Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	3	3
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	13	27	40
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 13 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 11 sockpuppet investigations
• 7 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 8 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 4 requests for RD1 redaction
• 34 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 12 requested closures
• 74 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 8 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (48 out of 8845 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Malayalam 2024-11-14 23:13 2024-12-14 23:13 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per request at RFPP; going longer this time Daniel Case 2024 Ramyah clashes 2024-11-14 23:08 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Vietnamese irredentism 2024-11-14 22:41 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Matal (2018 film) 2024-11-14 20:25 indefinite create Restore salt Pppery Vettaiyan 2024-11-14 18:55 2025-08-19 20:25 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Template:No significant coverage (sports) 2024-11-14 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II FRVR 2024-11-14 15:27 2024-12-14 15:27 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Queen of Hearts Operation Cast Thy Bread 2024-11-14 14:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Y.Chroma 2024-11-14 12:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Black Kite Yung Koebra 2024-11-14 11:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated DoubleGrazing Madurai–Mysore Wars 2024-11-14 08:54 2024-11-21 08:54 move Disruptive page moving Liz Module:Fiction redirect category handler/Franchise 2024-11-14 04:39 indefinite edit High-risk template or module Pppery Desert Doc 2024-11-14 02:41 indefinite create Sock target Pppery Indonesian Dutch 2024-11-13 22:05 2025-05-13 22:05 create Sock target Pppery User talk:217.178.141.183 2024-11-13 21:31 2024-12-13 21:31 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.53.87.201 2024-11-13 21:26 2024-11-17 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:221.150.224.254 2024-11-13 21:10 2024-12-13 21:10 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:213.87.102.204 2024-11-13 12:49 2024-12-13 12:49 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:112.169.222.27 2024-11-13 12:48 2024-12-13 12:48 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:187.188.59.169 2024-11-13 12:47 2024-12-13 12:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:211.34.182.26 2024-11-13 12:42 2025-11-13 12:42 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:220.93.19.43 2024-11-13 12:40 2025-11-13 12:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:77.108.235.237 2024-11-13 12:36 2024-12-13 12:36 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.86.237.182 2024-11-13 12:34 2024-12-13 12:34 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:118.172.199.201 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:138.94.122.200 2024-11-13 11:57 2024-12-13 11:57 create 331dot User:Marine 69-71/Autographs 2024-11-13 06:21 indefinite edit,move Drop protection to ECP since full was never warranted (especially now that Marine 69-71 is no longer an admin) Pppery Portal:Current events/2024 November 10 2024-11-13 05:32 2024-12-13 05:32 edit,move Arbitration enforcement Cryptic Sevens football 2024-11-13 01:48 2025-11-13 01:48 move Move warring. Upgrading protection level after determining that AC sock had moved the article under sp-move protection. Robertsky User talk:117.53.223.10 2024-11-13 01:35 2025-02-13 01:35 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Liam Parsons 2024-11-13 01:20 indefinite move Persistent sockpuppetry Ohnoitsjamie User talk:84.107.235.151 2024-11-12 22:09 2024-11-22 22:09 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector User talk:84.42.74.76 2024-11-12 21:58 2024-11-19 21:58 create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector Territorial Center of Recruitment and Social Support 2024-11-12 20:49 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Jeff Younger–Anne Georgulas custody battle 2024-11-12 20:19 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP and WP:GENSEX Daniel Case User talk:42.119.93.195 2024-11-12 10:32 2024-12-12 10:32 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:182.229.34.80 2024-11-12 09:47 2024-12-12 09:47 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot User talk:219.240.5.188 2024-11-12 09:32 2024-12-12 09:32 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu 2024-11-12 08:33 indefinite edit,move Restoring protection by Doug Weller: Community sanctions enforcement Protection Helper Bot Trick Weekes 2024-11-11 19:52 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Battle of Wadi Saluki 2024-11-11 11:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato User talk:91.210.238.104 2024-11-11 09:40 2024-12-11 09:40 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot Thori Si Wafa 2024-11-11 07:13 indefinite edit,move Restore salt Pppery Battle of Sumy 2024-11-11 06:58 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Draft:Khashayar Farzam 2024-11-11 06:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Battle of Makariv 2024-11-11 06:48 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Chopra (surname) 2024-11-11 06:17 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case 2024 drone attack on Benjamin Netanyahu's residence 2024-11-11 00:58 indefinite edit,move Dr vulpes

Proposal to modify WP:GS/AA scope

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

---

After some discussion at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan, there seems to be a consensus among myself and several admins who've enforced those sanctions (implemented in January) that they are de jure too broad and, in how they are de facto enforced, ambiguous as to scope.

• De jure too broad: GS/AA is the only extendedconfirmed restriction (out of 4 in effect + 1 repealed) that applies to an entire country or region. That is to say, there are sanctions for the Arab-Israeli conflict but not all aspects of Israeli and Arab life, for the Russo-Ukrainian War but not all aspects of Russian and Ukrainian life, etc. The fact that GS/AA applies to, say, the guy who played Chris-R in The Room or arguably even Kim Kardashian is unprecedented and unparalleled. On an admin level, this mostly hasn't mattered, because admins have declined to enforce these sanctions on non-conflict-related pages. But an ECR also applies to non-admins, particularly in its exemption from Wikipedia:Edit warring, which makes it ambiguous whether 3RR violations are in fact violations. (Consider someone who makes 4 reverts of an IP's valid copy-edit to Armenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2023.)
• De facto ambiguous: As noted, admins have effectively treated this as a sanction for conflicts in the region. However, that is ill-defined. Some users have thought the sanctions only apply if both Armenia and Azerbaijan are involved. And what about matters, such as the Armenian genocide, that are primarily associated with another state? Furthermore, much of the misconduct plays out on articles about ethnic groups' past ties to particular settlements or regions.

Note also that the entire AA area is under ArbCom sanctions, so admins already have discretionary authority here. This is just a question of when that authority should be imposed by default.

Based on discussion with topic-area admins Courcelles, Rosguill, Firefangledfeathers, El_C, Callanecc, and Daniel Case, I propose the following reframing of the sanctions:^{ed. 20:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)}

• Political, ethnic, and military conflicts Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction.
• In the rest of the Armenia–Azerbaijan topic area, the community endorses administrators making liberal use of extended confirmed protection as an arbitration enforcement action.

The one objection voiced in preliminary discussion, by Rosguill, was about the history of ethnic land claims. I think that this falls solidly under the "ethnic conflicts ... broadly construed", but if that's a hang-up for people, we could that to the "explicitly including" bit. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I would write it down as politics (not political conflicts), history (added), ethnic relations (not ethnic conflicts), and conflicts (of any kind) of or involving (for example Azerbaijan–Turkey relations)...—Alalch E. 19:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

"History" was discussed in the preliminary discussion. The problem is, what's history? Or, rather, what isn't? Dan Janjigian appearing in The Room is a historical event (happened before quite a few of our editors were born), but I don't think is what you intend. I think Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts would address your concerns, and am fine with that with basically equal preference to what I said above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you may be right about "history" after all.—Alalch E. 19:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that new editors will misunderstand the new wording as only narrowly affecting the ongoing NK conflict if we adopt the propose wording, and I think the inclusion of history would aid in their understanding. Then again, the status quo is that many (most?) new editors in the area simply ignore GS/AA or otherwise fail to understand it until they are blocked for repeated violations past warnings, so I'm not opposed to the rewording more generally. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts ... broadly construed should be enough, but perhaps inserting something like "past or present" – eg broadly construed, past or present, and explicitly including the Armenian genocide – would save the occasional back-and-forth. NebY (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• As an idea, maybe confine it to the Armenian and Azerbaijani nations, people and ethnicities? As written, the sanction includes the geography and the languages. My view would be that the early history of Zoroastrianism, Alexander the Great's early conquests, and the Armenian tongues and alphabets shouldn't be in scope and aren't what the drafters intended.—S Marshall T/C 11:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I suggest as the community considers these changes, that it also consider whether to match the contentious topics procedure and whether designate that AE can be used for enforcement per contentious topic procedure. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Great idea. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49, Tamzin has suggested creating a subproposal for this. I thought about doing so and then realized I'm not sure what benefits this would bring. Since any GS/AA topic, especially so if we adopt this narrowing proposal, would fall under the broader WP:ARBAA, I reason that AE is available already. Are there other potential benefits? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

No but that leads me to ask: what's the point of the GS if it's already covered under ARBAA? Barkeep49 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The GS is really just here to frame the extended-confirmed restriction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• I support Tamzin's proposal. The tweaks help match the topic with its current interpretation by admins, and there's reason to be cautious about over-broadness. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Isn't involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both – the same as involving Armenia, or Azerbaijan –? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It is. The idea was just to be explicit about it, since apparently some users have been confused. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANDOR is probably a good link to review. Izno (talk) 02:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Restored from archive; !votes appreciated

I've restored this thread from the archive. I've also modified the proposal above to account for the feedback regarding "Political, military, and ethnic conflicts". As to Barkeep49's suggestion, if he or someone else would like to open a subthread to propose putting GS/AA under WP:AE jurisdiction, they're welcome to, but otherwise I think we should focus on the core proposal here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

• Closing admin, please note support by Firefangledfeathers above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support, as I trust the judgement of the enforcing administrators: if they believe it is needed, I think the adjustment should be made. Also, as a general principle blanket protection should be used in as narrow an area as is reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support the narrowing and the wording proposed by Tamzin. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'd really like for this to not get archived a second time without action. @HistoryofIran, Nythar, Levivich, Kansas Bear, Hemiauchenia, Magnatyrannus, Khirurg, LouisAragon, AirshipJungleman29, Demetrios1993, The Night Watch, LilianaUwU, Abrvagl, LaundryPizza03, Olympian, Guerillero, ProcrastinatingReader, Lol1VNIO, BilledMammal, Red-tailed hawk, Oaktree b, Aza24, Ermenrich, EvergreenFir, Buffs, Semsûrî, InvadingInvader, SilentResident, and TonyBallioni: This is everyone who made a boldfaced comment in the previous discussion and is able to comment here, plus the closer. Do any of you have thoughts on this proposal?
  One person who won't be able to comment here, tragically, is Nosebagbear (Z''L), so I'll copy what he said then, a characteristically wise comment that foresaw the exact problem we've run into:

  I am reticent to support an automatic major restriction on such a scale as the entire (amended as of 2013) AA2 scope. I'm aware, of course, of the gaming risk, but I don't think we'd ever endorse such an action were there (say) a dispute nexus between the US and UK. I would support this restriction on the conflict between the two countries (broadly construed, by all means), but opppose a restriction on the individual countries and their topics.

  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I opposed the previous proposal because the scope was too broad, per the statistics I presented. While I haven't run the statistics for this narrower scope, I believe that narrowing the scope generally would be beneficial. BilledMammal (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support I'm fine with the proposal. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support This narrower proposal is much better than the last one. I am ever so slightly concerned about the endorsement of "liberal use" of ECP because that has a small potential of sparking an increase of frivolous protection requests in the A-A topic area, but I don't think that most pages that are applied protection will be outside of political, military or ethnic conflicts. The Night Watch (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. ECP is a beyond necessary tool when dealing with the most contentious topics. I trust that admins will do the right thing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support per Nosebagbear. firefly ( t · c ) 20:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. It's a reasonable idea of making the ECP restriction more narrow, because no other contentious topic area is this broad AFAIK. Otherwise, I'll echo Nosebagbear's statement: restrictions on the conflicts, not the countries as a whole. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:08, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• I support the reframing proposed by Tamzin. Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support – much proved as necessary by now. Thanks to Tamzin for taking the initiative here. – Aza24 (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support the narrower application, this will be more effective and clear, focusing on the core of the contentious A-A topic area. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 05:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support Last time I specifically objected to the overbreadth of the proposal. I agree that ECP is needed only for topics directly related to conflicts in Armenia and Azerbaijan, as opposed to, say, the Sevan trout (a fish found only in Armenia). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  But you know that trouts are VERY contentious on Wikipedia, right? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  • *trouts LilianaUwU for even mentioning it* ;-) Buffs (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Just making sure I understand this correctly. The proposal is to go from "A community discussion at the administrators' noticeboard has placed all pages with content related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts, broadly interpreted, under the extended confirmed restriction" to "Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed and explicitly including the Armenian genocide—are placed under an extended confirmed restriction."? --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, though there's the added bullet point about "liberal use" of ECP elsewhere in the AA topic area. I assume we'll keep the info about the community decision and as-of date in a later sentence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment The problem with these disputes pertaining to Central Asia and the regions surrounding Iran is that they do frequently creep into matters that may not, at first glance, seem to strictly relate to the direct locii of those respective disputes. On this particular topic, I vaguely remember seeing a thread at ANI relating to the article Caucasus Albania, and I'm sure that anything relating to Iranian, Georgian, etc. cultural history within the geographical confines of what is currently Azerbaijan has the potential of flaring up into conflict. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 21:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I would argue that it is largely due to the Historical revisionism/Historical negationism#Azerbaijan in Azerbaijan [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah it feels like only yesterday I was reverting some ridiculous genre warrior who felt called to assert that every successful individual and polity over the last thousand years in Asia was the product of a single linguistic group (turns out Semsûrî beat me to the ones on my watchlist), but none of those articles are covered by the current broader scope in any case: Xianbei, Rouran Khaganate, Ghengis Khan, Saladin, etc. Folly Mox (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support proposal is sound. Buffs (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Move to close

Nearing archival once more. Could somebody please close this? Happy to make any necessary changes to the GS/AA page myself. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I will do so presently, but I note that according to policy: If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable. You don't need to wait for a closure to enact the results of a discussion where consensus is this strong. --Jayron32 13:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Promoting website

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

---

A user seems promoting his web by adding its links as ref, his username is similar to web name. See his contribution [2] Tesla car owner (talk) 12:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I've left a level-3 warning for spam. Should be indeffed if they continue, but I try to leave open a sliver of AGF for the possibility someone just really likes a specific website. And the usernames both have "sports", but I don't see a WP:U violation. For future reference, this is the kind of situation you can handle by issuing warnings yourself, or, if you feel no further warnings are needed (or none at all for egregious cases), reporting to WP:AIV. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Tesla car owner: To add on to what Tamzin said, please read the notice at the top of this page: It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here. Additionally, please regard this notice as well: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. There's little point in notifying them at this point since an admin has taken action now though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

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

A User by the Name @ Suthasianhistorian8 is Vandalizing Sikh History pages

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

---

He has Edited Countless Sikh religion related pages and Have added negative Views with no Valid support.Please look into it. 117.242.32.37 (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Please attempt to start discussion with the user first, and explaining why do you think that their edits are wrong (What do Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say?). Additionally, you must inform the other party using {{subst:AN-notice}} for future reference. NotAGenious (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Return of Disruptive IP editor

This is my second report on the IP editor likes to follow me around and revert my edits. So far as I can tell, this editor uses this IP account solely for this purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/104.226.30.18

When I filed a previous ANI against this editor, @Lourdes told me to return to ANI should it happen again, and it has. Please see the former ANI notice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136#Disruptive_IP_editor

Also see their latest message on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_Another_Cringy_Username#Sue_Grafton/Kinsey_Millhone Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been editing here for more than a decade, mostly uneventfully, as an IP. My edits conform to policy. I edit mostly while commuting, so my IP address changes regularly, even during a songwriting session. Cringy's previous complaint against me went unseen by me, because he violated ANI rules by deliberately failing to notify me of it. It should count for nothing. Cringy has a peculiar antipathy toward various notable writers, disproproportionately women, and tries to minimize content related to them, as though he were the reincarnation of Quorty, who I also tangled with. Stingy is trying to bully me by running to the noticeboard whenever I disagreed with him. This is not acceptable conduct. Vivian. 104.226.30.18 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

If you're that dedicated of an editor, why have you never registered properly? I can't help but notice that your IP only seems to surface long enough to revert a BOLD edit on my part. Your mention of Quorty also sounds similar to the IP who harassed me in this incident[3]. Wouldn't happen to know anything about that, would you? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for 3mo. Lourdes 06:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes What is your rationale for this block? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 01:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

[4][5] Lourdes 04:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes Thanks for your attention to this matter. As I was reading over my talk page, I stumbled on a potential clue to the identity of the disruptive editor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Just_Another_Cringy_Username#Sue_Grafton/Kinsey_Millhone

Notice how the first comment is signed w/ a proper WP username (RSLitman) and the offending IP jumps in for the next one. I'm not saying it's impossible that another editor wished to join the discussion; however, IMO this supports my theory that RSLitman uses these IP's and probably others as socks for their more disruptive activities. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. If you have evidence backing this up, please take it to SPI. Otherwise, it's not appropriate on any other forum to interpret it such as this. Thank you and happy editing. Lourdes 04:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Sharing the link to the Mental Health Resource Center

Dear administrators,

I work in the Community Resilience & Sustainability team of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am writing to you today to let you know about the Mental Health Resource Center in case you find this resource useful. This is a new group of pages on Meta-wiki aimed at supporting the mental wellbeing of users in our community. This project is the result of the work of a Human Rights intern at the Wikimedia Foundation, who wrote a Diff blog post about it.

While we previously provided helpline contact information for people who are in an active crisis or near-crisis, the team’s goal is to provide additional resources to offer mental health and wellbeing information in a number of languages, covering a wide range of topics. Our hope is not only to help people who are in crisis, but help prevent crises.

As with the Helpline information page, the Foundation’s Trust and Safety team is tasked with maintaining the pages. They will do a quarterly review of the content, which will include reviewing any recommended changes left on the talk page. Because this is a page they send to people who are in crisis, for liability reasons they do have to review substantial changes. However, they very much hope for recommendations and ideas and especially notes of problems.

The Resource Center contains the helplines, a glossary of mental health terms, and resources divided by category with supported languages listed next to each resource.  There is also a table available if community members wish to view the resources sorted by language. The hope is this resource expands over time to cover more languages and cultures. Currently, translations into several languages are underway.

Thank you for all you do. I hope this is a resource that will be useful for people who are in distress. -JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

AIV is pretty clogged up

 Courtesy link: WP:AIV

There's quite a few reports that have been there for a while. Any admin willing to check it out? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't get clogged up if people would only report obvious vandals and spammers. Anything that takes more than about 90 seconds to evaluate belongs at ANI or SPI or somewhere else. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

🤦‍♂️ -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

What HJ Mitchell said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Change to the Functionary team

Following a request to the Committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of RickinBaltimore (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the Functionary team

Arbitration motion regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 9 of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case ("MarioProtIV topic ban") is rescinded.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

LucenseLugo

Hello. I highly suspect LucenseLugo of being a sockpuppet do to his previous interactions with Venezia Friulano. I tried to open an investigation, but for some reason (it’s probably my fault) it didn’t work and format well. I don’t really want to try it again, but if anyone here wants to try it themselves then feel free to do so.

Here are these interactions for those interested:

Interactions in question

Section: map (again) - During the Iberian Union, Portugal and its colonial territories belonged to the Spanish Habsburg Monarchy (Felipe II, Felipe III, Felipe IV), so I don't find any problem stating that they were territories of the Hispanic Monarchy at that time. - But more important: It is curious how for the Spanish Empire some want to use a "maximum extension map" instead of an anachronous one despite the fact that the Portuguese Empire, the British Empire or the French colonial Empire (among many others) clearly use anachronous maps. Very strange, for sure. Venezia Friulano (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE TompaDompa (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Woah, you are very right here. I have checked your point and it's true. All of the big European empires have an anachronous map (in my opinion, as it should be) but the anachronous map for the Spanish Empire is object of dispute for some users? Huh, that seems a little bit sketchy. All articles should be treated equally and anachronous maps show the real historical extent of empires. Anyways, as it is right now, it shouldn't bother anyone. I have written what was part of Portugal because of the Iberian Union, so there are no claims that Spain used to have Cape Verde, Angola or Mozambique. LucenseLugo (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Section: area What I denounce is that there are veteran users with a lot of free time (aka TompaDompa) who have shielded articles to avoid being edited by other users, which goes against the essence of Wikipedia.Of course the List of the Largest Empires article is stable and old, but because it's an article that can only be edited by TompaDompa. There have been many attempts to edit the article by other users with alternative measurement sources (for the Spanish Empire and for many other Empires), but in this article his only fetish source Taagepera (1997) prevails, unilaterally deleting all those alternative sources that he doesn't like. The article is in fact an article almost just for Taagapera's views, its just surreal. I even thought that Taagepera could be a relative of his, due to the insane obsession with this specific author, eliminating almost everyone else in the academy.This user is already well known, I am just one of many who have denounced his abuse of power. I'm not writing anything new on Wikipedia Venezia Friulano (talk) 12:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC) I completely agree with you. It seems there are certain users who think they have more rights for spending their entire free time on Wikipedia, no sorry but that is reserved for administrators, we are all users and we should be treated equally.But for some, they want to keep their edits prevailing and the ones who dare to change anything face instant reversion or even reports to admins just for having a different vision. It's not fair, we all should be treated equally. LucenseLugo (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This user has also been very disruptive, as you can see on the history of his Talk Page *because he removes any content stating he is any, way, shape or form wrong*. He mainly does (Spanish) nationalist editing, and this was the Spanish empire article, so this might just be two people with the same opinion. However it is interesting to note that a very notorious cercle of socks are active for a very long time on that article. This is all now, do of it what you will. Have a great day ! Reman Empire (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

USS YMS-111

Your search does not find this minesweeper. This page: https://www.navalcovermuseum.org/wiki/YMS_111 shows that is did. Michael Pedi (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That vessel is listed at List of mine warfare vessels of the United States Navy, Michael Pedi, but you can see from the red links there that there aren't articles for most of the individual ships. However, this noticeboard isn't an appropriate venue to discuss this issue (see the notice about its purpose at the top of the page). If you have questions about Wikipedia, please consider asking them at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Help required with range block

I recently warned 2001:1C04:4310:2800:B445:6544:EA7C:BC03 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) multiple times for adding unsourced population estimates (or changing sourced ones without a new source) at diaspora group articles. This behaviour is now continuing from 2001:1C04:4310:2800:58F:4990:6E84:549B (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Earlier disruption was coming from 2001:1C04:4310:2800:498D:E55:16B5:5944 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm not experienced in calculated range blocks and I know this is a challenge with IPv6 addresses, so can someone advise? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: As a general rule of thumb, if the first four parts stay the same, it's usually a 64. In this case, I can confirm that 2001:1C04:4310:2800::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) is the correct range. It seems non-shared and static since late last year. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, zzuuzz. I think I'd confused myself by including an erroneous address when I first tried to do the calculation, which gave me a very wide range. This new one checks out. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Searching for a missing wikipage: Rachel Moss

a year or so ago I found a wiki entry on my mother, Rachel Moss, daughter of Cyril Bailey and wife of Basil_Moss_(priest). The entry was much longer than for her husband and focused on her time in Birmingham, UK and her editorship of "God's yes to Sexuality". Cyril Bailey's page mentions her and the book. Her name is in red. Doe this confirm there used to be a page for her. And if so can it be restored? It contained no controversial or inaccurate information. I would be grateful if any administrators can throw light on this, and either explain why it was deleted or restore it. 144.82.114.250 (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. Rachel Moss is blue for me, and its history indicates it's not a new page. Animal lover |666| 17:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a different Rachel Moss. Deor (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence of any previous page for Rachel Moss (activist), the Rachel Moss you are looking for. No deleted edits for any of those articles, nothing in articles for deletion or the other usual places to look. Are you sure it was on Wikipedia? Antandrus (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

This wouldn't show up in AfD archives if the entry was CSD'd or PRODDED or draftified and then deleted after six months. It sure would be nice if there was a searchable "deletionspace" where people could find any titles that used to exist and their move/deletion histories. JoelleJay (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That is indeed something I've wanted for a long time. Antandrus (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Antandrus as an admin you should be able to do this? If you go to Special:Undelete (note that there's no page specified, and you might need to add &fuzzy=1 to the end of the URL like so [6]) you should be presented with a search box that lets you look for deleted pages by title. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I can't find anything, and I've searched every combination of Rachel/Bailey/Moss/activist. According to the search, only 88 pages containing "(activist)" have ever been deleted, and none of them were called Rachel. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the OP was reading some of the references in the article? This obituary in the guardian [7] seems to cover most of the material they mention? I've looked through some archiving sites and that link seems to have been red in the timeframe mentioned. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly a possibility. I looked to see if either her husband or father's article used to contain the information - they didn't - and I checked Simple English as well. So I suspect that might be it. Black Kite (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Music (2021 film) editing

WP:COMPETENCE, attempted WP:OWNERSHIP, and WP:GAMING of WP:CIVILITY policy to uphold corrosive edits from Ssilvers, also InvadingInvader and Nyxaros, one edit bordering on WP:VANDALISM

On Music (2021 film), Ssilvers is clearly attempting to maintain WP:OWNERSHIP of the article, reverting obviously contributive edits with bogus rationales. I first encountered this problem as early as 2022, when all I did was began merging opinions of critics together so that it did not look like a quote farm. They reverted with the following edit summary: "non-neutral changes. WP:N". Read my edit for yourself. What was "non-neutral" about simply re-writing the section into something besides quotes? What did notability have to do with it? This is a critical reception section of an article about a film whose notability has already been well-established.

They have continued to reinforce their power like this on the article with this, this, this, this, this, this, this and probably others I did not catch when reading the edit history. Like the example I provided, these edits are all reversions to the addition of sourced content, done under disingenuous or unrelated summaries. Sometimes they inform the user to go to the talk page to begin discussion, ignoring the obvious reason the users do not that usually, when a discussion starts on the talk page, nobody joins in and nothing gets done. Believe me, I tried getting something resolved on the cast section of It (2017 film), and I got no responses, meaning the conversation went nowhere. This, plus the existence of WP:BRD and Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, puts users in an inescapable position where they cannot do anything about the editor's poorly-justified edits.

Which brings me to why I am starting a section here. This came to a peak when I adjusted the starring field of the infobox to reflect THAT of the poster, which any experienced film article editor on this site knows is a guideline set by Template:Infobox film to follow and thus approve. No experienced editor would seriously suggest it is debatable for consensus from other users to be needed... except Ssilvers and a couple of other editors. Ssilvers, Nyxaros (diff because I am linking user name), and InvadingInvader (diff because I am linking username) all promoted a reversion that border on WP:VANDALISM, under unsubstantiated-with-guidelines "I-personally-think", WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationales that no one editing film articles would consider genuinely. Nonetheless, they told me to "constructively discuss if they disagree rather than shut down", as if breaking a set-in-stone, fricking well-established guideline was disagreeable. When I brought the starring field back to how it objectively should be, I put these editors in their place: "Users, there is NOTHING disagreeable about guidelines of Template pages. Template:Infobox film explicitly states to "use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors." Guess what, all of these names are here, and the guideline says NOT to deviate from that billing. I am not wasting any more time on WP:COMPETENCE issues from you people. Ssilvers reverted again with this: "I strongly disagree with this. Use the Talk page if you wish to achieve a consensus to add these supporting players. They do not "star" in the film."

Disagree with policy everyone has to follow? No way would I surrender to these users' ignorance and breaking of policy and legitimize this topic in the way some Holocaust denier would suggest it is debatable that the Holocaust happened. So Ssilvers, who led this effort to keep the starring field unrepresentative and guideline-violating, was provided a warning by me to restore it as it should or I am bringing the issue to admins. They reverted my warning with the following cop-out: "Use the article talk page, not mine."

So guess was, Ssilvers, you are going to the principal's office for your misbehavior. All necessary diffs are linked for the admins to read for themselves, and all users will be notified on the talk pages. I am demanding at least a few-day block for what they are trying to do, and I hope the article is free from tyranny. It is disgusting to see a user with some leverage from writing featured content abuse WP:CIVILITY like this. Thanks. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Whew. There's a lot to unpack here. To start with the easy bit, template documentation is "essay-class", not a guideline. It's advice, sometimes widely-followed, sometimes completely ignored or even contrary to actual usage; and regardless of how widely-followed it is, it can always be overridden by a local consensus. Second, this is more suited for WP:AN/I than AN proper. Beyond that... I haven't looked at the whole history here, but I can tell you that AN(/I) reports that are written like this never go anywhere good for the filer. In frank terms, you've written a much much better argument for why you should be sanctioned than for why anybody else should be. Maybe, in fact, the others have done something wrong, but it's definitely not coming across in what you've written. I'd suggest withdrawing this, taking a day or several to make this conflict feel a bit less raw and emotional, and then, if you still feel there are ownership issues such as to require admin attention, write a concise paragraph or two at AN/I explaining the issue in a calm manner. (Although what I'd really suggest is taking that day or several and then just letting it go—but I appreciate that's hard to agree to in the heat of the moment.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Well said. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

How would this be moved to WP:AN/I? I am still suffering brain fog and forgot there was a subpage for Incidents, so that mistake was accidental. To get back to the discussion, With the upmost respect, I feel like I have expressed the evidence and cited appropriate WP pages without any emotions seeping through, so I am not seeing how I am sanctionable here. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, how often is the "sometimes completely ignored" scenario? Because it has only happened to films with posters that did not have starring billing in my experience, which are few. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that I have played enough of a role to justify sanctions, and I was not notified previously on this matter nor tagged in a reversion. While I understand why @HumanxAnthro could see that I'm "enforcing" a POV, I restored the two names in the cast as a suggested compromise between the people who are in favor of fewer names and the people who prefer a larger chunk of the cast in the infobox. The primary summary of the reversion cited by HumanxAnthro is actually to remove MOS:COMMENT violations, in which invisible comments should not be used to push one version of an article over another.

I've worked with Ssilvers before, most prominently in the Infobox debate for the Ziegler sisters' articles. I don't doubt that she contributes in good faith to the encyclopedia, but I also do believe that some behavior can be snappy. I have noticed quite a few MOS:COMMENT violations from her based out of when I have encountered her on Wikipedia. I could see as to how and why she could use her featured articles to leverage and engage in WP:OWN. Does her conduct? need a warning? Probably. I used to be kind of snappy myself, but I personally try to avoid and correct when I or other editors notice. But does Ssilver's conduct warrant sanctions? Frankly, I don't know. I shouldn't be the one who has to decide on whether to sanction Ssilvers. I don't want to either. I think I would be biased in deciding based on my previous infobox debates with her, and that alone would disqualify me because of how intense infobox debates can be, regardless of how much I try to suppress my own bias.

Regardless, I do think that the idea of characterizing my edits as WP:VANDALISM is very inappropriate. I could see how it could be disruptive, but given that I did not have appropriate context of the scenario nor engaged in further related reversions, aside from removing MOS:COMMENT violations, I don't see why I should be sanctioned. A warning or talk page request tagging me should have been made first. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I notified you on the talk page [8] User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That notification was a notification of me being on an administrator's noticeboard. You went straight to the principal's office before attempting to give me a formal warning or anything. Not cool, man. It's not like I'm deleting the main page. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Ssilvers was the one warned cause they initiated and upheld the article in its current state the most, so I assumed good faith and suggested you were willing to follow Ssilvers vision of the page for their longer and extensive experience and thus believed in them more. The discussion is mainly on Ssilvers, not you and Nyxaros, so I am only hoping action is taken on Ssilvers. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

In other words, you were not being warned. It is just a requirement to notify when a user is mentioned in a discussion on this page. Also, are you not notified when your user page is linked? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't get any notification except for the AN discussion and the relevant talk page notification. I have gotten linked before when I was linked in Edit Summaries. If you really only mean to target Ssilvers, consider editing the original thread to cross me and Nyxaros out as your current phrasing seems to suggest that I and Nyxaros should be blocked. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

While I was writing the above, Tamzin left her comment, which I am only now seeing. I think that the best recourse of action would be to remove this from AN and refrain from posting it to AN/I. Consider starting a WP:Request for comment on the talk page. That way, you can achieve a much stronger consensus. If you end up losing the debate, it's probably then time to drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse carcass before you risk further bludgeoning the process. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

"If you end up losing the debate". See, right there is the WP:COMPETENCE issue that led me to create this section. There are aspects about Wikipedia that are not debatable, like the fact that it is an encyclopedia and should be written as such. If I contested that, would you being willing to respectfully disagree and go onto a talk page to have a discourse? Not meeting WP:COMPETENCE has led to blocks of users for a very good reason: it is disruptive to the editing process and the right thing to do is to not respectfully converse with them, even if they are acting in good faith. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

While I could see your accusations as having merit when it comes to Ssilvers, not me. I think that you should have discussed it with me on my talk page individually first before you went straight to ANI with regard to me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

To star in a film means to have a leading role, and for the infobox to say that someone had a leading role, the body of the article should contain a statement at least resembling that. The guideline for infoboxes is MOS:INFOBOX, not the template documentation. "Copy blindly whatever is on the poster" does not make the cut as serious guidance for how to edit an article. (Maybe useful for an infobox-heavy film stub which shouldn't be a thing in the first place.) Those actors which you added in your diff are only mentioned once in the article, as part of a list of names with no further information. Are those key facts, in the words of the guideline? Telling you to discuss it was fine. Even if what you thought was a guideline were an actual guideline you should still generally discuss, and your position being consistent with the guideline just makes it much more likely that your idea is the one that will be implemented, but it is not an absolute guarantee (see WP:GUIDES: Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply.). Not wanting to discuss a content dispute that relates to one article on user talk and directing someone to the article talk page is an option. When discussions don't attract much outside participation, and don't go the way you'd prefer, there is waiting and hoping, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:RFC... But I don't see much in the way of your talk page participation in the first place. About other diffs, Ssilvers reverted the following changes: "lambasted by critics" (is that how you would put it?), "extremely negative" (is that really the best way to put it? go and prove it on the talk page), overlinking, someone adding redundant prose only about the Golden Raspberry Awards (worst film "awards") and not about the Golden Globe awards (when both are already covered), "She also received backlash for how she initially responded to this criticism, particularly tweets extolling her own casting of neuroatypical and trans actors" (...). Your big reception rewrite was reverted; summarizing reviews is great but you also added "Music was despised by professional film critics in general"; is the word "despised" really what we'd go with? I don't know, maybe. Talk? Go incremental? WP:FEET? WP:BRB? Please give yourself some time and rethink everything. —Alalch E. 23:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

No... NO! Do not legitimize with Ssilvers is pulling it. That MOS:INFOBOX quote is vague and would not mean what you are trying to make it mean. Do you want me to report you for WP:COMPETENCE and WP:GAME for enabling another user doing the same? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not screwing around here! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 00:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't report please, I will remove the quote immediately. Here, done.—Alalch E. 00:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)