Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive361

Hello! Following a discussion with Liz at my talk page, I have come to request whether three administrators might be available and willing to form a panel to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination).

I started the AfD at 21:48 UTC on 31 March, so it is due to close at the same time on Sunday 7 April. The AfD has attracted upwards of 80 !votes already, and follows similarly high participation at the first AfD, BLP noticeboard, deletion review, and second AfD. It has also been the subject of a popular Wikipediocracy forum thread.

Given the high interest in this AfD, and the rather split opinions that are reaching to different policies and guidelines, it would be a great help if three administrators who have been uninvolved in any of the prior discussions might volunteer to close the AfD as a panel. This will hopefully increase the community's confidence that any consensus or the lack thereof is correctly identified, and reduce the chance of the close being contested at deletion review. Many thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 10:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this proposal. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should be available to help close. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 11:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing panels have not, in recent times, been less challenged than single admin closes and have not, to my knowledge, been upheld more even when challenged. A 3 admin panel spends a lot of time of 3 administrators to not only do all the work of closing the discussion, but also with collaborating with each other. Given that they are seemingly not achieving their stated purpose of more legitimacy I question the use of editor time, one of our most precious resources, on performing them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also might not be needed; numerically it's 2:1 in favour of deletion, meaning there will need to be a huge swing in the other direction or some very strong keep arguments even to get it to a no consensus close (and no, I did nothing more than count heads, but there's still most of a week to go so it was pointless to do anything but). Primefac (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except AfD closures are not based on votes but the strength of the arguments. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; nice to see you read what I wrote. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if it sounded dismisive. I know you qualified the statement, but there are AfD closures of no consensus in ones that garner the same ratio with a fraction of the participation. There were vote counters at the first AfD and at the DRV so it's possible I'm developing a twitch in regards to this. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, Sandstein, and Primefac: Even if three uninvolved administrators declare themselves available and interested in forming a panel to close the discussion, as Ingenuity has generously volunteered their time and energy to do so, would you still oppose a panel closure in principle? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 18:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to tell people how they should spend their volunteer time. But I am opposed, in principle, to nearly all closing panels. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am neither opposed nor in favour, I'm just saying that if the consensus is clear enough, a panel is kind of pointless. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ingenuity does not need two other people to help them close the AfD, they can do so on their own. Sandstein 19:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Barkeep49 alludes to, if those volunteering to evaluate the consensus view of a discussion feel more comfortable doing it in a group and agree on doing it, that's up to them. However personally I disagree with mandating that a group of evaluators is needed. isaacl (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Barkeep49. With panels we get even more admin overhead for the same outcome. Additionally, panel closures are not provided for in policy, making them out of process. Moreover, calling for them in any slightly controversial case has the effect of delegitimizing single-admin closures. Sandstein 15:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein, the RM at Talk:Where is Kate? § Requested move 23 March 2024 has reach the backlog section on WP:RMC. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 17:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be better to close the RM only after the AfD concludes, or people may get confused and scripts may break. Sandstein 19:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted.

1. Too many alt proposals to be closed within a week.
2. There is no clear consensus yet.
3. We typically close RMs after ongoing AfDs as the process to clean up on the AfD after rename isn't really straight forward.

– robertsky (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, appreciate the relist! microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 16:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this is going to be complicated because it is really covering more than two possibilities. The competing/conflicting RM will make the situation even more complicated. IMO the usual reason (heated/contentious) for panel closures does not exist here. While there are many opposite opinions, I don't see it as particularly heated/contentious. IMO a panel closure would probably just unnecessarily make the closing job even more complicated and time consuming. North8000 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, to be fair, I want to state that I suggested the idea to IgnatiusofLondon on their talk page and I think he put together a very cogent request here even though it is not getting the support I expected. So, you can fault me if you think it is a bad idea. I can just tell from my involvement closing AFDs these days and the twists and turns this article has experienced over the past month, that a solitary admin decision would be contested and that a three admin panel decision would be less likely to end up back at Deletion review taking up even more time from participating admins and editors who frequent that noticeboard. As I stated to IgnatiusofLondon, I see valid arguments on several options at the 3rd AFD but the consensus I truly see in this discussion thus far is that editors are tired of arguing about this article. I thought a panel decision would help avoid a second Deletion review but perhaps that was wishful thinking on my part.

And since I'm here, talking about admin time, we could really use additional help closing AFD discussions. Participation, from discussion participants and closers has fallen over the past year and we really only have 3 or 4 regular admin closers where, when I started 3 years ago, I could easily have named a dozen admins who helped out closing discussions in AFDLand. Even if you could devote an hour one day a week, it would help and I'm sure discussion participants would like seeing more diversity in the makeup of admin closers. I know that almost every admin area has become short staffed after the decline in active admin numbers in past years (since COVID-19 if not earlier) so just consider this my pitch! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I'm surprised to hear this. I have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs on my watchlist and when I've been in the mood to maybe do an AfD there is almost never anything open for me to do. Is that bot not properly updating? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll be blunt here. There has been a trend in AFDs that I have seen over the past few years. And I'll admit up front that I'm partially responsible for this (or partially blamed, if you're not so kind). But discussions that seem borderline, strongly divided or sparsely attended are getting relisted more often than they used to be. This relisting has been done both by regular editors who are helping out through relisting AFD discussions and by some admins including yours truly. This relisting has been done because there is no obvious consenus. I know, as a regular closer, that I like to be as certain as I can be about a closure because I get no joy out of being called to Deletion review as you might see from my previous remarks. We have other closers who shy away from closing any discussions that don't seem unanimous or close to unanimous. This isn't ideal but I understand this behavior because being scrutinized at A Deletion review can sometimes feel like you're getting a colonoscopy. They can be a little brutal. However, when I look at AFDs from years ago, I can see where we had some admins who were very decisive about AFD closures but were casting Super votes because their decisions sure don't seem to reflect a consensus point-of-view. So, there are good and bad aspects of relisting disucussions in order to seek more input from editors. I have seen instances where a bunch of editors suddenly show up after several relistings to offer great feedback and the closure becomes clear but there are other instances where closures just keep getting postponed for too long.

The issue you mentioned though arises sometimes with our non-admin helpers. If I'm not sure about a closure, I will sometimes leave a discussion open because the admins who review "old discussions" do not seem to need the certainty that I like to see. However our "helpers" will often relist any discussion they see that is still open. Our regular admin closers are leaving the discussions open for admins like you to handle as old cases but the discussions just get relisted again for another week. I've discussed this with several of our NACers and relisters but it's hard to describe exactly the conditions that exist when they should just let older discussions be and age out and NOT relist them. They want to help but they should just let these discussion cycle over to the Open AFDs page because what they really need is a fresh set of admin eyes to read them over rather than our few regular admin closers.

I realize that by stating all this, I'm opening myself up to criticism as I do tend to relist discussions that I think are ambiguous or have little to no participation (which is a different problem we could talk about another day). And I've anticipated some pushback from AFD participants but I've only seen a few random comments from editors who are impatient about a relised discussion. But this "multiple relistings" trend should probably be reduced except for when it is genuinely called for. That's my feedback to y'all from the AFD trenches. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that this issue would probably be greatly reduced or even eliminated if we had a few dozen more thoughtful AFD participants but editors seem to burn out on participating there which is understandable. But more participation that is not "per nom", and I think most discussions would have a clearer consensus. That's generally the case for most AFDs except for discussions like that of Where is Kate?. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who contributes at AfD less than I used to I think that relisting and especially the rush to relist is a massive factor in that burnout. Relisting feels like a slap to the face of everyone who has participated, almost as if you're judging their contributions to be insignificant and you're asking for some REAL opinions not the horseshit thats already been offered. I know its not that, but I also know that I'm not the only one who feels a sort of way about relisting. On top of that some people go about relisting in a condescending way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed this trend in AfDs, but I don't necessarily mind it. In fact I have even asked for a relist once or twice to give the discussion more time. I think I might once have expressed surprise that a strongly trending AfD needed a relist, but on balance I think the cautious approach is beneficial. Personally I don't feel the slap to the face from a relist. I may, however, have adapted to the situation. I watch a lot of AfDs but I don't feel a need to participate in most. If an outcome is strongly trending in a way I agree with, I may not take part at all. I may also be guilty of not wanting to go first on some where a lot of searching is required (Um... like this one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port Shepstone Secondary School). Proper searching takes time. So often it takes the relist for me to remember to do something. So all in all, the more routine relisting may not be a bad thing, but it may, perversely, slow down participation. One thing that is very helpful is when the relisting contains a comment/prompt as to what is needed, such as a request for a source review, or else, in another case I recall, a request for someone familiar with a particular notability guideline (GEOLAND in that case) to comment. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Liz. The way that eager non-admin closers would relist in ways that prevented closures was a problem I dealt with regularly when AfD was a big part of my admin workload. So I get that. But also from what I'm seeing at the moment, it feels like it would be really hard for me to become a high volume AfD closer again, even if I had the time. If that's true for admins who might be willing to help, then I wonder what can be done. That said I'm unsurprised Low quality participation at Articles for Deletion is still true and would agree that if we could solve that it would have a bigger benefit to the system than getting more admin. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a solid statistical basis for having the default listing period for an AfDs be 168 hours precisely? As far as I can tell, somebody at some point was just like "seven days I guess" and then we spent twenty years having them run seven days -- and there wasn't any kind of math done as to whether 7 was better than 6, 8, 10, et cetera. jp×g🗯️ 19:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, the thinking was that people have different schedules, so keeping it open for a full week insures that people who, e.g., only have time to edit on Sunday morning, will have a chance to weigh in on a conversation initiated the previous Sunday evening, before it closes. BD2412 T 20:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a week is eminently sensible for that reason. And I can't see what a shorter or longer timeframe could achieve. In any case, relists sometimes don't seem to run for the full additional seven days. The issue is that relists seem often to act as an "extension" due to minimal participation rather than "we're so close to consensus; we just need a final push" for which I think relists are intended. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who has tried to save a lot of articles, I've been grateful for relists; I'm not on-wiki all the time, I don't hang out on wikiprojects, and some nominators don't even notify the article creator, let alone all editors who contributed substantially to the article. And in any case I haven't contributed substantially to all our articles, even on topics that interest me :-) So sometimes I only see the AfD after it's been relisted. Plus when I do see it, it usually takes a while to search for sources, and it takes even longer since I've learned to improve the article first rather than posting at the AfD on how it could be improved to better demonstrate notability, and since either way, it usually takes someone being persuaded by my argument and/or work to turn the tide. That 7-day deadline can come awfully fast. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this case, an editor RodRabelo7 (!voted keep) has copied the entire page over a redirect [1] and then immediately reverted themselves, creating an unattributed copywithin in the page history of the redirect. Should this be revdelled? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution provided, no need for RD. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found another copy in Special:History/Catherine, Princess of Wales cancer diagnosis. RodRabelo7 made it during WP:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21#Where is Kate? and WP:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (2nd nomination), as can be seen by the {{AfDM}} and {{Delrev}} tags in those revisions. WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (how-to guide, shortcut WP:EDITATAFD), point 5, advises against such copying due to WP:Copying within Wikipedia (guideline) concerns. I find the reverts' "missclick" edit summaries to be implausible.

Sirfurboy had notified RodRabelo7, so I will not notify them again.

Disclosure: Two years ago, I reported a user at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for merging during AfDs. No action was taken against that user or me. Flatscan (talk) 04:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be happy to work with Ingenuity on closing this AfD. I'm sure they can do this by themselves, as could I, but I agree that coming from a panel of multiple admins will lend more credence to the close, reduce accusations of a supervote, and hopefully bring us closer to a broadly accepted conclusion for this saga. And by the way, @Liz, there's an attending anaesthesiologist at my colonoscopies, but I'm expected to be fully awake at every DRV against me... Owen× ☎ 17:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Your opinion needed: Black Kite has raised the issue of my WP:INVOLVEment, based on this comment I made in the DRV. I didn't think my comments in that DRV renders me INVOLVED, and I don't have strong views about the article either way. But if there's an appearance of a bias or involvement, I'll recuse myself from closing the AfD. Please advise. Owen× ☎ 22:56, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• With the greatest of respect, there's not an appearance of bias, there clearly is a bias, because you've said the article should be kept. As administrators we cannot close AfDs on which we have commented in one way or another, this isn't a difficult issue. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't want to say participating in a DRV always makes you involved with respect to a later AfD, but in this case you've specifically said that you think the topicwarrants inclusion, and that's enough to make you a non-ideal closer, I think (especially for such a contentious discussion). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Owen has agreed to step aside on this one, which I think is an excellent idea. As I said on Ingenuity's talkpage, the last thing we want is to end up with a fourth AfD because one of the closers might be seen not to be impartial. Black Kite (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand and appreciate this. Owen× ☎ 23:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Flatscan regarding the copies. Most of these redirects were deleted under WP:G8 but this one specifically has not been deleted and that is my fault. I had earlier felt that the redirect (and one other of the 20+ creations) was reasonable and should be targeted to Catherine, Princess of Wales#Health. Because I retargeted the redirect, it has not been deleted with all the others. I have thus taken it to RfD here: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Catherine, Princess of Wales cancer diagnosis where I explain my reasoning for doing so. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real recently, I have joined as Aliens' Probes only that I can't log in at all, and FORCED to use a possibly bad numeric designation. I tried everything as directed here short of creating another account, and IF I did, some idiots would scream SOCK or some others shit. What is your recommendation? Is there a bug on here? Can a referral of this be kept in the event that someone cries "SOCK", so that people knows that this option of creating a account is a result of a glitch and not a sock or worse?! - and can I use the new account to get back to you all, so that the other can be secured? I have a Android phone that is a real mess at times. It also has a real shitload of Emojis as well. 216.247.72.142 (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is "a possibly bad numeric designation"? An IP address? Screenshots would help and although you have a good point about creating a new account, the help desk is now probably your best place for help with a technical issue Elinruby (talk) 04:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP edits:

1. 05:37, 8 July 2023 comment by the OP's IP about not being able to log in as Unfriendly Aliens, who was later CU blocked - the IP was, too, separately;
2. Current post by the OP here and at ANI about not being able to log in as Aliens' Probes, who is not blocked;
3. Accounts similar.

I'm just leaving this as a note for future eyes (as potentially the less attention feedy option), though I am going to revert the ANI one. – 2804:F1...9E:9592 (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the help in this matter. I was concerned about a bad IP and a glitch on here. Why is there a limited set of IP designations?216.247.72.142 (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean bya limited set of IP designations but reading the IP address article might answer your question. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long story short. Fenerbahçe team abandoned the pitch, but Galatasaray is not awarded the cup yet. However this user already edited 50 pages, editing stats, add honours to players, etc. violating WP:CRYSTAL. [2] here his edits he claimswin awarded to Galatasaray nowhere told,Mauro Icardi beingMan of the Match (infobox). Reverting all may seem weird, thus something should be done. Beshogur (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user has put "Kill Yourself" what you should do NOW" On the "Kill Yourself" Wikipedia page, I am not completely sure if it is still here but it is disruptive.

- ShibaNation — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShibaNation (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did not notify User:HughMan532, which you are required to do. Additionally, this user has zero edits, zero hits on any edit filters, and zero entries in the logs apart from the account's creation. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 18:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any way SN could know about HM532 without the two accounts being operated by the same person, and it's very suspicious for an hour-old account whose first edit was vandalism to post on AN immediately after. Should the two accounts be Checkusered? – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 18:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for what I did, it was my attempt at a joke lol. Me and SN are friends but aren't the same person. HughMan532 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where best to take this question - I uploaded the pdf below on commons but I cannot get it to show here as a thumbnail in an article. The below should be a thumbnail picture:

The only clue I have is in the Dimensions data:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION CJCSI 3160-01 13 February 2009 NO-STRIKE AND THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY.pdf Dimensions: 1,275 × 1,650, 101 pages (1.12 MB)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION CJCSI 3160-01 13 February 2009 NO-STRIKE AND THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY.pdf Dimensions: 0 × 0 (1.12 MB)

Any suggestions welcome. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As nobody (including me) reading this seems to know the answer, my suggestion would be to try asking at Wikipedia:Help desk or Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Thryduulf (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile, I think it's the period in the filename that's messing up the way it displays. If I try with the filename without the period, it does a thumbnail (that doesn't resolve because there's no file of that name, of course). Try renaming the file without using a period until the .pdf portion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: that solved it! Thank you! Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it worked! Schazjmd (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

151.2.203.215

• Edit warring and disruptive editing: [3][4][5][6][7]
• Abusing editors: [8] [9]

Zenomonoz (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the most blatant case for a NOTHERE block I've ever seen. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a month, edits on John Money revision-deleted. Black Kite (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Roberto Sabatini has a long history and I'm not sure what would be the right version to revert to since most of the content seems to be copypasted from here Q ^{T C} 22:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OverlordQ you might want to list it at the WP:Copyright problems board using {{copyvio}} so editors can assess and remove any violations. – Isochrone (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to request access to edit/create a standalone article page for 'Cadaver Dogs'. Currently, it is stated that I am blocked from editing it, and I need to request administrator access. I was hoping by reaching out here I would receive that?

Thank you :) Taylorwikipag3 (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Cadaver dogs" is a redirect to Search and rescue dog#Cadaver dog. You can expand that section rather than creating a fork. If the section becomes large enough, then you can propose splitting the section out into a separate article. If the article you want to write is about another topic, then you can write a draft, either in the Draft space or in a sandbox in your own user space, and then ask for help moving it to article space when it is ready. Donald Albury 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the issue is that you were, up until just now, not an autoconfirmed user. I would still strongly suggest you draft an article before just creating it, but you should technically be able to do so now. The correct title would be Cadaver dog, which is currently a redirect. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Each proposal of Phase I of RFA2024 has been open for 30 days or more (much more), and is ready to be closed by an uninvolved user. If anyone would be willing to help out, it would be much appreciated. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This RfD has been open since as late as March 19 (potentially even earlier) and it still has not been closed yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#List_of_arunachal_pradesh_cricketer Okmrman (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth @Okmrman:, a month at RfD (March 11th to April 12th) is really not that much cause for alarm. If it was touching two though, and/or was a decently contentious discussion which has lingered at the bottom for weeks with multiple relists, that's a lot more noteworthy. But the old RfD in question received 7 delete !votes and 1 !keep vote within the last 7 days. Would've been closed any day now, and likely isn't something that needed to be cross-posted here.

What I will say though, as a word of advice, there really shouldn't be that big of a rush to close things at RfD. Generally, discussions should stay open for at least a week regardless, but I noticed you closing brand new discussions within a day, which should generally not be happening. You closed this discussion yesterday that was live for 18 hours after one person !voted to retarget and two people echoed it, which was a highly premature close from my point of view, (especially as I would've !voted something else). You were asked on your talk page 5 days ago to undo a close you made on Holy Chao, and again asked earlier today. I presume that case was also 1-2 days old as User:Veverve asked you on April 7th to reopen their RfD that initiated on April 5th?

I appreciate your enthusiasm for keeping the RfDs up-to-date, as well as coming here to make sure that the old discussions receive their proper closure, but with this recent pattern I'd advise you to take it at a bit slower pace, thank you. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry. My own discussion on the Genociding redirect was closed within less than a day so I thought that type of stuff was allowed. Okmrman (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good, thanks for the response. Looking into the particular Genociding case, it seems it was primarily based on there not being a strong reason for action at RfD, i.e. it wouldn't be appropriate to delete Dancing as a redirect to Dance due to the -ing, either. The super early close isn't something that I would have done for it, as early closes are contentious on principle, but we live and learn though! Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willbb234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Willbb234 was blocked late last year after an incident involving a sexualized personal attack (it has been revdeleted, don't go looking for it). They requested unblock about a month later, but I found their explanation lacking and declined with some reading material. They made a new appeal about a month later, but even though several admins have seen it it hasn't been actioned. The requests read:

After a discussion among several admins today, we agree (more or less) that given the nature of the incident, the community should review this request. I am inviting interested editors to comment on Wilbb234's talk page directly so that they can respond to questions without us having to do a whole lot of copying and pasting back and forth. Please join the discussion at User talk:Willbb234#Unblock request for community review. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please unsalt Sanket Mhatre so Sanket Mhatre (voice actor) can be moved there? It seems the article may be notable after all, and the disambiguation is not needed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could this wait until the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanket Mhatre (voice actor)? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There are several premature RFD closures that probably need to be reopened. User:Okmrman is a new account with a little over a month on Wikipedia ( 3 March 2024 User account Okmrman talk contribs was created ). They have closed several RFDs too early. and they seem to be over eager to close these early. Links to these particular RFDs are: Holy Chao, Discorianism and the ones beneath Discorianism - Dischordian, Discodianism, Discorianist, Discordian Date.

Here is the talk page discussion related to this on Okmrman's talk page: [23]. Although myself and another editor have pointed out that they should re-opoen these discussions (as a procedural matter) they seem to be unavailable at this time. Hence, I am requesting an Admin re-open these discussions. You can see, some of these were closed after only four days. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okmrman just responded on their talk page: [24]. They are causing a lot of work for other editors because after only a month on Wikipedia he They "still stand by the closure and [then they say] if you want to reopen it, go request the admins to see if it's valid or not." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) As a note, some of these were also closed by me. Particularly, on April 5th Veverve nominated 30+ redirects across 20+ RfD sections, all to Discordianism, across 38 minutes ranging from 22:21 to 22:59. With basically a redirect getting nominated every minute, many of these nominations were not handled with the proper diligence as expected of an XfD proposal. An example would be "Discordian date", which was nominated with the rationale of "nonsensical", even though there's nothing inherently or evidently nonsensical about it. Discordian calendar, a target that four people unanimously pointed out and zero opposition, is a very plausible location to discuss dates; so, I closed this nomination on April 11th, in order to clean up some of the mass Discordian nominations that had a simple fix to retarget. Similarly, the disappearance of a section isn't a reason to delete Chao (Discordianism), if it's still discussed in a different section. Admittedly, Okmrman's closes were a lot earlier than I would've hoped for (April 9th), but I don't see how any of them would have turned out any differently. Opening them now would just be a detriment to editor's spent-time, as all have come to a universally agreed conclusion, and/or have no suitable reason for deletion provided (as mentions of terms such as Holy Chao have been added / re-added to the article, etc). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have already been too many noticeboard threads about this topic, but since Steve Quinn has decided that this matter warranted yet another thread, perhaps he will be kind enough to explain why he wrote at Veverve's talk page thatOakman, Skyerise, and Furius are quite the clown show regarding these RFD and Discordianism pages [25]. Steve Quinn has ignored a prior attempt to get him to retract this personal attack. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lepricavark, to which noticeboard threads are you referring? This is the only thread I know about regarding the possibility of reopening the RFDs ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should have been more specific. I was referring more broadly to all the Discordianism-related threads. Continuing to ignore criticism of your personal attack is a bad look. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I agree that those are not noticeboard threads. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several threads about Discordianism at the noticeboards. Too many, in my opinion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. That's not a very good look for him. Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot Okmrman (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough blame to go around regarding the Discordianism and RFD discussions. So I suggest we all drop it. Otherwise we can all have dueling diffs between among several people. Frankly I don't think that would be productive at this point. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and that's why this user essay exists. To make people think about their own actions before making discussions like this. Now personally, I would suggest to get an admin to lock this entire thread (and maybe give you a 2 day block for personal attack). Okmrman (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your response is known as trolling. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with me opening this discussion. In fact, it was quite justified. It is and was not a personal attack. You have actually prematurely closed a number of RFDs. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright maybe the discussion was valid but were the very cleverly marked up sections where you took very obvious jabs necessary? Also, the personal attacks refers to the messages you made about the three users in that user talk page. Okmrman (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not really cleverly marked up. They are strike thru's. In other words, that means I rescinded those remarks. And I rescinded because they seem to contradict Assume Good Faith. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, regarding those three to whom you refer, I think that would be up to us to resolve. That is the instance I refer to where several of us would be in a situation of dueling diffs. One remark or action caused another remark or action and so on---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because this has come up more than once or twice - I apologize for making the clown show remark regarding three Wikipedia editors (three colleagues) who are doing the best that they can, just like me. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "enough blame to go around" I wasn't referring to opening this thread. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my request based on Utopes input above. I didn't realize the scope of, or the number of, RFDs created in a short space of time. Also, I didn't realize that proper due diligence was not carried out on most of these RfDs. But if I had realized the scope of the mass of deletion requests, I probably would have had a clue about due diligence. I got too involved in this situation, which is not a good thing on Wikipedia. It is a recipe for errors in judgement. I can see how it happened, now, I am remedying the problem, with egg on my face, so it won't happen in the future. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) For what it's worth I think it's still a fair position; Okmrman was closing discussions beyond just Discordianism, some of which stayed open for a fraction of the time the Discordian ones did. I mentioned a couple sections above this thread, here, about how this RfD opened on April 11th and was prematurely closed by Okmrman after just 18 hours. That's definitely a problem and should be undone. But with the Discordian titles now officially hitting a week since they began... unless there's expected to be a different outcome for whether or not to delete something like Discorianism, the snow-close seems correct for those specific titles. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm closed my discussion in a similar amount of time. Honestly, if Steel wants to, he could easily ask me to reopen it and I put a message on his own talk page just to tell him that. Okmrman (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and yes I still think Genociding deserved a discussion even though it falls under {{redirect from verb}} because it's barely used to the point where online dictionaries literally don't even acknowledge it. Okmrman (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a silver lining to all of this. It seems that many of the discussions are leading to finding sources that correlate with the redirects and previously removed material. I think in the end, the Wikipedia articles involved will have the desired in-line citations, demonstrating how well sourced the content is ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are causing a lot of work for other editors because after only a month Yeah, I'm pretty sure that reopening them would cause even more unnecessary work for the editors that would eventually end up with a near unanimous keep anyways if your request actually went through. Okmrman (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A similar situation (involving early discussion closures and early relists) happens occasionally at AFD, too. I recommend non-admin closers review Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions and Wikipedia:Non-admin closure which pertain as much to RFD as AFD. Okmrman, can you look these policy pages over before taking on any more deletion discussion closures? Deletion discussion closing is usually a task that is taken on by editors with a lot more experience than you have so it's important to follow the appropriate guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration case "Conflict of interest management" has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• The Arbitration Committee requests that a new VRT queue be established to accept reports of undisclosed conflict-of-interest or paid editing, where reporting such editing on-wiki is in conflict with WP:OUTING. The queue membership is to be decided by the Arbitration Committee and is open to any functionary and to any administrator by request to the Committee and who passes a functionary-like appointment process (including signing the ANPDP). Following the creation of the queue, the existing checkuser-only paid-en-wp queue will be archived, and access will be restricted to checkusers indefinitely. Functionaries and administrators working this queue may, at their discretion, refer a ticket to the Arbitration Committee for review; an example of a situation where a ticket should be referred to the committee is when there is a credible report involving an administrator.
• For posting non-public information about another editor—after a previous post by Fram in the same thread was removed and oversighted—Fram is admonished against posting previously undisclosed information about other editors on Wikipedia ("outing") which is a violation of the harassment policy. Concerns about policy violations based on private evidence must be sent to the appropriate off-wiki venue. Any further violations of this policy may result in an Arbitration Committee block or ban.
• For his failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, specifically as pertains to conflict of interest editing and conflict of interest disclosure, Nihonjoe's administrator and bureaucrat user rights are removed. Nihonjoe may regain these user rights via a successful request for adminship and a successful request for bureaucratship, respectively.

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management closed

I was banned for no ther reason than wanting to add the real names since Canadian law does not apply to the rest of the world. Daniel is an abusive mod. 2A02:A212:A583:5980:93B6:AAA7:8A66:717A (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, Please review User talk:Myrealnamm (messages from 2A02:A212:A583:5980:93B6:AAA7:8A66:717A. This is making me feel like I have done something wrong, and if I have, please let me know. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 21:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP - they were violating IP at the Linda Anderson article, were part-blocked from editing that, and then came here to continue the nonsense. I will also revert and redact your talk page to be on the safe side. GiantSnowman 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2A02:A212:A583:5980:F635:52:AA7D:81A7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) also blocked. GiantSnowman 21:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Please could I ask an admin to review the discussion on Talk:Cass Review, I have seen some examples of Wikipedia:Assume good faith being ignored and at least one threat. I just want to flag it so that someone can review it and hopefully steer it in a better direction.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is singularly unhelpful. It's not clear which discussion on the page you want "reviewed", and you have provided no diffs of the supposed misconduct, particularly the claim that there is a "threat".--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bbb23, is it possible to send this info in a non public way? I don't really want to get into an argument with anyone. I just want someone to check it, I can see several places on the page with issues. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 16:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't address issues non-publicly unless there are issues of privacy that compels it, certainly not because you "don't really want to get into an argument with anyone". Either explain what's going on properly, or drop it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by a popup to come here after trying to create it. Also, why isn't there anything in the public logs about it?

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The error message is from the local WP:TITLEBLACKLIST and saysPortal( talk)?:Portal( talk)?.* <errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-repeated-namespace-prefix>. I think whoever wrote that filter wants you to create Portal:Sandbox instead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for completion's sake, since your suggestion makes sense:

The broad version was added to the blacklist in Special:Diff/744108976 and linked to the following request as justification (which is from MER-C's talk page): Special:Permanentlink/744103964#Double_namespace_prefixes_blacklist_entry – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 06:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have Template:Template sandbox... RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I think the current blacklist might have a typo? All the others are Namespace:Namespace:~anything else~, but the portal one doesn't have a colon after the second Portal.

It's currently Portal( talk)?:Portal( talk)?.*.

If the colon was there Portal:Portal sandbox would have created fine, I think? – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 06:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about filters to be honest. But if you've spotted an issue, I'm sure someone would answer a request to fix with extreme promptitude. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have experience with the titleblacklist, with filters and the language sure, but a lot of filter logs are visible to IPs, the blacklist logs aren't, and that particular one is admin-only(?).

I think it's a typo, because it was never mentioned in the request, all others have a colon and it was already like that in the request. MER-C would know, since they did that edit, and maybe they will come here if they got pinged in my comment.

At any rate that's separate to what Novem is saying (including in the new comment), which I say again makes a lot of sense. – 143.208.239.27 (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queries about filters and potential issues with them are more likely to attract attention from editors with appropriate expertise at Wikipedia:Edit filter noticeboard. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title blacklist is a distinct concept from edit filters and people at WP:EFN will have no familiarity with it. The error message displayed when someone who doesn't have the rights to overwrite it says to go here if you think the request is legitimate, which is wrong IMO and should point to the edit request process.

The title blacklist has no logs at all, not even visible to admins like myself.

143.208.239.27 is technically right that the blacklist entry for portals is overbroad and should have an extra colon since it currently stops all portals with names beginning with "Portal" from being created, but I'm disinclined to fix it since the chance of a legitimate portal having a name starting with "Portal" is basically nil, and the current content at Portal:Sandbox is something I would probably support deleting at MfD, regardless of whether it were called "portal sandbox", "sandbox", or something completely else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: Supposedly those logs would show up at Special:Log/titleblacklist, you do have a right called 'titleblacklistlog'. When I go there I get a permissions error, which at the bottom saysThe action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Administrators. – 143.208.236.57 (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see "No matching items in log." there. The logging feature is deliberately disabled on WMF wikis per T68450 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who would create a portal in the year of our lord 2024, though? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a reason for the consensus to keep them…for people who use it as an encyclopedia, rather than as the semi-official wiki of Real Life, the concept has value. The problems with portal creation in the past seem to have been mainly because people were creating niche portals better handled by a sidebar, rather than “proper” portals.

In answer to your question, I would, just because I can, provided I can think of a valid topic for one. It’s deep in my to-do list.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page keeps getting deleted to remove the history. I was thinking using subpages for the sandboxing would be better. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the simplest solution would be to create Portal:Sandbox. Rather than modifying or overriding the title blacklist, which I imagine is there for a reason. I think Template:Template sandbox is an exception because Template:Sandbox already exists and is for something else (is not a sandbox). There are other sandboxes that follow the normal naming convention such as Draft:Sandbox. Please also consider if we need another sandbox, or if we can just reuse an existing one or use a userspace page. FYI, certain sandboxes are set up to be automatically cleaned by a bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. Will do. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time I have make this request as you can see here [95]. These four users have been making regular edits on the Dean Lonergan which I believe to be WP:SNEAKY and not with WP:NPOV. I made regular edits to revert with explanation trying to keep it WP:NPOV. There has been a previous semi protection which expired in 1-1-2024. Since then the four users has been persistent in their edits which has gotten User:331dot involved to make regular reverts. The four users have made accusations stating I am being paid by Dean Lonergan and have been for the past 3 years which is not true. you can see the accusations on Dean Lonergan: Revision history. [96] The four users wants there to be an investigation about me which I gladly would do. Bennyaha (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page needs to be permanently protected as well. Bennyaha (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are not "permanently protected" as that would defeat the purpose of this project. They are only protected to the extent necessary to prevent disruptive behavior. For some articles that may be a long time, but not "permanent". Editors can also be blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Th whole protection part is new to me as I generally only make new pages and edited existing ones. I thought indefinite was one of the options. Bennyaha (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised different IP addresses could be same person all made edits and negative comments

• 115.189.95.57
• 115.189.89.33
• 115.189.95.42
• 115.188.122.67

Bennyaha (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request open for 4 weeks for Hazooyi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) if anyone wants to action/comment. Meters (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That almost seemed procedural given that zzuuzz blocked another sock of theirs earlier today. I've denied their latest request. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a message you can send users that edit Arab-Israeli conflict articles. To follow the 1rr. It is needed before an arbitration enforcement request.

Can someone send it to User:Galamore ?

He has recently violated the 1rr and is claiming at his talkpage that he hasnt (he has) Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote you on my talk page. In the first edit, I didn't think it was a revert. If you look, you will see that the number of characters that I removed is not the number of characters that the editor before me added.... Anyway, after you brought it to my attention, I self-reverted this eddit. Thanks. Galamore (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} it can be sent to anyone who has edited in the area regardless of whether they have violated 1rr. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added it here. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a useful shortcut: T:DSA — scroll to the bottom where {{Contentious topics/list/single notice}} is transcluded. HTH. El_C 14:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posted on the talk page and it appears the organization is publicly soliciting Wikipedia editors to edit its page. I wasn't sure where to go with this but it seemed worth bringing attention to. Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will likely come to nothing, but if it starts getting vandalised I'm sure there are now a half-dozen admins watching the page that can assist. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is highly promotional in tone. I see that an advert tag was added in April 2020 and almost immediately removed. I will add it again. Donald Albury 16:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been making personal attacks for warning them of DE (seen here) and spamming on my talk page (see here and here). Please block them ASAP. Please ping me if anything changes. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've blocked for harassment. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added 2 links for help. Jeyyrix1 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user has added fake topicons to their userpage, including admin. FWIW. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is clearly new and fumbling. I added a standard welcome template to their talk page to hopefully steer them toward something productive. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fumbling, yes. New, no. LTA blocked and global locks requested.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBECR is the CTOP rule for certain topic areas such as Israel/Palestine that says (paraphrasing) "must have 500 edits to make edits on the talk page, with the exception of edit requests". Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus is currently on the front page, and its talk page is getting a lot of non-ECR edits.

• How strict should admins be in enforcing this? Should I be deleting sections such as Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Addition of Indian reaction to incident, Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Legality, Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#UK response to the attack could be added? Or does the community consider these to be poorly formed edit requests that are an exception to the rule?
• What about non-ECR editors opining on sections such as Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Consulate NOT embassy in title?
• Also, what's the main idea behind this rule? Is it an anti-sockpuppet thing?
• Would EC-protecting the talk page make sense? For what duration? And it would need to be logged as a CTOP action, I presume?

Thanks for helping me admin better in this area. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience it hasn't been enforced when new editors don't cause problems in ECR areas. Maybe the restriction exists as a pretext to revert edits that don't very closely align with guidelines, and to prevent SPA's in the area. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on that, duh, but have an edit request:

Please move the talk page to Talk:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. To match the result of the move (I guess) at the top of the talk page.

Clicking 'article' from the talk page redirects and clicking 'talk' from the article redirects again, I'm surprised the edit request button in the article still works under these circumstances.

– 143.208.236.57 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Talk page moved to match the mainspace article name. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link -> Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_sanctions_upon_related_content

I'm interested in this question too. The following remedy seems clear.

• "Extended confirmed restriction – only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, with certain exceptions as provided below."

Non-EC editors can make edit requests. What I've observed, in practice, is that talk page comments that generally resemble an edit request with specificity will be treated as an edit request. Not sure how many non-EC editors actually notice or care about the instructions in the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} template. The EC restrictions are fairly strictly enforced for article content (unless it is something like a typo fix), mostly by editors rather than article protection (for reasons that have never been clear to me). Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

enforced ... mostly by editors rather than article protection (for reasons that have never been clear to me). Yeah, that doesn't seem ideal to me either. It's quite bitey to let someone make an edit then revert it, if we could instead just blue lock things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. When I do it, I try to use an informative edit summary along the lines of

• "This is not an edit request. Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY."

But this kind of action is probably often interpreted as Wikipedia editors supporting Hamas barbarism/sadistic IDF war criminals etc. Non-EC editors who excitedly rush to truth-bomb the topic area can be a bit feisty. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where talk pages are concerned I see it as a "helper" for implementing WP:NOTFORUM. If non-EC editors are making useful contributions on the talk page that actually helps improve the article, it would arguably be detrimental to clamp down on that, so IAR comes into play a bit there. But if there's loads of discussion and it's taking up lots of your time just to keep up with it, then the EC rule is a helpful way to limit the volume of discussion and hopefully keep it on topic. WaggersTALK 08:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBECR is perfectly clear and has been clarified at ARCA, edit requests only and nothing else. A new non EC editor should be given the usual notices as well when removing non-compliant edits so they know why it is being done. The edit request need not use the template but it needs to be clear that it is an edit request.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does one make it clear that it is an edit request without using the template? Do they have to suggest something in a "change X to Y" format? In your estimation, do any of the 4 sections I linked above qualify as edit requests? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the four sections you identify (note the page it now titled: Talk:Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus):

1. "Addition of Indian reaction to incident". This appears to be a good faith request to improve the article. One of three things should happen:
   • An ECR editor adds relevant content to the article
   • An ECR editor explains why the content shouldn't be added to the article. This could include it already being there, but should not be related to the non-ECR status of the requester
   • A request is made for the OP or someone else to suggest a specific wording to be added.
2. "Legality". This is unambiguously an edit request.
3. "UK response to the attack could be added" is the same as #1.
4. "Consulate NOT embassy in title". This is a move request rather than edit request (but we cannot expect non-editors to know the difference). It should have been answered in a much less bitey way, but saying "this needs discussion before being implemented" is correct.

So these are all good faith requests to make changes to the content of the article and so should be responded to as if they were made by ECR editors. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was discussed at ARCA, the template is not strictly necessary and obviously there is some editorial discretion involved but personally, I would allow #1 (assuming that's an RS), remove #2 and #3 (with edit summary "not an edit request") and remove the opinions in discussion (or strike them if already replied to). Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Consulate NOT embassy in title" looks like quite a good example of what often happens when the edit request only rule isn't followed. It can get a bit chaotic, especially if other non-EC editors join. One question is whether non-EC editors can participate in that kind of discussion. I think they should not for a variety of reasons, their involvement should be limited to their own edit request and necessary clarifications. This opinion at ANI might be of interest. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two most important rules here are:

1. Any good-faith comment must be answered in a civil, non-BITEy way. Rejection is sometimes correct, but rudeness or even BITEyness isn't.
2. If it looks like a request, and accepting the request would invilve editing the article, it's an edit request. The templates help attract the desirable attention to it, but are not necessary for it to be a request.

Animal lover |666| 17:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your second point. I also agree with avoiding rudeness and biteyness, not because it is right, but because it has no utility and can be counterproductive. It is often the kind of response that ban evading/fire starter editors who exploit the naivety of the assume good faith policy (rather than assume nothing) in ARBPIA want. In Wikipedia's system, which prioritizes civility over unbiased editing and honesty, an impolite adversarial response provides leverage. There is, in my view, little to no evidentiary basis for people's confidence in their ability to distinguish between good faith actors and bad actors using deception to tunnel through the 500 edit barrier. Another important rule is that any lack of strictness in the enforcement of rules is, and will continue to be, efficiently and effectively exploited by bad actors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need some additional guidance in this area, so I'm piggy-backing here rather than opening a brand new thread. Daniel Case has been helping me. For background, please see User talk:Daniel Case#WP:PIA questions. In a nutshell, I want to know when administrators should delete a page falling under WP:PIA (apparently it's discretionary) and how the deletion should look. The specific page is Yossi Sariel, which was created by Welchshiva, whose account was created on December 9, 2023, but who didn't start editing until April 13 and focused only on creating this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I WP:CSD#G5 if there has been no significant editing by an extended-confirmed editor and it isn't immediately obvious that the article is notable, doesn't fall foul of NOTNEWS, or is otherwise problematic. If I don't delete it I immediately ECP the article. I have restored some of these to draft and user space at the request of EC editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely should not be nominating or deleting such articles per G5 unless the creator is a blocked or banned user, because there has been no consensus in any of the discussions that G5 applies to ECR enforcement. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should have this argument yet again, and it will continue to be the common practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can have the argument as many times as you want, but unless and until there is a consensus to amend the speedy deletion policy then your and others' actions are going to be in breach of it and discussion of desysoppings for wilfully acting contrary to policy is going to happen sooner or later. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly I don't think we should even be deleting an article by a banned or blocked user simply because of who created it. If I saw such an article in my own area of interest, I'd want to fix or whatever. If I saw someone else delete it, I'd want to recreate. It just seems silly to be so glued to this rule that we can't relax it for a reasonable contribution just because of who created it. I feel like this rule probably was intended to make such deletions easier if needed, not to delete useful articles. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any benefit in deleting a promising article simply because it was created by a non-EC editor. That particular article looks like it's a BLP1E, though. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a gotcha because as soon as the article is given (for AI area), the talk and editing templates, then via WP:ARBECR, the creator will no longer be able to edit it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's a problem, though? If the article is worth keeping, let's not delete it simply because of who created it. Fix, draftify, whatever is the right choice. Delete if that's the right choice. But automatically delete without assessing seems shortsighted. Valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuh, who is making that choice/doing the assessing though? The submission for approval process seems the best way so draftify + submit for approval might work. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No real objection to draftifying and submitting for approval, but in theory the person considering deleting could assess or move along. If you aren't a good enough judge of the topic, maybe the next person along will be. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will depend on the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators. Levivich (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far looks like endorsing ScottishFinnishRadish modus operandi as did, as far as I can tell, a prior RFC from about a month ago. More complicated than I had thought, though I cannot readily see why we are happy to limit new editors to edit requests on talk pages but are willing to permit whole articles to be created (by the same group?). Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "willing to permit whole articles to be created" is really an option that anyone is entertaining, and limiting new editors to edit requests doesn't mean that we automatically and every time revert any and all edits by new editors that are not edit requests. If a non-XC editor made a good edit to an article that is covered by ECR but not actually ECP'd, I don't think we'd always in every case revert that edit. Similarly, I know that when a non-XC editor makes a comment on a talk page that isn't an edit request, we don't always and in every case revert those comments. Sometimes, call it IAR if you want, we let them slide. So even if we do not permit non-XC editors to create new articles in ECR areas (and in I/P there is an edit filter designed to technically prevent that from happening), but if one slips through, I'm not sure it follows that deleting the article is always in every case the right approach. And that doesn't mean that leaving it alone is the right approach either, there are other options (draftification, userfication). But hey, I'm in the minority on this. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and it's worth noting that WP:ECR explicitly says "administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations," so ECR already contemplates the idea that article creations in violation of ECR might not be deleted. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW for a concrete example, see Palestine studies. That's an article that I'd long thought Wikipedia needed and had contemplated someday writing. I'm glad someone else did it. That person happens to not be XC. It's a violation of WP:ECR. Nevertheless, I don't see how Wikipedia benefits by having that article deleted, though. That's a concrete example of a good ECR article creation violation. Levivich (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the discretion part, the rules need not always be strictly applied, although I think they should be most of the time. Still, why can't the new articles just go through the submission for approval process usually recommended for new editors. If they are good, they are going to get approved, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I totally agree with you (and AFC is how the Palestine studies article got published). But that would be impossible if we went about G5'ing or otherwise CSD'ing such articles. In fact, this is why I voted for draftification in the RFC, and why I'm strongly opposed to CSD'ing them. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was draftify + mandatory submit for approval I could go along with that. A couple I encountered before were articles just showing up in mainspace (and with POV titles), which can still get sorted out but is just a pia to do. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look to me like SFR's approach is being endorsed, certainly the misuse of G5 is not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rough count is 11 of 17 responses endorsing the use of G5, even if not their preferred method. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing RFCs aren't a vote because almost none of those responses even attempt to address the explicit opposition to expanding G5 (and in at least one case has not given any explanation for their opinion at all). Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was recommended to drop a notification here from the community discord for editor visibility. Please drop a message on my talk page if this needs to be reverted.

Briefly, we compiled a set of key values of Wikipedians and their opinions on research ethics from a workshop with a small group of editors. We'd like to hear from core editors and administrators to understand if these opinions accurately reflect the broader community. We'll use these thoughts to seed further discussions in our next workshop with WMF employees, researchers, and editors—our goal is to use these findings to orient IRBs and researchers to community guidelines and ensure that are followed to avoid community-level harms. If you would like a private space to leave your thoughts, my email is in the instructions section of results page, otherwise the meta talk page is a great place to discuss. Zentavious (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following requests to the Arbitration Committee, the CheckUser access of Joe Roe is restored and the Oversight access of GeneralNotability is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks GeneralNotability for his service as a member of the Arbitration Committee and Oversight team.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

I was adding 2 links to external links of the laureates on a .org hall of fame site....anbhf.org and ibhf.org..... 143.43.176.131 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned to stop adding links to those two websites to every hall of fame inductee, but you did not stop, and so now you are blocked from editing any article. Please familiarize yourself with our guidelines on external links and on link spamming. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, IP! I'm happy to unblock once you understand that this isn't something Wikipedia considers constructive. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so eager. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion concerning the question of religion and whether or not it is an appropriate subject for the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Administrators and experienced editors are encouraged to join the conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That whole board is grim. Secretlondon (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

I hadn't filed an SPI in quite a while, filed one and am waiting for it to be resolved. So I am curious about the present SPI backlog. I don't remember the backlog being this long in the past but maybe I'm wrong. SPI right now has a backlog of 46 cases waiting for a CU and also 73 Open cases... - Shearonink (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been waiting on an SPI on a pretty routine set of socks for over a week. It does seem like a pretty bad back-log. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does...and there seem to be a number of SPIs that have been attended-to but haven't been cleared from that noticeboard. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my hand at 2 and unfortunately picked to the problematic ones. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sympathies. The sock master/puppets that I & a few other editors have been battling continue to be obsessed with changing a sourced from impeccable reliable sources circa/approximate dates (like say just a year or an "either this year or that year" date) to a specific date and he/she/they seem obsessed with changing circa/approximate dates to specific dates in November. This behavior has been going on for at least months on a range of articles. Lately they've stepped up the funfunFUN and I am wary of somehow getting inveigled into a 3RR situation. This is not a content dispute, this is a situation where this editor has engaged in repeated reverts, changing referenced information and always using as their source user-edited sites like FindAGrave. There's also some circular sourcing going on where they cite wikidata and when I dig down on wikidata it actually says the circa/approximate/year-only dates are correct. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skitash is a prominent Wikipedian in North African politics and history Wikipedia, but I believe his behavior is not adequate for the website, an opinion which is shared by many of the contributors in the field I talked to, and I would like to report his behavior, especially as Wikipedia has gained a lot of attraction as a trustworthy source, and his writings have been used to discredit Amazigh/Berber culture, its importance and its impact in the Maghreb.

The Amazigh people are the indigenous population of the Maghreb, they have played a significant role in its history but a lot of (generally Arabist) thinkers in the Maghreb attempt to undermine their significance by discrediting their contributions to the region.

Skitash uses connotated language, e.g calling Tamazgha a "fictious entity", when other similar articles like Akhand Bharat don't use this connotated and biased language against it. We can see in revisions like [97] that the user undermines even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source, assuming all censed speakers of Arabic speak it natively, while ignoring the 25% Berber speaking population for which it is almost systematically a native language (the census is not about nativity at all by the way). He also removes Amazigh language names in articles, even when it consists of Amazigh toponyms such as Souss-Massa and in Souss-Massa-Draâ (see revision [98]), where he removed the Amazigh writing of name the region that is the cultural heart of Moroccan Amazigh (particularly the Shilha people), plenty other examples of this erasure of mentions to Amazigh people and languages can be found in the history of his contributions, but he reverts every correction, threatening an edit war, and discouraging most amateur Wikipedians.

His negative and biased contributions need to be stopped as they are both heavily impacting Wikipedia and offering a non neutral version of Maghrebi history to the general public. And even a quick google search can show this user has a very bad reputation in his erasure of Amazigh in Wikipedia Taluzet (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a lot of really good points, and the fact that colonial peoples often bury the histories of indigenous peoples on Wikipedia is and has been a major concern for a long time, but your tone is not great and will turn many people against you. Try calming down and explaining again in concise, neutral language, instead of just attacking Skitash.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. After going over Skitash's history, there is a lot of whitewashing the history of Arab imperialism, colonialism, and their abuses against indigenous peoples of their conquered lands, but that is a matter for ANI, not here. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should I redirect the post to ANI? Taluzet (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"colonial peoples" Are you referring to me as such? If this isn't a personal attack, then I don't know what is. Skitash (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack, it's an observation. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG. This appears to be a continuation of this ANI from last year. An ethnic dispute being dragged to Wikipedia is never going to end well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I took the initiative to report them only after seeing numerous other contributors to Maghreb related articles have had the same issues of erasure whenever they mentioned Amazigh people or gave the Amazigh term for something, some asking for a report to be made, so I tried taking action to assure admins are at least aware of the connotation of User:Skitash 's articles and the biased perspective of Maghrebi history they give off Taluzet (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations lack merit and are merely unfounded aspersions. I have always contributed to Wikipedia with widely accepted sourced content, and accusing me of discrediting Amazigh/Berber culture or being an Arabist is baseless.

"calling Tamazgha a "fictitious entity", when other similar articles like Akhand Bharat don't use this connotated and biased language against it. I am assuming you didn't bother reading the article or any of the cited sources there, but I will present them here. The following sources explicitly state that"...its replacement with multi- dimensional entities: a domestic region (the Rif, Tafilalt), the external region (North Africa) or a fictitious entity (Tamazgha) whose borders transcend states and nations?",[99]"They imagine a Tamazgha land that transcends the current nation-states that they live in." and"This nation lives in an imagined geography in Tamazgha, a region that stretches from ‘Touareg lands in Niger to Siwa in Egypt to Kabylie in Algeria and, of course, to Morocco’".[100] That is simply the very definition of Tamazgha according to reliable sources. Even the body of the Tamazgha article explains that the term is used"to imagine and describe a hypothetical federation spanning between the Canary Islands and the Siwa Oasis, a large swathe of territory including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Egypt, the Western Sahara, Burkina Faso and Senegal."

I have no idea what your point about "nativity" concerns but that makes absolutely no sense. The content you deleted in Culture of Morocco is sourced and backed by official census data. Your point about it being "illogical to think the that 18% of the 25% censed Berber speakers acquired it as a second language" is merely your unsubstantiated personal opinion. There is no contradiction between 92% of the population speaking Moroccan Arabic and 26% speaking Berber, as Morocco is a multilingual country. I have no idea why you would accuse me of undermining"even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source" for reverting your unwarranted and unjustified sourced content removal.

The Berber names you mentioned were not only removed by myself, but also by others as they were complete WP:OR. A discussion is currently underway on this matter, and there are plenty other editors who agree with my perspective and have expressed concerns that IPs have been going around and arbitrarily changing these unsourced Berber names without an explanation. As we know, Berber is not a single, unified language, and there are no existing dictionaries for the various Berber languages that exist.

Speaking of neutrality, I find this ironic as it appears that the sole purpose of your account is to use Wikipedia as an ethnic WP:BATTLEGROUND, focusing solely on pushing an agenda in Berber-related articles. Going through your contributions, all you have been doing is deleting sourced content you don't agree with for nonsensical reasons and replacing it with whatever you like[101][102][103] and adding unsourced content.[104] Nothing more. This pattern is evident on your talk page, which reveals that you disregard all your warnings regarding sourced content removal.

Furthermore, I'd like to draw attention to this ANI from last year in which I reported Taluzet for edit warring, misinterpreting sources and a lack of willingness to engage in constructive discussions, in which many editors argued that Taluzet is clearly WP:NOTHERE (interestingly, Taluzet harassed one of these editors on their talk page for participating in the discussion). Skitash (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You used a source that states the percent of Moroccan Arabic speakers overall, including L2 speakers, interpreting it as the percent of native (L1) speakers, especially in a comment that just serves to say that only Moroccan Arabic speakers really make a significant portion of the speakers.

About the names, why do the Arabic names not require sourcing? Are names in different languages treated differently?

I don't understand how using my account on a specific category is wrong, I don't push any agenda aiming to undermine the existence of another people.

I would like to apologize for the behavior on the ANI mentioned, I was new to the website and this was my first dispute with any user, I haven't even contributed to Wikipedia all that much this year, just mostly helping in the French Wiktionary, the issue of you contributing to the whole wiki with a clear bias is what brought me to return and file a report in the name of all Amazigh and Maghrebi wikipedians concerned about how this negatively affects the article. Taluzet (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"interpreting it as the percent of native (L1) speakers" When exactly did I do that? The sentence simply states that "92% of Moroccans speak Moroccan Arabic" and "About 26% of the population speaks a Berber language". These are straightfoward, objective facts according to the 2014 Moroccan census, and nowhere does it specify native or L2 speakers in the lead. Besides, this sourced content has been present in the lead for several years and was not added by me. Arabic, as the fourth most spoken language globally, is easily verifiable, unlike Tamazight, which consists of several mutually unintelligible and uncodified languages. Skitash (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says "92% of Moroccans speak Moroccan Arabic as a native language". If you didn't write it then why did you immediately revert it when I made the correction?

All titles are written in an orthography that was standardized by the Moroccan IRCAM, it's pretty easy to verify if you simply ask a Wikipedian that writes it. Taluzet (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to realise that WP:NPOV does not mean that all points of view should have equal billing, but that those points of view represented in reliable sources should be covered "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". Without the sources being presented we can't tell whether Skitash has been following this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have included all the sources in my response here. Please take a look if you will. I am puzzled as to how my reversion of Taluzet's removal of long-standing sourced content backed by government census data constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV and"undermines even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source" as they have claimed. Skitash (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was directed at Taluzet, who doesn't seem to be arguing on the basis of reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you, the census is not about native languages, it's just about spoken languages, seen by the fact the percentages in each column don't add up to anything close to 100% Taluzet (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, you will get a lot of conflicting sources on the Maghreb, mostly due to the fact that those sources achieve different goals. For example, on that ANI concerning the usage of the word Tamazight/Amazigh and th self-identification of Berber people using that word, Skitash presented a source that states "Historically, these groups did not call themselves "Berbers" but had their own terms of self-referral. Kabyles, for instance, refer to themselves as "Leqbayel," Shawiyas as "Ishawiyen," and so on", which is a true statement (apart from the 'Historically', since it's a point about modern ethnonyms, and not ancient ones which were more likely to be the widespread Amazigh and Tamazight), because these 2 groups, as well as most groups in Algeria, do use these newly adopted ethnonyms traditionally, but the point he references that in which is "Historically, Berbers did not have a collective term of self-referral but had their own terms to refer to themselves." is not correct, as the names Tamazight and Amazigh are widespread today in traditional use and even more widely attested in pre-modern times, through ancient sources, toponyms and expressions, but the article Berber languages as presented in this version [105] uses a language that suggests it wasn't used in the Berber world prior to modern linguists' promotion of this term.

So I blame Skitash of nitpicking and extrapolating these sources to achieve a goal of discrediting Amazigh language Taluzet (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're referencing a content dispute that took place last year, but what you're contesting is a sourced objective fact that is present in multiple Berber-related articles. The statement you mentioned,"Historically, these groups did not call themselves "Berbers" but had their own terms of self-referral. Kabyles, for instance, refer to themselves as "Leqbayel," Shawiyas as "Ishawiyen," and so on", is found word for word in the source. What you're bizarrely trying to do is dispute the findings of the author, a cultural anthropologist who conducted research in Algeria, by saying that you're right and the author is wrong and replacing this well-sourced information with a dubious unreliable source from 1986. Skitash (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the "dubious unreliable source" is Salem Chaker, one of the founding fathers of modern Tamazight linguistics, anyone in the field should know him, as well as the famous "encyclopédie berbère" he directs. Taluzet (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is dubious and unreliable. Your source is WP:UNDUE, it's nearly 40 years old and does not warrant replacing the already established credible RS. We've already discussed this previously, and your misinterpretation of sources has been evident. The source you provided doesn't support your claim at all, and you have consistently made WP:OR assumptions and ridiculous claims such as"Mazax is obviously the same word as amazigh"[106]

Anyway, this noticeboard is about behavior rather than content disputes. Since you accused me of not being neutral, then why did you hardly respond to any of the the counterpoints I made in response to your baseless accusations? The only thing you addressed was the issue on Culture of Morocco. If your concern was solely about the "native language" part (which was not added by me and was present on the page for several years), why did you delete the whole paragraph along with its reliable sources rather than just those two words? This is highly unusual, and suggests that you're distorting my edits to portray them as non-neutral when this clearly isn't the case. In fact, you're the one using Wikipedia in a non-neutral manner, as evidenced by your clear intentions to edit war with the goal of pushing a POV, your persistent personal attacks and your warning-plastered talk page (indicating a disregard for them). Given this pattern of behavior, I believe you should be blocked for being WP:NOTHERE and violating WP:NPA, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOR, WP:EW and possibly even more. Skitash (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the source you are using for Tamazgha is very clearly biased and violates the neutral point of view rule, the author states "These contradictory attitudes contribute to a growing sense of cultural and linguistic alienation and exacerbate feelings of exclusion among Amazigh, thereby complicating national integration." and also "The royal initiative is an encouraging one provided the king shows stronger political will to enforce it in face of a hostile administration and an outdated vision of national unity that still prevails among influential Moroccan elites."[107] clearly showing the author is addressing the issue of Tamazgha in a hostile manner, as he deems it to be a challenge to the national unity of Morocco and the kingdom, presenting the situation with a lot of bias for the Moroccan state. Paraphrasing such articles in your definition of Tamazgha as 'fictious entity' I believe is contrary to the principles of Wikipedia

Surprisingly all the warnings in my talk page are from you, and every other contributor in Berber related articles I've asked have had the same issue of you fighting against Tamazight representation in the Wiki, I have not had any issue in my other contributions.

Here are various examples online of this issue, where you can see User:Skitash is known by many for his political tendencies and him acting upon them in Wikipedia, by using and paraphrasing dubious sources that go against the consensus of the geneticists and linguists of the region, apparently even removing Kurdish town names too to replace them with Arabic :

[108]

Talk:Maghreb

[109] Taluzet (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the only source present in the article. Multiple reliable sources corroborate the exact same perspective. If you took a brief moment to read the Tamazgha article, you would learn that it describes what Berberists see as"the geographic embodiment of a Berber imaginary of a once unified language and culture that had its own territory". This is essentially the definition of Tamazgha, which has been agreed upon by scholars and other Wikipedia editors[110][111] and has been present in the article for over a year at least. Are you suggesting that Tamazgha exists, and is a real political entity stretching across the entirety of North Africa and encompassing 12 modern-day sovereign states? I don't see what you find so "hostile" about the author's tone, but this further underscores my point that you often baselessly label editors, authors and scholars as non-neutral based on your own viewpoint. I challenge you to provide a source that asserts Tamazgha is a sovereign nation state that exists.

Regarding those links you attached, I have no regard for what like-minded POV-pushing individuals that promote disruptive editing and an ethnic agenda have to say about me and the various other Wikipedia editors they have targeted. What I find interesting is that this has given rise to several recently-created meatpuppets and sockpuppets such as AmazighAcademic, Elyelm, Rumihoney, SaraWiki123, Yassaa.m, Aniguran and Algerien berber (I wouldn't be surprised if you were among them) who all share things in common: to use Wikipedia as an ethnic battleground, delete sourced content and stir up edit wars, behaviors that largely mirror your own. Were you not aware of how these several meatpuppets disruptively edit warred against me and other editors until admins stepped in to protect Tamazgha and Abd el-Krim? Skitash (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with your edits in Tamazgha is calling it a fictious entity right at the beginning of the definition, by paraphrasing a biased article. Your objective is clearly to discredit the concept of Tamazgha, and discrediting Berbers seems to be the objective of a lot of your edits in the Maghreb Wikipedia. I am not asking you to call it a righteous nation-state or anything, just to be treated as any other unofficial 'great' homeland is like Kurdistan or Akhand Bharat, that are called concepts or geo-cultural regions, because that is the neutral term, that does not send a biased message to the reader.

But it is only one example of you misusing sources in order to skew the message given by Wikipedia articles so that it can fit your personal narrative of erasure of Berbers in the Maghreb and replacing indigenous names and mentions by Arab ones.

Your reputation among Maghreb circles is not to be ignored, and even neutral observants can clearly see you are pushing a colonialist and arabist agenda into Wikipedia, that - as others said - is trusted and used by a lot of people afterwards as a 100% legitimate and objective source.

I have no responsibility in the actions others have taken against you, it is sad that these people take the situation irresponsibly which ends up in the favour of your quests of erasure of Berbers simply through your knowledge of Wikipedia etiquette and taking advantage of their ignorance, I decided myself to take the matter to the admins Taluzet (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be entirely based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. "Fictitious entity" is what RS describe it as, and has been in the article for over a year, with agreement from other editors."just to be treated as any other unofficial 'great' homeland is like Kurdistan or Akhand Bharat, that are called concepts or geo-cultural regions, because that is the neutral term, that does not send a biased message to the reader." Why don't you present sources describing it as such? Kurdistan is distinctly different, being a geographical location united by language and geography. Tamazgha isn't a geographical location, it lacks a clear geographical definition and whatever lands it claims do not share the same language and culture. If you have any concerns, go ahead and take them to the talk page of the respective article.

The rest of your argument largely echoes your initial accusations me against me and ignores my responses to your unfounded claims and personal attacks which you have failed to address, and regarding"neutral observants can clearly see you are pushing a colonialist", no reputable, established Wikipedia editor expresses this view. On the other hand, I know Wikipedia editors who think you're clearly not here to contribute constructively as seen in the previous ANI.

Moreover, I contribute to articles pertaining to the entire MENA region and revert vandalism in a broad spectrum of topics, not solely focusing on Maghrebi-related ones like you do. Portraying my account as solely dedicated to the Maghreb is misleading and dishonest. Skitash (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all the points above, I apologized for my behaviour in the ANI that happened a year ago, and I was unexperienced in Wikipedia etiquette as it was my first ever such interaction in this website.

As for "not solely focusing on Maghrebi-related ones like you do", first of all I only really contributed in Berber related stuff, not the whole Maghreb as long as it was political (as you do), and are you really blaming me for that, because you literally do the same to the Arab world, the difference is I chose to keep myself to a subject I am familiar with (Berber linguistics), not acting as an authority on every minority in the region by misusing biased sources and avoiding sources of experts that tackle the subjects in question directly, like when you used the work of cultural anthropologist Jane E. Goodman which is exclusive to Algeria to tackle on a universally Berber, complex linguistic question, and then proceeded called the work of the notorious Salem Chaker "dubious and unreliable".

You're showing this ethnic bias you're blaming me for to Arabs much more than I do, and you're extending it over to minorities under the Arab world.

I didn't say your account was exclusive to the Maghreb, but I have heard many complaints about your actions in the Maghrebi Wikipedia. Taluzet (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, feel free to continue reiterating same unfounded accusations you've been repeating for the past several hours, without offering any revision links or meaningful points. Clearly, you must be the real expert here, knowing more than all those cultural anthropologists, scholars, credible authors and editors you disagree with and accuse of bias. My job here is done; we'll just have to wait for the administrators to come to a conclusion. Skitash (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

|

Don't know if this is really considered urgent at this point, but I've seen people post things like this before: there's a backlog of about twenty requests at WP:RFPP right now. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't describe it as urgent. Many of these requests are inappropriate/not going to result in protection. -Fastily 00:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. In any case, it has now been cleared. (Thanks, Callanecc!) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion, in resolution of a case request, that:

For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 14:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Sri Lanka

The few administrators responding at this queue haven't much interacted with a whitelist request I made 2 weeks ago. The vibe I get is that because the source in question relates to WP:MEDRS, anyone looking at the request would rather not bother with it. Could an admin take a look at my request in full, please?

(For additional context, I started out with an RSN thread, where I noted the source seemed reliable, and questioned why it's on the blacklist to begin with.) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More generally I would appreciate not being the only admin regular there, which I have been for months. I only started doing it because requests were being archived without reply prior to that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't comments on your thread because I'm not inclined to whitelist per your request as I'm not convinced it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia. I notice you also tend to get rather impatient, PhotogenicScientist, and you seem to forget that administrators are volunteers who are not required to respond on your timetable. Or at all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to forget that admins are volunteers I'm not sure where you're getting that from, considering I said "admins are volunteers" right here. And I waited 4 days actively on RSN, 7 days actively on WT, and another 7 days with no action on WT - does that seriously qualify as someone whotends to get rather impatient?

Look, feel very free to continue to ignore my request, Dennis Brown. I'm not holding it against you, or anything. Just asking here for support from any other admin. (Which I was advised to do from the RSN thread, by the way) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am banned from editing topics related to Mormonism, but one of the main reasons for my ban is that I did not sufficiently disclose potential and actual COIs. I've talked to the admin in charge of my ban, and he is okay with me adding COI banners/explanations to talk pages even if they are in the topic of Mormonism. Please let me know if there are any objections--I will continue adding COI banners to talk pages on Monday, 4/22. I list some details of the kinds of things I would like to disclose over on my talk page. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The TBAN is considered to be imposed by the community so there's not really an "admin in charge" of it. It's always good to ask when you're unsure; personally I don't see an issue with the specific task of adding COI disclosures to talk pages. DanCherek (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess then read this as a more "is this okay?" then "I'm going to go do this now." *smiling sweat drop emoji Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see adding COI tags to previously-edited articles as a violation of the tban, and in fact I think we should be encouraging it as an indication that Rachel is operating in good faith. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there – dropping a quick heads up that CAT:RD1 currently has nearly 50 pages needing to be reviewed for copyright revdel. Admin assistance would be greatly appreciated. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there has been someone (or multiple someones) taking a pretty big chunk out of it -- there were only about eighteen when I looked -- but I worked through a few of what was left. jp×g🗯️ 05:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. In 2018 I was topic banned plus 1RR. I've been off Wiki for several years. The Admin who imposed the topic banned & the 1RR has been super kind and fair, and helped by pointing me to the relevant policy regarding topic ban, to which I am grateful, but that now leaves me even more confused as to whether I should mention the topic here or not. Since I'm not sure what to do, I rather not mention it here just in case I am not allowed to as per policy. Sorry guys, some of you maybe confused. I'm confused myself as it's been years away from Wiki and I forgot a lot, my Wiki brain is not working. My apologies. I'm not trying to play ruse here, I am honestly confused. I don't even know whether this is the right format for appealling this, and I'm weary of asking or mention something I shouldn't and gets a telling off. I have been blocked before, but have never been topic banned until the 2018 one, so the appeal process of this type of sanction is pretty new to me anyway. It has been 5 years (2019) since I came off Wiki returning back in March this year. During those 5 years I've learned a lot. I had been extremely difficult, driven by my passion for this Wiki project, but which sometimes got me into trouble. I have apoligised for that before and I would like to apologise for that again here. As a human being, I make mistakes too. Learning from those mistakes to be a better version of myself is what I do now. The 5 years absence had given me opportunity to self reflect, especially when I now have another grandson. My mentality is totally different from when I started over a decade ago. Yes, I have done some bad stuff over the years, but I've also done some good that helps contribute in a small away towards the advancement of this great project –which is what I am here for. I therefore urge the community to consider this appeal in the spirit it is written and lift the topic ban and 1RR. Thank you all for your time, and apologies again if anything is confusing. I am equally confused, but did not want to mention the topic's name just in case I'm not even allowed to mention it by name.Tamsier (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions, "Tamsier is topic banned from all edits related to the Serer people, and is also under a sitewide 1RR restriction. Both restrictions are broadly construed. They can be appealed to the community, for instance at WP:AN, but no sooner than 12 months from now, and are enforcable by blocks." Tamsier, when contesting the topic ban, you are allowed to specifically mention the topic ban. Thanks for being cautious! --Yamla (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As the banning admin, I'm not going to opine on this appeal, but I'll provide a few courtesy links for clarification: please see my recent warning here, the 2018 discussion which led to the ban (the header says 2015, but don't let that worry you), and the formal notice in 2018. Bishonen | tålk 13:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Also see the ANI discussion here. I'm clearly involved and although Tamsier has been more than civil with me since I discovered he was back that's a 180degree change from when he was last editing. User:Drmies was also a target. Here is what I wrote in 2018:

"Tamsier, I'm going to be blunt. I have always been in favor of more representation of African subjects and have even spent money on sources besides of course time to improve some of them. Your enthusiasm for improving these is great. But I had a serious problem with your sourcing and content, which I think comes from your sincere belief in the old Serer religion and its truth, that the Serer have been in Africa forever, etc. This has made it difficult for you to follow our policies and guidelines when editing Serer related articles. I think that any unblock request needs to be made at WP:ANI via your talk page - there will be people who will repost comments you make here to your ANI request. I'm sure nobody, including you, wants a repeat of what happened that led to your block. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

I've got no time to spend on examining current edits, but I would like to know, Tamsier, if your belief in how long the Serer have been in Africa has changed. Doug Weller talk 14:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Yamla for doing that. Much appreciated. Hi Doug Weller, I think there has been misunderstanding regarding those people (I'm trying not to mention their name here as this is a Wiki page too, just in case I'm not suppose to) being in Africa forever. This might be due to the different styles of using the English language (and/or writing style) by people from different cultures. However, I have not purported and do not purport that group "has been in Africa forever." The only think I can do is report on what the sources say, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's were a lot of our disagreements stemmed from. To answer your question directly, absolutely no. If we are to go with the scientific view that humanity originated from Africa, it would not make sense for me to advance that group of people have in Africa forever. Do I believe or have I ever held the view that they have been in Africa forever? Absolutely no, because they couldn't have by sheer logic. If that is the impression I gave in any of my edits or comments, then I'm sorry about that, because that's not what I meant to do, but only reporting what the sources say as it pertains to their own history and the history of the region they settled in. I hope that helps in clarifying any misunderstanding. I noticed an editor (I can't remember who it was as I was on the move at the time) posed some important questions but later deleted it after looking at my talk page which were answered there. As mentioned on my talk page, I totally forgot about this topic ban and 1RR as it has been 5 years since I came back. The edits were not in anyway of me trying to game the system. To the contrary, I genuinely forgot. The fact that I logged on and edited rather than using an IP demonstrate that it was genuine forgetfullness (I'm not young anymore, lol). I have not been on Wiki for years, and totally forgot. Had it been an ordinary block, the system would have alerted me, and would have jogged my memory. However, as it was a topic ban, it totally escaped my mind after all these years. That is the honest answer. I just thought I take the opportunity to mention it here as well.Tamsier (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  When reporting what sources said about an ancient existence of the Serer, which you can mention here, did you always attribute their statements? Doug Weller talk 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear, I’m sorry if you took me literally when I said forever, I thought it obvious that was hyperbole. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) I think it's plausible that, after five years absence, Tamsier forgot about the topic ban. However, they have an unsettling block history, and some of their edit summaries since returning are concerning:

• Undoing disingenous edit and POV pushing by User:Catjacket. You can't call them Fula! They speak Pulaar but that does not mean they are Fulani. I've seen your edits on other articles doing the same thing! Also, fixed the link to Futa Toro.
• Reverted Fula & Wolof POV motivated by anti-Serer sentiments and hate. Will be going through this article in the next few days. Starting now. Dubious claims motivated by hated of the Serer and tribalism & not backed by RS will be removed. This is an encyclopedia. Take your hatred and POV elsehwere.
• Removing silly tag motivated by hatred and anti-Serer sentimens (the only reason for adding the tag there was because of ref to a Serer King, not because of Lat Dior, so sad). Read the article about the battle & you will know what the battle was about. Please do not bring tribalism and religious hatred on Wiki. Also, it is the Kingdom of Jolof, not the empire which ceased to exist in the 16th century. Addeed refs

If Tamsier can edit actively for six months while complying with the topic ban and avoiding past problems, that might demonstrate that the topic ban is no longer needed. Schazjmd (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schazjmd, the links you've posted was me addressing some concerning editing, adding references, and correcting issues, one of which pertaining to an ethnic minority group, who are a minority anyway and how dangerous it could be to lump them into a wider dominant group just because they speak the same language. The editor and I had actually had fruitful discussions on the relevant topic page and reached concensus. Another issue which you missed was me reverting an IP who changed the population size of the group from 1 million to 5 million without sources: Restored revision 1216800884 by AnomieBOT (talk): Reverting IP POV when discussion is still going. Also, they have increased the population from 1 m to 5 million without sources. Take it to the talk page. With regards to your six months proposal, as I have stated earlier, I am here to help in a collaborative manner. I have also not been on Wiki for 5 years as stated, and took responsibility for my actions and apologised for that. I have never had a topic ban before so this is all knew to me as stated above. I didn't even appeal it a year after the ban. Yes, it is true that I want the ban and 1RR lifted, but I also want to be treated fairly here, and not having to be doubly punished for a sanction imposed several years ago. I hope you would agree that sanctions are not punitive or designed to humiliate editors especially when they have taken responsibility for their actions and agree not to do it again, which I have and still do.Tamsier (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Doug Weller, I didn't see you later comment. Sorry. When the statements or accounts are supported by multiple sources/scholars, I simply add the inline citations so the reader can examine the sources themselves. If I am not mistaken, and do correct me if I'm wrong, I believe what you are asking is if for example source A says so and so.., whether I add in the article in quotation marks source A says so and so... rather than just paraphrasing and providing the inline citation. If that is what you are asking, yes, sometimes I do quote the text and attribute it to the author and provide the inline citation, and sometimes I paraphrase it and provide the inline citation. If quoting is your preferred option, I totally accept and respect that. However, as an active editor, and I have lot of balancing act to do. I have to be weary of copyright violations; and making sure an article is not full of multiple quotations thereby making the article more like a copy and paste rather than an encycolpedia. By paraphasing and adding the relevant reference as an inline citation to the claim, I believe that would help the reader to examine the source the claim referred to. You have been on Wiki for many years, and are more experience, and I do appreciate that different people have different way of doing things, and I have no problem adopting your technique (which I've done on many articles anyway) if that is the community's preferred way of doing it. Which ever method is best to help the general reader but also balancing copyright violation and piling quotations after quotations on an article which in my view comes off as copy and paste. Perhaps 1 or 2 quoations in an article is fine, but multiple quoations rather than paraphasing, in my judgement as an active editor, could end up doing more harm. However, I do believe that providing quotations in some cases rather than just paraphasing is crucial. As I edit, I try to make that judgement call. Sometimes, of course, I may make the wrong. However, by adding the inline citation to the claim being supported, at least that would give the reader the opportunity to examine the source themselves. I hope I've answered your questions, and if you think I've missed anything or misunderstood your question in the way I answered it, please clarify. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I said I wouldn't opine on Tamsier's appeal, but I will say something, in view of the shocking edit summaries that Schazjmd quotes above, and which are only a few days old: "motivated by anti-Serer sentiments and hate"... "motivated by hat[r]ed of the Serer and tribalism"... "Take your hatred and POV elsewhere"... "Removing silly tag motivated by hatred and anti-Serer sentimens"... "Please do not bring tribalism and religious hatred on Wiki". What a lot of hatred and what a lot of assumptions of bad faith. It's much too similar to the attacks and the bad faith assumptions that Tamsier was indefinitely blocked for in 2015 (the block that was eventually converted to the topic ban we are discussing here). I'm sorry to see it. Is this really the user who says above "My mentality is totally different from when I started over a decade ago"? Tamsier, those edit summaries were written by you on 2 April, 12 April and 15 April. This April. So is it your contention that you are now a reformed character with a totally different mentality, even though you were still an aggressive bad-faith-assuming battleground editor a week ago, as seen in those edit summaries? I don't really care if that was you "addressing some concerning editing, adding references, and correcting issues", which is your defense above. I care that you seemingly can't address issues without ascribing bad motives and attacking others as being motivated by "hatred", a word you keep using. That's terrible in my opinion. It's completely unacceptable on Wikipedia. I don't see anybody speaking to or about you in that way. I'm also not impressed by your reply to Doug Weller:Do I believe or have I ever held the view that they have been in Africa forever? Absolutely no, because they couldn't have by sheer logic. Your literal reading of what Doug said looks evasive — merely a way of changing the subject. Surely you knew what he meant? Bishonen | tålk 20:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• What Bishonen says. I remember that it was precisely this zeal that led to various admonitions and finally the topic ban--it seemed clear to me that when it came to Serer matter, the editor simply could not be objective and detached. That's a real shame, of course, since we need editors in those topic areas--but what we do not need is editors who, the moment they are invested in a topic area, disparage the motivations of editors who make edits they don't agree with.
  So the big problem I see is signaled by this edit, and its edit summary, and I'll quote part of it: " I can't with the Wolof Pov pushing. This is just too much! Editors should really take a deep look of Wolof Pov pushing on the Wiki project. The problem is bigger than I thought". Now the article is fairly recent, but the subject wasn't Serer (in our article) until Tamsier. Fine. Maybe he is. Maybe the sources are good. And it's certainly true that there's not direct, sourced statement that said he's Wolof. The problem though is the thought that this article would have been created/edited to make a man a Wolof and deliberately leave out that he's Serer. User:BastianMAT, who created the article, is a Wolof POV pusher? So, no, I don't think lifting the topic ban is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs) 22:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi @Drmies: I believe you made the above edit but couldn't reply direct as it was unsigned and the name is not coming up on my computer. It was not the creator of the article who added that. How do I word pov on the same topic area, on multiple pages - a problem which is bigger than both you and I? Most of which (as per what I've seen so far) has nothing at all to do with the Serer either (first time I'm writing it here since I'm told it is okay), but bigger than I I initially thought, and some of whom are IPs drivebys, meat or socks, etc. The article did not even have a source for that. I was the one who sourced it. If we are adding cats for something, surely the topic must be discussed and sourced. It's like adding Category:Yoruba people to the King Charles article when nothing in his biography mentions he is Yoruba and certainly not sourced. When you run into too many of these - most of which I've seen but have not even touched, what can one say/do? Some of course would be innocent mistakes, but as an active editor who work on these types of articles, I am more likely to come across them than someone who occasionally edits these types of articles. I didn't even mention the editor by name, just the problem and highlighted the fact that it is a major issue - having seen so many - most of which I haven't even touched. The article's creator you mentioned was not even the person who added that. When is the correct time for me to call a spade a spade especially when I see the same issues on multiple articles? All I'm asking for Drmies and @Doug Weller: is to be given a chance rather than throwing the book at me.Tamsier (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Tamsier: No one is throwing the book at you, you have to do what anyone appealing a topic ban would do, prove that your behaviour has changed. You obviously haven't done that. But you did get the book thrown at you when you were sanctioned five years ago, and yet you say you forgot? I find that surprising to say the least given how important a topic this is for you and the drama that surrounded your editing that led to the sanctions. I'd also like a direct answer to my question. When do you think the Serer tribe emerged? I'm sure you have an opinion on that. Doug Weller talk 07:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so one little category edit is enough to suggest that there is a huge POV problem, a major issue, bigger than the editor initially thought. So I'm going with no: if Tamsier is going to rant in edit summaries rather than start a decent discussion, with diffs and arguments (they could have done that given that they forgot about their topic ban), then this collaborative project is not for them. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• An edit summary like this to me demonstrates a battleground attitude not compatible with editing a thorny topic. Even if we look past the TBAN violation as accidental, I would oppose lifting the restriction at this time. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This relates to Quayshires. I'm wary of not biting a relatively new editor. Maybe they haven't seen talk page notifications, or might be editing in a way that doesn't display them. This editor has started a few new pages with content copied from other pages. One of them was actually a good idea, being 2024 Limerick mayoral election, being a split from 2024 Limerick City and County Council election. The mayoral election is indeed notable enough to get its own page. However, I noticed it because a good part of the page was material which I had added to the other page. I notified the user of the etiquette, but I've since noticed that they have done the same, and for pages where there was much less need, such as 2023 Philip Schofield affair scandal with material copied from Phillip Schofield, and 2024 Børsen fire with material copied from Børsen. I was wary of Chancellorship of Jeremy Hunt, being a large page recently created, but it turns out that one is new, just mostly worked offline. The editor has made some constructive edits, but is both creating pages unnecessarily and not adhering to policy, such that I think some nudge from an administrator is warranted. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was made aware of this by Iveagh Gardens, and will now clamp down on making unnecessary pages going forward. Quayshires (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. And also more specifically, remember to attribute any copying within Wikipedia. Copying within Wikipedia should probably be limited anyway, as each article has its own purpose, so it's better to let them develop in their own organic way, rather than copying text that was crafted for a different article. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a small addendum, can I urge you to read your talk page notices. I see there was a comment on your talk page about copying without attribution, with a warning of a block if there was continued infringement. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quayshires, I know you have been given a lot of articles to read, but copyright is taken very seriously here as it has legal ramifications. Making unnecessary pages is a lesser matter than copying without attribution, so please read WP:copying within Wikipedia again and make sure that you understand it. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CCI is the usual venue for reporting mass copyright violations, in case you need it in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Bcmh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The user was topic banned from articles about poltics and placed under a WP:0RR in 2023

Dear @331dot, @ToBeFree and other noticeboard users,

I am appealing for a removal of the topic ban and restriction arising from a ban first enacted by @ToBeFree on 18:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC) and removed by @331dot on 23:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC) with my agreement on a topic ban and 0RR restriction.[reply]

I now wish to return to making productive (and not disruptive) contributions and do better in terms of collaborative posture and behaviour on wikipedia.

I also understand that there are various procedures and venues to mediate disputes or differences without resorting to edit warring.

I fully intend to seek such guidance from the Teahouse or from other applicable information pages if needed.

Thank you for reading and considering this request. Bcmh (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bcmh, your block was lifted on 28 Sept 2023 since when you have made just TWO edits in mainspace. On what basis are we supposed to be assessing your appeal? Cabayi (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi my impression, which is totally open to correction, was that my former behaviour warranted a period of being restrained in totality, regardless of other topics that are available for editing, especially so because there were many articles that I wanted to edit but thought that they could be approaching the bounds of what the ban was about - politics - and I honestly thought that it was better to just be restrained, would I now be correct in understanding that an appeal to remove a ban should include a longer list of edits? Again, I do not deny that I have only made two edits but it was borne out of a good faith but possibly mistaken intention as outlined above which is open to correction by yourself and others Bcmh (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how we can determine if you’ve changed. A topic ban is given as a sanction in expectation you will edit elsewhere, if we knew you wouldn’t we could have just blocked you completely. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to see edits from you so we can determine if you have changed and that the behavior that led to the topic ban will not repeat. Two edits isn't enough to determine that. I'm sorry you have been operating under a misunderstanding, but the point of a topic ban is to redirect your efforts elsewhere. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sigh, could I ask how many edits are needed if more than two? is it 20 or 200? and does the six months restart again from today? or is it a more subjective assessment than number of edits and time? just trying to ask for some help and clarity here, thx Bcmh (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

could I also seek some clarification on whether it is permissible for me to edit an article that I created and have made many productive contributions to, and have many more to make: Reserves of the Government of Singapore; as well as other related articles that I did not create but are related to the one that I did, such as: Central Provident FundHousing and Development Board, GIC, Temasek Holdings, Monetary Authority of Singapore, Post Office Savings Bank, Singapore Land Authority - these are topics of Economics, Pension Funds, Public Housing and life in Singapore that I am familiar with, had made productive (and not disruptive) contributions prior to my ban and were not subject to my former behaviour which only took place in these two articles President of Singapore and Next Singaporean General Election which I do not seek permission to edit at this time.

I understand that a topic ban on politics is to be widely construed, but politics is so wide-ranging that it could be possibly linked to anything under the sun that has any involvement or interaction with elected politicians, furthermore, adding to these articles was not at all where my former behaviour manifested, so I'm hoping to be granted permission to edit these articles (except the election and president articles) since I need to show more edits and that I have changed. Thank you for your consideration. Bcmh (talk) 03:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban does not affect your ability to edit articles that you created, unless they are about areas you are topic banned from.

As for how many edits, the number is "enough that we can determine that you have changed". It certainly isn't two but I can't give a specific number, nor is it about a specific number. Probably at least dozens, if not a hundred. The ban was appealable after six months; there is no time limit on when you can next appeal, but it will likely take you a few months to build up the edits to show that you have changed. 331dot (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the topic ban is from "articles about politics", I would certainly stay away from editing an article called Reserves of the Government of Singapore. If you want to appeal a topic ban in the future, it's best to steer well clear of anything which might reasonably be considered as being covered by it; looking like you are pushing boundaries or toeing the line of acceptable behaviour generally isn't considered favourably by people assessing an appeal. If you are interested in Singaporean topics, surely there are articles in, say, Category:Culture of Singapore or Category:People from Singapore which you are able to improve and which stay well away from your TBAN. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. There's a bit of a backlog (understatement) at Category:Requests for unblock, could an administrator please try to clear some of it out? Regards, 12.32.37.18 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I did one, and it took ten minutes--that's why we have a backlog... Drmies (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Had to briefly process why they would took so long. One supposes the RfU backlog will persist past the extinction of humanity, as Wikipedia's servers (to quote EEng), "...deep in their underground bunders, whirr and hum and blink..." In all seriousness though, it isn't too big of a deal, just thought a few admins might wanna chip away at it a bit. 12.32.37.18 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not an urgent backlog. Most of the accounts in the category are blocked with good reason and are unlikely to be unblocked anytime soon. It takes time and effort to decline frivolous requests and that's hardly a good use of volunteer time. -Fastily 22:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There'll always be a queue; there need not always be someone calling for it to be emptied. NebY (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen it much worse than it is now. 12.32, do you have a particular interest in seeing unblock requests reviewed? 331dot (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really, to be honest. I'm a school IP, but feel free to run a CU (there'll probably be no accounts unless some were made and promptly blocked before my time here). Just saw a massive backlog and went "huh, maybe the sysops would wanna know about this". 12.32.37.18 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced and previously deleted page is published again: MapTiler. 85.219.28.182 (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible for WP:G4 (which is what should have been attempted first) so WP:AFD is your primary recourse here. This is not an AN issue. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance if this is a silly question - to be blunt, I'm not as familiar with the blocking policy as I should be, so I'm not entirely sure if these types of blocks even exist.

The sockmaster ProTaylorCraft has, over the last five years, had 38 confirmed socks, with 39 officially suspected and an additional three not tagged yet (from the latest SPI, last week). This has resulted in 23 SPIs up until now, as well as the previously linked LTA case. The unique thing about this sockmaster, however, is that they (as far as I can tell) don't use IPs for their vandalism, instead continuously churning out new accounts. I know that large-scale permablocks can't be enforced against IPs due to their constantly-shifting nature; however, with this sockmaster only using registered accounts, is there any sort of regional block that can be enforced, or any sort of way to disable account creation from their range? Again, my apologies if this comes off as ignorant. The Kip 18:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]