) where discussions were held. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to confirm that it was me that deleted most of the "past champions" sections. See eg Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf/Archive 16#Nationalities in the field which shows that was not some whim on my part but part of a consensus at WT:GOLF that they should be deleted. Nigej (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

On point 3, this is my post on the OP's talk, I make no mention of links to Gaddafi. I left it with regard to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IceFrappe. No further comment on this from me, aside from the comments I made in that SPI case. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Nor does the SPI accuse Jamahiriya (or IceFrappe) of having links to Gaddafi. It notes that both have created articles on cousins of Gaddafi, which is objectively true, and states that they have both edited Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, which is also objectively true and easily verifiable by the diffs included in the SPI report. Unless we are suggesting that "edited articles related to the Gaddafi family" is "links to Gaddafi", there is no accusation of links to Gaddafi that I can see in the SPI report. (Nor, so far as I can see, is there any accusation in GS's talkpage post or the SPI case that Skitash has any connection to either Jamahiriya or IceFrappe) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I was arbitrarily blocked for 48 hours while I was away, despite another administrator User:SarekOfVulcan wanting to hear from me before any action was taken. This is misleading. The ANI discussion can be found here. The sequence of events is: Jamarihiya reported for edit warring; Star Mississippi pblocks them for 48 hours from article space and says they will take no further action; SarekOfVulcan replies to Star Mississippi saying that they "suggest no further action be taken until we get a response from Jamahiriya". Contrary to the impression that Jamahiriya gives in this AN post, Star Mississippi's block was not going against SarekOfVulcan's suggestion; SOV's suggestion was regarding any action further to SM's block. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Your reading of WP:CONSENSUS is correct in that backroom "consensus" created on a WikiProject talk page is meaningless. Editors have been topic banned in the past for acting like WikiProjects have authority over articles. There's debate over whether selective WikiProject notifications amount to canvassing, and it largely depends on context. But you were not blocked arbitrarily, you were blocked for WP:edit warring. Your messages were also hostile and accusatory, so it's not surprising if someone chose not to respond. I probably wouldn't have responded to your talk page posts either. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As regards point 1, it seems to me that where an issue covers many hundreds or thousands of articles it is impractical to discuss them individually on talk pages. They needs to be some central place for these issues to be discussed. In this case there is a long-standing consensus that WP:GOLF is a suitable place. The idea that this is some sort of secret place where such issues are decided, is complete nonsense. Every article here is part of WP:GOLF. Nigej (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

As noted above, WikiProjects do not have authority over articles. You can discuss things there, and then apply bold changes based on what's discussed. But ultimately, people not involved in the project and contributors to individual articles have a voice too and if there is disagreement over issues at any individual article then those must be resolved at the talk page, there's no magic trump card to apply a WikiProject rule there.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is claiming wikiproject superpowers. All that is being said is that WT:GOLF was, and remains, the logical venue for a centralised discussion impacting a large number of closely related golf tournament articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 00:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

No one's claiming some sort of veto for WikiProjects, just that it's a sensible place for discussions for issues relating to multiple articles. There was no attempt here to contravene any Wikipedia policy or guideline, just an issue of whether certain content was suitable or not. In this case I accept that my edit summary: "remove champions in the field section" was not the best, I should have mentioned the discussion at WT:GOLF. In theory it would be possible to add talk page sections linking to WT:GOLF discussions but where there are hundreds/thousands of articles my experience is that this is rarely done. Nigej (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

That can be an appropriate place to hold an RfC, if it was tagged as an RfC and the talkpages of affected articles were notified. Otherwise, people who work on a few articles but aren't involved in the wikiproject in general would have no way of knowing that it was even happening. A discussion taking place on WT:GOLF that lasts less than 22 hours with 4 participants is not a valid consensus to enforce on hundreds of articles like that. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, when so little time is given to participate in such a discussion, it results in a lot of potential problems with articles where good faith edits from anonymous or newer contributors can be batted down through a localized consensus. I've seen multiple times when Wikiproject users use "we discussed it, we reached a consensus, it's not our fault you didn't participate" as a justification for doing so, and it's rubbish. Many contributors don't know what Wikiprojects are or what purpose they serve, nor do they always have time to go out of their way and seek them out. I agree that the talkpages of the relevant articles need to be pinged. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 23:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

However the issue here is that these sections were all added without discussions, they were then all deleted (albeit many years later). Per WP:BRD another discussion might well have been in order but User:Jamahiriya simply embarked on a mass revert of the deletions without any attempt at any discussion on the issue anywhere. His only edits to talk pages were to complain about 3RR infringements. Nigej (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That sort of behavior certainly isn't meritorious either, but remember that here at AN, or at ANI, the conduct of all parties involved are observed. There is nothing wrong with looking at ways to improve the process and editing atmosphere in addition to correcting the problems caused by a user that engages in edit wars. Just as WP:BRD has its limits, so too does WP:CONLEVEL need to be observed. You are not required to start an RfC each time you're trying to reach a consensus on a particular matter affecting multiple articles, but you do need to at a minimum loop in the talkpages of those articles affected. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The biography for Juan Branco has been plagued by mass changes, sockpuppets, and single purpose editors over the last month. I came to the article via RfC, but it's been super difficult to keep things under control. Any assistance to help with the disruptions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please! Nemov and me disagree and I totally would like more users to intervene so that I can let this article alone. Delfield (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

Hello, I want to file a report on User:Kshatriya Yoddha, who apparently called me a racial slur on his talkpage. Apparently I was in an edit war with the user before, but today was the day where they took the situation very far.

This is the comment the user made to me: "Cope harder sub-narmada pajeet... and sulk when you see a tall, fair, handsome north-Indian munda flex his muscles infront of mallu and tulu chicks... should i send u a fair&lovely... will help u :)"

This is the link to the user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha

The link to the comment is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kshatriya_Yoddha&diff=prev&oldid=1169306784 and I believe this is the current version of their talkpage. In case they made have edited it, this link will provide the evidence.

If this issue doesn't concern you, I would like to know who may it concern so I can proceed with my report. No2WesternImperialism (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• The user has been blocked indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for Бучач-Львів. --Jphwra (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking for an administrator to take a look at Draft:Lil tay and see what can be done surrounding the concern I added to the talk page:

• It seems that the draft for the correct capitalization, Draft:Lil Tay has been indefinitely set to requiring administrator privileges to create. Due to the recent news, should this be lifted to allow for this page to be moved to its correct capitalization? Is this page allowed to be created at all, or is it considered a bypass of the administrator lock? Hopefully an administrator can look into this ASAP and see what can be done from here.

B3251 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the draft to the correct capitalization, and reduced the creation protection on Lil Tay to extended-confirmed instead of sysop. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. B3251 (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

A new source says the story is unconfirmed, so we need to take very good care on this and wait for a proper authority to confirm details; right now the history reads like a BLP minefield (and the subject's age is also in dispute between each source). Nate • (chatter) 23:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Additionally Twitter is definitely not a source, but are some posts saying the statement 'confirming' the story and the death statement was sourced through an AI tool. We may need to move to RFP with this. Nate • (chatter) 23:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)