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	19	19
TfD	0	0	0	5	5
MfD	0	0	2	5	7
FfD	0	0	1	5	6
RfD	0	0	13	48	61
AfD	0	0	0	3	3

• 7 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 6 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 12 sockpuppet investigations
• 3 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
• 13 requested closures
• 71 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 7 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (48 out of 8844 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin User talk:189.219.66.135 2024-11-15 00:16 2024-12-15 00:16 create Repeatedly recreated 331dot 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

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 [1]) 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 [2] 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)

Fwiw, even the first edit for Cyril Bailey already contained redlinks for Gemma Bailey and Rachel Moss (activist; @Noswall59: Can you shed some light on this? Did you want to create articles for those redlinks? Lectonar (talk) 14:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't recall a great amount about those articles, but I do remember writing Cyril Bailey's. I suspect that I saw Rachel Moss's obituary and the popularity of her book, and suspected that she would meet our notability criteria, so I gave her a red link in the prose of Bailey's article. I don't seem to have created an article for her, however -- almost certainly because her work sits outside of my areas of expertise. —Noswall59 (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC).

I’ve done a very rough and possibly incomplete query of deletion logs (quarry:query/76620), and the only real match is Rachel moss, an article that was speedily deleted in 2008 under A7. Could this be the page? As a nonadmin I can’t see what used to be there so can’t personally confirm or deny.

I may well have missed something here, so apologies if I have. All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 11:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

good search but no. This was a 1-line nonsense page. Nthep (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah well, it was worth a try :) ^user:A smart kitten_meow 11:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Long-term meatpuppetry by two admins

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

---

It brings me no pleasure to do this. I just feel the need to say that off the top. If it brings me anything, it's nausea.

Recently, admin CorbieVreccan publicly disclosed that they share an IP address with fellow admin Mark Ironie. This was, as I understand it, the consequence of an email I sent ArbCom on 26 August, documenting a yearslong pattern of Mark acting as a second !vote or second set of admin tools for Corbie. I thank ArbCom for prompting this on-wiki disclosure, as it now means that the community can discuss this pattern of misconduct in the open.

Here is a modified version of the timeline I sent ArbCom, chronicling every non-mainspace, non-own-userspace edit Mark Ironie has made since 1 January 2020. Highlighted in yellow are interactions with Corbie. Admin actions, warnings, and calls for sanctions are underlined.

• 11 January 2020: An RfC !vote
• 12–14 Jan 2020, Talk:Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women/Archive 1 § Citation changes: Mark explains that they have restored content of Corbie's that was removed. The removing editor accuses both of sockpuppetry. Corbie responds that it's interesting that you are accusing long-term admins of socking and Mark says they already had the page watchlisted. The restoration was Mark's only ever edit to the article.
• 13 January 2020: An action at RFPP
• 23 December 2020: Two actions at RFPP
• 11–13 January 2021, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America/Archive 22 § Indigenous Ways of Knowing & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing: Replies to Corbie's noticeboard post about the article Indigenous Ways of Knowing. Once it's AfD'd, !votes delete, as Corbie before them.
• 17–25 January 2021: Some troubleshooting regarding Huggle
• 2–3 April 2021, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1064 § User CejeroC disruptively editing: A call for a block and two follow-ups due to a mixup
• 1 August 2021: Two actions at RFPP
• 26–28 December 2021, Pretendian RM: Opposes move, as Corbie before them. Issues only warning to Walrasiad for personal attacks against Corbie at the RM, while defending Corbie's own comments there.
• 13 September 2022, Celtic Neopagan Reconstructionism RM: !votes neutral on "Paganism", opposes lowercasing "Reconstructionism", as Corbie before them. (Granted, in this case the two are coauthors of the article.)
• 17–20 September 2022, Talk:Reservation Dogs: Warns Revirvlkodlaku for edit-warring with Corbie. Then partially blocks Revirvlkodlaku from article and talk. This is Mark's only block since October 2019.
• 10 February 2023: Helping a new user set up their userspace
• 2 June 2023, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 1 § Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent: !votes explicitly per Corbie. (Granted, in this case both were pinged).
• 4 August 2023: Warns Skyerise for insulting Corbie at Template:Witchcraft sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
• 13 August 2023: Some troubleshooting regarding AWB
• 21 Aug 2023, witchcraft AN/I thread: Shows up to AN/I to support sanctions against Skyerise and Darker Dreams, Corbie's topic-area opponents, immediately after Corbie's own !vote.

As we can see from this, Mark almost never edits project discussions except to back up Corbie. While in a few cases Mark has had an independent reason to join in a discussion, in most cases they have had no prior experience, engaging only after Corbie did. Since 2020, 1/1 of Mark's blocks, 3/3 of Mark's warnings, 2/3 of Mark's calls for sanctions, 4/4 of Mark's AfD/RM !votes, and 2/2 of Mark's other talkpage participation have been in support of Corbie, with whom Mark shares an IP. It seems impossible, meanwhile, for Corbie to be completely naïve to this; as noted above, they were indignant when accused of meatpuppetry in 2020. (And I doubt this started only in 2020. It's just that before that Mark was more active, making it harder to find proxying behavior, and it is likewise difficult to sift through the 1,004 pages the two have interacted on, including 20 XfDs and 142 talkpages.)

Even if Mark did miraculously show up at each of these discussions independent of Corbie, that would still not change that they blocked, warned, or sought sanctions against four users who opposed Corbie in content disputes, a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED and WP:MEAT. I will not prejudge an outcome here, pending responses from the two admins involved, but something must be done to make sure this never happens again. No user should have to worry that, when they cross one admin, that admin's IP-mate is going to show up and warn them or block them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Corbie has umm... Revdelled the diff of me notifying them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

This was handled privately with Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I conferred with an arb prior to posting this and was told that their decision to not desysop did not preclude community review. Could you please explain why you revdelled my edit? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I was told it was done. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What does that have to do with rev deleting a mere notification as "disruptive"? 331dot (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

We have been on record with Arbcom as sometimes sharing the same IP for 18 years. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I haven't started this thread because you shared an IP with another admin. There's no policy against that (else I'd be in trouble myself). I started this thread because the two of you have, while sharing an IP, acted in concert in both content and conduct matters, in a manner that violated both WP:MEAT and WP:INVOLVED. Disclosure to ArbCom does not exempt you from those policies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a complete misuse of RD3 to me. A notification that's required (I know it was this template as I saw it before it was revdelled) per this noticeboard's instructions does not ordinarily fall under RD3. While CorbieVreccan is of course free to archive immediately or revert the notification, same as any other editor can, using the admin tools on this seems like tool misuse. I would suggest that they undo that revdel action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine. But these issues are arbcom matters, not for the drama boards; I was told we only needed to post the disclosure. Tamzin is the one in violation here. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin is the one in violation here Violation of what? Yes the shared IP issue seems to have been handled by ArbCom, but community review of a potential meatpuppetry issue isn't in breach of any policy or guideline I'm aware of. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:SPI (and per WP:MEAT, the same policies apply): If you suspect sockpuppetry by an administrator, or if you need to submit off-wiki evidence for some other reason, you must email the checkuser team to open an investigation. Private information, emails, logs, and other sensitive evidence must not be posted on Wikipedia. All evidence related to a sockpuppet investigation must otherwise be posted on the designated page. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

As I said, Sideswipe, we went over all of this with Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 22:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing that's presented here has been private information. Any editor could pull the evidence together using tools like sigma on toolforge. Now if you think this is the wrong venue, we could I suppose move this to WP:SPI, but I'm fairly certain we've handled meetpuppetry issues at AN and ANI before. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan, Revdel'ing the notification makes no sense. Was that just a mistake. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Obviously ArbCom has not discussed the revdel of the notification. However, I can confirm that the committee had correspondence with the two admins in question. Yesterday, in concluding the correspondence, ArbCom requested that they disclose on their userpages that they share an IP. Based on public and private information that is what a consensus of the committee felt was appropriate in handling this manner. It's possible ArbCom will have more to say after further discussion, but I feel pretty comfortable posting that publicly without having consulted with the rest of the committee. The community has parallel jurisdiction on some aspects of this issue and can obviously reach their own decision. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we've been put into a tricky situation then where this has already been to Arbcom, and while obviously the community has a say Arbcom is a much better tribunal for dispute resolution. SportingFlyer T·C 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Especially if it turns out that there are tool use issues. Hopefully what we've seen so far (the revdel) is merely a one-off mistake - to be apologized for and moved on from. - jc37 23:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, there was no dispute resolution here. I made a referral as an uninvolved admin and SPI clerk because then-private evidence was involved. Beyond an initial acknowledgment of receipt, I never heard back from anyone speaking on behalf of the Committee—just the informal discussion with the arb I mentioned above. The secrecy of ArbCom proceedings goes both ways: On the one hand, we should not assume ArbCom did something wrong in a situation where we don't know all the facts. But on the other, we should not infer meaning from a lack of sanction by ArbCom when we don't know what their internal deliberations looked like. Were they one vote shy of serious sanctions, or did they see it as barely an issue? We don't know. What we do know is that they took an action that opens the door to community review. As Barkeep alludes to, the community has coequal jurisdiction in matters of admin conduct where the relevant evidence is public, and for good reason. Private ArbCom deliberations are not the proper venue to establish whether admins retain the community's trust, and ArbCom has never said otherwise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought SPI clerks are not supposed to link to any sort of personal information, though, and to contribute that to Arbcom. Why did you think it was now appropriate to bring this to our attention publicly? SportingFlyer T·C 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I brought this to ArbCom because the connection was private at the time. Once the connection was made public, as a direct result of ArbCom's intervention, I brought it to the community, as there was no longer any policy preventing us from discussing it, and full community review of potential admin misconduct is always ideal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

You could have waited to hear from Arbcom. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside the revdel digression, it does seem like both admins have been failing to comply with WP:SHARE. Schazjmd (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

As I told Arbcom, and I'd rather not have to go into here: For all the years we've been Wikipedians and admins, we've at times worked on the same sock investigations and other things with Arbcom members and checkusers, and AFAIR they've all known we sometimes share an IP. But that was more frequent 15 - 10 years ago. I don't recall ever being asked to publicly disclose until yesterday. I'm sorry it didn't occur to me, but again, there have also been other reasons, that Arbcom is aware of. Again, no one has brought it up. I'm sorry if that sounds weird to you, but that's what happened. As soon as I was asked, I complied. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

To be clear - from what I see, posting to WP:AN in this case, is posting a question of behaviour. That there is IP sharing involved seems incidental to the questions being posed here and the evidence provided. So yes, questions of behaviour fall under community review. - jc37 22:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

And to add to the above, I would like to know how an AN notice to a user talk page qualifies for revdel as "Purely disruptive material". Somehow, I don't believe that action was "explained to arbcom". And without further explanation, seems like an WP:INVOLVED use of the tools inappropriately. Here's the revert edit after the revdel - [3]. - jc37 22:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I was assuming this was an arbcom matter and would be deleted. Since that doesn't seem to be happening, I've reversed the revdel.[4] - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Even if you thought that, how is that an appropriate use of RD3 by you of a mandatory ANI notification by another admin? DeCausa (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, I was told by Arbcom this was done. I was shocked and upset to see it. My understanding of the policy is that once Arbcom has handled it, it doesn't bounce back to a drama board. There are also privacy issues here that are of concern. I've reverted and I apologize. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

What privacy issues? Everything that Tamzin has linked and discussed above is publicly available information on wiki. Whatever information that was supplied to ArbCom that resulted in the request that both you and Mark Ironie post a shared IP noticed on your respective talk pages doesn't appear to be included. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to stay focused, I think we all should probably stop talking about the shared IP part of this. That's not looking helpful to addressing the questions at hand, and I'm wary that inadvertant things could be said if discussion about that here on WP:AN continue. As noted, that part has already been addressed by arbcom. - jc37 23:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) With Tamzin's comment that it is difficult to sift through the 1,004 pages the two have interacted on, including 20 XfDs and 142 talkpages, I took it upon myself to sift through the XfDs. Some of these are very old, but they all display the same pattern; the two !voting in the same way, without exception (there were two discussions where one !voted redirect and the other !voted to delete, but there is little distinction between deleting and redirecting), in every XfD they both participated in. This seems to support Tamzin's belief that this did not start in 2020 - instead it seems to have been going on for almost two decades.

Review of joint XfD participation

XfD Data !Vote Notes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taylor Ellwood 20 November 2006 Delete Mark Ironie !voted thirty one minutes after CorbieVreccan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephanie Nolasco 8 December 2006 Delete CorbieVreccan !voted five minutes after Mark Ironie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakti Wicca 11 December 2006 Delete CorbieVreccan !voted fourteen minutes after Mark Ironie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lee "Skip" Ellison 15 December 2006 Merge Mark Ironie originally !voted delete, but changed to merge 3 minutes after CorbieVreccan did. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum 16 December 2006 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest (Neopagan magazine) 19 December 2006 Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic Paddy 5 January 2007 Delete Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct (2nd nomination) 17 November 2007 Keep CorbieVreccan !voted thirteen minutes after Mark Ironie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Ganger 20 December 2007 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination) 28 December 2007 Delete/Redirect Mark Ironie !voted delete, CorbieVreccan !voted to redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WinterStar Symposium 28 December 2007 Delete/Redirect CorbieVreccan !voted delete, Mark Ironie !voted to redirect Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Scullion 5 January 2008 Delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 4 September 2009 Keep Mark Ironie !voted thirty nine minutes after CorbieVreccan Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yamassee/Yamassee native americans 28 May 2012 Keep CorbieVreccan !voted fifty eight minutes after Mark Ironie Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic shaman 10 February 2014 Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Tribe of Mixed-Bloods 30 September 2014 Delete Mark Ironie !voted forty six minutes after CorbieVreccan Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry 19 December 2018 Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Ways of Knowing 12 January 2021 Delete

BilledMammal (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

While this table looks damning at a first glance, it seems less so after looking at the totality of their xfd edits (summary, every edit). I'm more concerned about the tool use - if my wife/roommate/little brother/whatever edited Wikipedia, there's no way I'd be using my extra buttons anywhere near anything they'd touched, whether or not we'd disclosed the relationship. —Cryptic 03:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I guess my son edits Wikipedia - and we presumably share the IP on a regular basis - but I do not even know what his username is. (Not particularly related to the situation in question, where the username is known, and this is an admin account). Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

We did collaborate heavily in the beginning of our time on the 'pedia, as we do have shared areas of interest. In more recent years, not as much. The reason the page count is so high is that Mark Ironie runs autowikibrowser - an automated program that does minor edits on things like typos, on a massive number of pages. But not as many substantial edits as the edit count might indicate for those who don't run bots. The first thing I did when I got the message from Arbcom is offer a voluntary iBan. But they didn't bring it up in the last email, just that we do the disclosure box. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 23:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Based on the volume of evidence involved here and that it concerns two admins this has to be a ArbCom case. There's concerning diffs and concerning uses of the admin tools/authority and it deserves a proper evaluation. I'm not sure what further private evidence is there, but there's clearly a lot of public evidence ArbCom should be able to evaluate. Admins should not be using their tools to sanction their friend's enemies, as seems to have happened with the block against Revirvlkodlaku. Galobtter (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Some of this is better described as stealth canvassing whereby one person hypothetically communicates something to the other off-wiki, based on knowing their opinions, to the effect of notifying them about an on-wiki development in their shared area of interest, so that the other might also participate (which they would then do in a predictable way). At least some segments of the manifested overall pattern do not strongly relate to the policy text describing meatpuppetry, which is like sockpuppetry except the other account has a perfunctory human operator, who is not an independently motivated actor, and most typically concerns bringing in new users, who are then not here to build an encyclopedia, who may be observed as single-purpose accounts, and who are, like socks, operated by the same person—not mechanically but "socially". Here both actors can be assumed to be independently motivated but are influenced by one another. (This is not my summary of everything, just my opinion about some of it.)—Alalch E. 00:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have never posted to AN before, I am not an administrator so I hope it is OK for me to do so. I occasionally watch this page. Disclaimer: I have learned many things about Indigenous people's issues and editing in that area thru CorbieV whose integrity I deeply respect. This discussion is making me very uncomfortable because it seems that people's privacy is being violated which could cause harm. This is unwise to my way of thinking; first do no harm. This discussion is taking place in this very public forum, would it not be better to discuss privately in this case? Netherzone (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Nothing is being discussed here that isn't already visible in page history. The two admins made their connections known almost from the start of their editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Not an admin either and also hoping it's acceptable to post. I joined Wikipedia when I was embarrassingly young and made a considerable amount of mistakes. I initially ran into CV within days of joining and I admit, I followed them around like a puppy for longer than I should have. I appreciate that they were patient with me in showing me the ropes. I almost exclusively edit Indigenous articles. CV and I regularly overlap. It's inevitable. This doesn't mean we are in cahoots. When something comes up for a vote, because we have similar opinions in Indian Country, we will vote similarly and because I am extremely lazy I will usually say per Corbie or per Yuchi (or per a handful of other editors that I generally agree with most of the time). It doesn't mean that they are thinking for me or contacting me off 'pedia telling me what to do. That's kind of bs to be blunt. Granted I don't have fancy buttons, but if I did I would still be making the same choices and I'd be seriously ticked if folks came in accusing me of not being able to use my brain box for myself and accusing me of being somebody's meat girl rather than Indigenous girl. Indigenous girl (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Also! Can we look at the massive amount of edits CV has done where MI is no where in sight? Has anyone thought to compare? Hm? Indigenous girl (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's questioning the fact that CorbieVreccan has made countless positive contributions to WP.

I think the heart of the issue here is the appropriate use of those "fancy buttons". Per OP:

"No user should have to worry that, when they cross one admin, that admin's IP-mate is going to show up and warn them or block them." Crescent77 (talk) 05:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm unable to provide any in-depth comments on this at the moment due to irl commitments. Some of the links provided at the top by Tamzin relate to normal admin housekeeping or are unrelated to this subject. The assumption seems to be that I do not make independent decisions in situations when interacting with CorbieVreccan or situations where they are involved. I do due diligence in issuing warnings when I find a warning is warranted. Warnings are something any editor can do in response to behavior by another editor. I did the same with a few !votes where I say "per CorbieVreccan". That phrase means the rationale given by CorbieVreccan is most in line with my research into the matter at hand, not some rote agreement with their opinion. I haven't been participating on WP much in recent years and these incidents obviously stand out. I'll avoid such questionable interactions with CorbieVreccan on WP in the future. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with JC37 above that the shared IP is almost coincidental; the users could be communicating online rather than in-person, and wouldn't affect the rest of this situation. Off-wiki communication isn't in and of itself a problem; I suspect it's a rare admin who does not discuss their work off-wiki. The relevant questions are; are the admins acting independently of each other? Is WP:CANVAS being violated? If they are not acting independently, is WP:INVOLVED being violated? Are they using their off-wiki discussion as the basis for "consensus", which can only legitimately be formed on-wiki? I haven't yet had the time to investigate any of this, but for this to be a productive exercise we need to focus on the behavior vis-a-vis policy, and not on the procedural niceties; fundamentally, there's no reason the community is unable to review this right now. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  My initial impression is that WP:INVOLVED is being violated. There is clearly a strong relationship of one form or another between CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie; when such relationships exist it is inappropriate and against policy for an editor to act as an administrator in a dispute that the other editor is participating in, but that is exactly what Mark has done.

  It's less clear that WP:CANVAS is being violated, and I don't think it can be definitively proven without private evidence, but my impression based on the evidence presented by Tamzin and myself is that it is being violated; that one or the other asks the other to participate in a discussion - the consistency of support and the timeliness of support is strong evidence of that. BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• There's a lot to unpack here, and I think Galobtter is right that a full case is going to be the best way to do that. First, regardless of whether we frame it as meatpuppetry, stealth canvassing, involvement, or something else, what matters is that these sorts of undisclosed relationships just demonstrate extremely poor judgment and fall well below the expectations for administrators. And it does seem to be a long-term problem. I just came across this AN thread from 2019 in which there were pretty serious concerns raised about CorbieVreccan's conduct (an IBAN was proposed, and the closer stated that he would have topic-banned her if he could). Throughout this thread, Mark Ironie made numerous comments defending CV and supporting sanctions against her "opponent" without disclosing the connection. CV then showed up on MI's talk page to leave this comment, aptly described at the time as "smug, passive-aggressive insults". That was four years ago, but (along with all of Tamzin's other evidence) it shows a troubling pattern, especially since one editor thought it needed to go to ArbCom even then. I also remember this clearly out-of-process deletion, and combined with the obviously inappropriate revdel above, I wonder if there isn't also a pattern of careless/problematic tool use—at minimum, it's worth looking into. I'm not sure there's really a ton the community can do short of expressing that there's a serious problem here: in this sort of situation, all roads lead back to ArbCom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Good grief, I've just read through the whole of that 2019 AN thread linked to by Extraordinary Writ. Given what we now know, CV and MI should both be de-sysoped. How is that in any way legitimate conduct for two admins? This appears to be just one example, but it's bad enough on its own. DeCausa (talk) 07:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  INVOLVED seems to be a recurring issue here. I had held off on mentioning Corbie's indefinite AE semi-protection in February of Two-spirit (an article of which they are by far the principal editor), because they've never been challenged on it before and I appreciate we all make mistakes, and also because it was probably the right end result. But given the emerging pattern, it's worth noting as a pretty egregious misuse of AE protection (or, would-be AE protection; it was never logged and thus is not officially an AE action). This wasn't some emergency where there was no time to wait for an uninvolved admin. This was an action that Corbie acknowledged was involved, linking to a procedure page that says administrators must not[] impose a restriction when involved, for a matter that could have easily been taken to WP:RFPP instead. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• At first glance this all looks pretty bad. Given I can't even find a log entry for when CorbieVreccan was given +sysop, let alone an RfA, I imagine the explanation is yet again going to be that they started doing this a long time ago and haven't kept up with changing community norms since (whether that's an excuse, I don't know). However, I agree that we're very unlikely to reach any sort of conclusion here. This needs to go to ArbCom as a public case. – Joe (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie were both given adminship in November 2007, under different usernames. See WP:Requests for adminship/Kathryn NicDhàna and WP:Requests for adminship/Pigman. See also [5], [6], and [7] for the username change logs. Shells-shells (talk) 07:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Looks like we were missing a redirect for the former. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  There's some very inappropriate collaboration from years ago (mostly pre-2011) between the two of them under their original user names at Celtic reconstructionism and its talk pages, which has multiple COI problems. It's ancient history - mostly, although see 2022 RM on the talk page - but illustrates how longstanding this is. The comment in CV/Kathryn NicDhàna's RfA about that article is interesting: At the time I began working on it [Celtic reconstructionism], I was not mentioned in the article, and it had not occurred to me that I ever would be. But as the article expanded I wound up being briefly mentioned, and some of my work in the field is now cited in the sources.[8]... given she added her name 6 weeks after MI/Pigman created the article. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• It seems a bit precious to get concerned about two people who (I presume given the shared IP) know each other having similar views on various articles; human beings talking to each other away from Wikipedia is OK. What is highly concerning is the use of admin tools, issuing warnings on behalf of one another and defending one another's use of the admin tools when these have been queried. Given the tool use in particular, ArbCom should take this issue on - they have desyoped admins for using the tools seemingly on behalf of people they know away from Wikipedia in the past. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Desysop both: I don't think this has to go to ArbCom. They sent it back for community review. I was intending to stay out of this, but I had no idea that these two were previously Kathryn NicDhàna and Pigman. They have been tag-teaming since they joined Wikipedia; I've run into their comments on talk pages (esp. User talk:Rosencomet) and deletion discussions as I've been cleaning up some of the Jeff Rosenbaum/Starwood COI articles. If that's who they are, this goes way deeper than what's been disclosed here so far. I don't have enough animosity against CV to spend time searching for details to support that, but this little not disclosed to the general editor population charade has gone on long enough. Best scenario is they voluntarily resign their admin roles. Skyerise (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I know I said I wasn't going to dig into it, but as I was putting a {{Deceased Wikipedian}} template on Rosencomet's talk page, I thought to search the ANI archives for threads about Rosencomet. And I ran into a comment from a Corvus cornix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) on one of those threads. Looks to me like CorbieVreccan/Kathryn NicDhàna had a sockpuppet account from 2007 to 2011. See Editor Interaction Analyser and Interaction Timeline reports. Skyerise (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Skyerise:, any chance of linking to that comment? SN54129 13:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: Sure. It's in this thread about Rosencomet. Skyerise (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Skyerise. With almost comic timing, you see, Sourceforge is down (for me) at the moment. SN54129 13:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: I've been getting a bunch of timeouts myself... Skyerise (talk) 13:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I've looked at every AN subpage that links to both User:Rosencomet and User:Corvus cornix (they are: AN79, ANI230, ANI235, AN117, ANI346, ANI358, ANI419, ANI422, ANI654, and of course WP:AN right now). The thread in Incidents Archive 358 linked above is the only one where Corvus cornix interacts with any of Rosencomet, Mark Ironie, CorbieVreccan, or any of their previous account names, and Cc's comment there is both tangential and entirely in keeping with other comments of theirs I saw on the other archive pages. Plus, they were much more active than either Mark Ironie or CorbieVreccan, with between half and a third as many total edits despite stopping editing entirely in early 2011. I haven't investigated any interactions outside of those AN archive pages, but based solely on those, I don't think there's any connection here. —Cryptic 14:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  While looking for the comment myself, I happened upon WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346#Requesting review of User:Rosencomet block, which is now looking really, really poor, especially after considering the unanswered #Personal Attacks by Rosencomet (again) from higher up the page. —Cryptic 13:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Cryptic: Good find. I'm having a hard time believing this comment in a related AfD where CV claims "it's not a personality issue, it's a policy issue. I don't know Jeff/Rosencomet off-Wiki" given her field of research and her apparently intimate knowledge of an obscure early pagan zine for which she created the article, Harvest (Neopagan magazine), which dates to the same period as the founding of the Starwood Festival (early 1980s). It's starting to look to me like a conflict between Celtic reconstructionists and those with some other view of paganism and witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  That last mentioned article is basically a vehicle for self-promotion. I've gone through the edit history and posted on the COI issue on the article talk page here. DeCausa (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  @DeCausa: I find that pretty ironic considering how they both laid into Rosencomet for COI repeatedly at User talk:Rosencomet. I mean, they were right about his COI, but really, they were carrying on their own at the same time? Skyerise (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Give it a rest, CV isn't the only one who thinks your Crusade to redefine witchcraft as a wholly positive thing is misguided and disruptive. 98.15.154.217 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I was wondering how long it would take banned user Bethsheba Ashe (talk · contribs) to pipe in. Skyerise (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Take to ArbCom the numerous violations of INVOLVED and the atrocious lack of admin accountability here warrant a public case, since we can't revoke the tools ourselves. And representatives from ArbCom need to be candid about what they actually told to the parties, because if they said "hey knock it off" and that's it, they fundamentally failed the community here and didn't do any due diligence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• A lot of reading. This is clearly way too complicated a set of issues for random passersby like myself to settle here with bolded assertions. Multiple admins, multiple issues, long history of "coordination", such as it is. In the interest of ALL parties, I would encourage ARBCOM to accept such a case. Especially if CorbieVreccan and Mark Ironie maintain their good faith innocence, Arbitration is only way I can imagine where their case can be reasonably and impartially reviewed. Making good faith errors is an expected part of being a wikipedian and we often learn best from making mistakes and having them pointed out to us. Sysops are only as effective as enforcements against our own prove out and only as transparent as our established procedures and social norms permit. Thank you to the typically diligent User:Tamzin for making a compelling prima facie case in the OP. BusterD (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• ArbCom again This is a big deal, but it didn't need to be. Most of the presented edits would be absolutely fine if the connection had been previously disclosed, and indeed some of them are fine even if the connection between the editors hadn't been disclosed. I'm concerned about the use of the tools though and I'm most concerned with the block of Revirvlkodlaku. It's something that needs to be referred back to ArbCom as we've desysopped people for less.
  I am also concerned about the process here, considering this has already been to ArbCom once. I think my issue is that a user with access to private information correctly presented the information privately to ArbCom but didn't wait for ArbCom to present it to the community, but I'll keep thinking about what exactly about this is bothering me. Something about the way this was brought here simply feels sensitive to me as the fact it's already been to ArbCom makes it a lot more difficult for us to comment on. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  From what I gather, SF, the only thing ArbCom have had before them so far is the notice from the two parties that they have a connection to disclose. Nothing else—tool misuse, blocks, meatpuppetry and other allegations—has. So it's not a question of double jeopardy applying if that is concerning you? SN54129 16:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to throw User talk:Mycelium101#September 2016 into the mix. It looks like a bright-line violation of WP:Blocking policy#Unblock requests in light of what we know now. The sad thing is that it appears to have been completely unnecessary, what with other admins also declining and the original block being taken over by an oversighter. —Cryptic 16:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
• Let me be very clear in saying I have immense respect for Corbie despite occasionally disagreeing with her approach to things. I mostly attribute that to being really passionate about the subjects we have an interest in. Most disagreements have been born out of misunderstanding and I can acknowledge, for my part, that fact. I don't think the positive contributions Corbie has made to Wikipedia can be questioned. Her importance to the project can not be overstated. She has helped me in my journey here and her value is unmatched.

That being said, I am deeply concerned what occurred during the discussion and partial block of Revirvlkodlaku. I was involved in that discussion and, though the reasoning for the block was justified, had I known the connection between MI and CV at the time, as a member of the community, I would have taken issue with who made the block. I thought MI was just another random admin that saw the problem or was alerted to the issue by another user involved in the discussion to take a look, a quite common occurrence. When two admins share an IP and can communicate off-wiki concerning on-wiki discussions, potentially formulating plans of how to best combine their positions of authority to affect the wanted outcome that they desire and then use the tools they were granted to make it happen it can have a very chilling affect on the community. Even the perception of that has the same affect. The same IP connection isn't a concern unless all the other occurs with it. We shouldn't be about controlling the private lives of users or even knowing about it outside of what they share. But when that affects their on-wiki actions, especially in the case of admins, it very much comes into play only in so much as their role on the project and use of tools. --ARoseWolf 17:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

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

AI being used for block appeals?

I just dropped the text of one long block appeal into GPTZero to see if it was AI generated and got a score of 98%. Doug Weller talk 08:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sadly it's not the first. I saw a ChatGPT block appeal that was accepted about a month ago. I would personally not have accepted it as I think using ChatGPT for a block appeal is a bit lazy and deceptive and insincere, but to each their own I guess. I have also seen ChatGPT used in articlespace, draftspace, and article talk pages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been seeing this with increasing frequency. I almost always summarily decline such requests, we should hear from the user themselves. Furthermore, if it was the AI who was blocked, the AI generated requests would not work to get the AI unblocked as they usually are very general, filled with glowing platitudes about how committed they are and how deep their regret is and how much they love Wikipedia and would never hurt it. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Awhile ago I added this to the guide to encourage people to write their requests themselves. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, it sounds like LLM detectors such as GPTZero are not accurate enough to rely on. More info. Although I appreciate the irony of using machines to detect other machines. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Fortunately, AI-generated platitudes are easily detected by human intelligence. I've seen maybe half a dozen of these, they all read as if they were trained on a particularly insipid customer service interface. Acroterion (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The detectability of AI-generated platitudes by human intelligence depends on various factors, including the quality of the AI model, the context in which the platitudes are presented, and the perceptiveness of the human observer. Chat! said Boing (talk) 11:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of these. In general, the unblock requests are essentially free of any meaningful content, rarely even attempting to address the reason for the block. Such requests reflect badly on the requestor. I wish there was a reliable way to automatically detect and reject all such requests. I think the best we can do is what 331dot has already done, discourage such requests in the guidelines, then decline the requests when they come in. --Yamla (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not Wikipedia should prohibit unblock appeals made using AI is a complex and nuanced question that depends on various factors and perspectives.... OK, I'll stop now :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This reminds me of my college writing style when I was trying to pad up the word count... Jip Orlando (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

CAPTCHA: Trying to convince a robot you're not a robot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• I am wondering if we should consider editing the block notices and declined unblock request templates to advise against bot written requests. Probably wouldn't do much good in preventing them but we would have something to point to. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

A standard "decline-ai" would be helpful. Something that indicates it appears as though the request was generated by AI, without stating we are absolutely certain of it. I'm seeing enough AI-generated requests that I'd also support updating the block notices. --Yamla (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a downside to this? Anyone else see one? Doug Weller talk 12:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I support this idea as well, along with the "decline-ai". RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I like this. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a yes from me. WaggersTALK 12:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Suppport, including the "decline-ai" notice.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with doing both. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom has also gotten block appeals that can be ascribed to AI and we've also had the thought internally to have a standard form for AI requests (we have many boilerplates, some of you have probably gotten one or the other). So yes, I would appreciate modifying blocked to say that appeals should be not AI appeals ("in their own words", but that might be too subtle for these folks), and would also support a standard "no, you did it wrong, try doing it yourself this time". Izno (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although this may well be an AI-written block appeal, tools like GPTZero are not accurate. There is currently no reliable way for machines to determine whether text is AI-generated. Sam Walton (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So there's one area where we know better than the machines. :) 331dot (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Note. This was discussed a few months ago at Wikipedia talk:Large language models/Archive 5#Unblock requests. Folly Mox (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Using AI to appeal a block is almost as convincing as "Wikipe-tan ate my homework". Randy Kryn (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Anyone using AI to appeal a block is either too incompetent to understand the purpose of a block appeal, what we want from a block appeal and how to frame a block appeal; we don't want them. Or they're trying to hoodwink us in some way; we don't want them. Or they're not taking the entire process seriously; so we don't want them. The bottom line should be, that AI-generated appeals should lead to an immediate revocation of everything and a site ban. Appeal in six months... preferably in their own handwriting. SN54129 15:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  So, what standard of proof that they have used a LLM to write their appeal should we use? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Or a preponderance of evidence? What method will give us the highest percentage of correct positives? What percentage of false positives are we willing to accept when applying the ban hammer? Donald Albury 15:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  ArbCom has been getting a fair amount of ban appeals that appear to be AI-generated. The most common feature that I've noticed is they sound contrite, but don't really adress the issues that led to the block with any substance, which is already a perfectly valid reason to decline an appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have argued elsewhere that we do not need to change our current processes to handle AI-generated edits. If an edit doesn't meet our standards for the type of edit, does it matter whether it is AI-generated or not? Donald Albury 17:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think it matters. Wikipedia is supposed to be a human-edited project, not an AI generated project. Even leaving that aside, it reflects a certain laziness. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think the more important point to keep in mind, is that these are not true AIs. If they were, I think it is safe to say they would be welcome to join the project. Anthropocentrism isn't a core value. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  As Viriditas says, I don't recall anything in our policies and guidelines saying that only humans can edit WP. And policy does allow bots to edit. The issue here, though, seems to be about human editors pasting in text generated by large language models (LLMs). The editors doing so are still responsible for those edits. If the edits do not meet some part of the policies and guidelines, then we can deal with them in the same way we deal with all other such edits, without regard to whether the edits incorporate text generated by LLMs. In the case of appeals of sanctions, the criteria should be whether a consensus of responders agree that the appeal is up to standard. If our standard for identifying appeals that incorporate LLM-generated text is that they don't meet our criteria for sincerity, remorsefulness, and full acknowledgement of their errors, then they will be rejected whether or not they are LLM-generated. As LLMs become better, it is going to become harder to detect text generated by an LLM. On the other hand, the better LLMs are incredibly expensive to run, and the companies running them will sooner or later seek to monetize them. Once the companies start charging for access to LLMs, we will probably see fewer instances of LLM-generated text in edits. Donald Albury 12:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, WP:LLM is still just a proposal, so we don't actually have any clear-cut guidelines on LLMs. That said, I'd think that an admin doesn't need any specific new rules to reject a bot-written appeal, given its obvious insincerity (and the possibility that the entire account might be a WP:BOTPOL violation.) I do think it's important to highlight the fact that LLM detectors are often inaccurate; I suspect they'd be particularly inaccurate when used on bad appeals, which are often going to be generic-sounding and formulaic in a way that will trigger AI detection regardless of whether it was actually used or not... but it doesn't make a big difference because either way it's going to be an appeal that doesn't say anything meaningful. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone here is proposing new rules so much as new ways to close requests and inform. 331dot (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've seen quite a few of these, and I have to say now it's an ongoing pattern we're going to have to deal with. Most of the time they're very easy to spot: an editor with a poor grasp of formal English suddenly writes a paragraphs-long appeal in near-perfect professional American English (it's always American English) which doesn't address the cause for the block at all, just apologizing for vague wrongdoings and swearing that they love Wikipedia and all that. No change to policy is needed: such a request would not convince anyone, regardless of who wrote it, that the user understands what behaviour caused them to be blocked, basically the only requirement in an appeal. They can be summarily dismissed, and should be. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Though I do support creating a response template. It would be delicious irony if it were written by an LLM, but maybe that's pointy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Is there anything unusual about the users using GPTs to appeal blocks? Are they, for instance, more likely to be spammers? MER-C 18:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Some I think are used by those for whom English is not their best language, but most are just people who think that it will write better than they can. I don't think they are more likely to be spammers. 331dot (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Concerns Regarding MrOllie

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

---

I have observed instances where MrOllie has deleted what I believe to be relevant links on subjects. These links were pertinent and contributed valuable information to the topics. Such deletions seemed to detract from the spirit of Wikipedia. In short, MrOllie does not seem to have taken the time to read the citations and has simply made a quick judgement.

Furthermore, I have noted a concerning attitude displayed by MrOllie in interactions with other Wikipedia users. His tone in discussions, as evidenced on his talk page, has been abrupt and dismissive. This behavior creates an unwelcoming environment for contributors and discourage constructive engagement.

I would like to request that the administrators review MrOllie's recent actions and consider whether they align with the principles of fairness, inclusiveness, and respectful communication that Wikipedia strives to uphold. While I understand the crucial role in maintaining the quality of content, it is equally important that their actions are carried out with a balanced and respectful approach.

The article in question in which MrOllie has been removing links from is Second Life.

A glance at his terrible attitude towards other users User talk:MrOllie Slxsis (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you Sure this is the right place for this report? Untamed1910 (talk) 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Every link I followed led me back here. If this is the wrong place then I would be grateful for a point in the right direction. Slxsis (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

If I had seen those edits, I would have deleted the links myself. Please read our guideline on reliable sources. Donald Albury 15:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

MrOllie is right: the source is unreliable and in all honesty, the addition appears to be promotional. Also, this is a personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll accept the unreliable part, after reading in depth the reliable sources guideline. The promotional part is incorrect though. Was only trying to step my toes in and help out with the page. Slxsis (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I suggest you apologize to MrOllie for the unjustified personal attack. M.Bitton (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure about that, there was still the accusation of promotion. So he was wrong on that count. Slxsis (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It was promotional, whether you intended it as such or not. ANI is not the place to run over every dispute or sleight against you; I see no problems on MrOllies user talk page at all. I would suggest you withdraw this complaint. 331dot (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

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

IPhone 15 - talk page directing to Draft talk:iPhone 15

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

---

There's has been quite a bit of disruption around outstanding drafts and the release of IPhone 15 with folks copy/pasting drafts into mainspace, creating an article and/or moving articles to draft space. Its been quite dizzying. The main issue I see right now is the talk page for IPhone 15 directs to Draft talk:iPhone 15. I am not sure how that happened but requesting admin or another experienced editor to correct it. I have also requested a histmerge with Draft:iPhone 15, which may or may not be warranted but that is not an immediate concern (I don't think anyway). S0091 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've historymerged the cut-and-paste copy in mainspace back into the draft, move-protected the draft, and semiprotected the resulting redirect so it cannot be recreated. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

... but should this be a draft? The device has been announced, as far as I can tell. New releases of iPhone are about as close to automatically notable as anything on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: could you launch the request to transfer draft to mainspace? Panam2014 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Ivanvector! @Panam2014 if you (or someone) will submit it for review, I will accept it. S0091 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I just went ahead and promoted it, per the above. No reason for this to be a draft, and I'm sure people are just going to keep trying to recreate it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did you move protect the draft instead of opening an AfD? This page has already been AfC accepted and only one user has been draftifying the page against WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Iffy★Chat -- 18:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@S0091, Ivanvector, and Iffy: And for Draft:iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro? Draft use speculative sources. Panam2014 (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Iffy: why would I open an AFD for a history repair? Nobody was suggesting deleting the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I presumed that you move protected the draft to keep it in draft space (after you sorted the page history issues). I see now that the issue is settled and regular editing can resume. Iffy★Chat -- 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There were CSD requests while waiting for the official announcement but I think as far as iPhone 15, I think we are all set. One more request @Ivanvector, will you please delete the iPhone 15 Pro redirect so I can accept/move Draft:iPhone 15 Pro? The Pro models generally have their own articles (i.e. iPhone 14 Pro). I know, its confusing but I did have an outstanding CSD request. S0091 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I left a comment on the draft, I don't think it's ready since the only information there is that the phone was announced (which I just included in the main article instead) and everything else is poorly sourced rumour, or equally poorly sourced refutation of the same rumour. But this is probably the same issue as above where people will keep trying to recreate it over the redirect anyway, so yeah I'll probably just do it. There might also be a cut-and-paste issue with the redirect though, let me look into that first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, done. @S0091: the redirect is out of your way, but let me know if you still have problems. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

All good! Thanks for your help It's now up the to community to expand and/or determine it should be merged. S0091 (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Obsolete indef block for an Australian IP

The IP address 60.231.28.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been blocked since 2012, but this block is no longer needed since it has been reassigned since that date. According to a 2010 comment by MCAspire (talk · contribs) at the Ip's user page, it was assigned to Fraser Coast Anglican College in Hervey Bay, Queensland, but now geolocates to a locality in Brisbane, approximately 240 kilometres (150 mi) south. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocks are best discussed with the blocking admin in the first instance, and they are still active. @Andrewa: you don't seem to have been notified of this issue, or thread. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Geolocations are approximate at best. Most of the time my IP will mostly locate vaguely to my location, but my current IP doesn't geolocate to within 50 miles of me and greater distances are not unusual. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Australian IPs routinely geolocate weirdly (at one point my IP was in Perth, multiple thousands of kilometres from me). Vaticidalprophet 11:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Unblocked. If it causes problems, it can be blocked again, but it shouldn't be blocked indefinitely. It's common for IP addresses to be reallocated to a different company after a while. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Dasdascv

I have updated some information in the Bidhannagar article, as per the information provided on the Bidhannagar Municipal Corporation website (www.bmcwbgov.in). But, User:Dasdascv (talk) changed and removed it without providing any references and made personal attacks (here) on the edit summary, Which is inconsistent with the work of Wikipedia. He also abused my user page (here). -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Besi pakamo marle tor user page er pechon aro marbo chup chap thak onno jaiga edit kor Salt Lake ta hat dis na ota niye pakamo maris na Dasdascv (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Well that's an indef block right there. Done. WaggersTALK 09:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Pages hacked by israiyl flag

Several pages pertaining to Bollywood actors have been replaced entirely by a black page with the esrail flag eg shahid Kapoor and rani mukherjee. There are probably more. 148.252.132.160 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any such issues at Rani Mukerji or Shahid Kapoor. The latter hasn't been edited for almost a month. WaggersTALK 10:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Module:IPA is repeatedly being vandalised by Grahamd87, who keeps adding a flag of Israel wrapped in "unconfired show" tags [9]. Please can someone block them and protect the module? Template editors should remember that if they're going to convert a widely used template to LUA they should have the new module protected before it is used on hundreds of thousands of pages. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime has protected the module. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Module protected and user blocked — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 10:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Pro tip: one quick way to identify templates causing image vandalism is the script User:Anomie/previewtemplatelastmod. Wasn't needed in this case, but just mentioning for the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Should have seen this coming and asked the module to be protected. Thank you TNT and those who reported this. Nardog (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed the same thing with the Persian language page. I thought it was just me and I was nuts, so I'm both relieved that it's not my imagination and concerned. 2607:FB91:223F:CF3E:25CE:824B:7F2:C46D (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Selective deletion of page history

Dear admins, I recently moved a page from my sandbox into main space, along with all its revisions since 2009. Can you please delete the page history up until this version? Sorry for the inconvenience. el.ziade (talkallam) 11:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Oops! No worries, I'll sort that now. WaggersTALK 12:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done WaggersTALK 12:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

User Talk page disruption by blocker user Swiftosis

User:Swiftosis was blocked for unrepentant antisemitism and has used their User Talk page to sealion, play dumb, waste time and make spurious unblock requests, one of which they got an AI to write for them. Now they are making personal attacks. I feel that this edit should be the final straw and that it is high time to revoke their talk page access. It is not like they are making any good faith attempts to be unblocked. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Declined that request and removed TPA. That comment sealed the deal. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding باسم

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

---

I hope everyone's doing well today.

There's an Arabic Wikipedia user @باسم who is consistently violating Wikipedia's rules on N:POV. The classic example is an article about a historical figure named Musaylimah. He was a contemporary of the Prophet Muhammad who also claimed prophethood. In the vast majority of the article's translations, he is named just that: Musaylimah. However, in the Arabic translation, the title is "Musaylimah the Liar".

The phrase "Musaylimah the Liar" has been a derogatory slur used by Muslims scholars for more than a thousand years. While it's understandable for Wikipedia to inform readers about the fact that this Musaylimah figure was nicknamed "the Liar", for the article to have the slur as the title is a blatant violation of N:POV.

When I mentioned this in the Talk page, my discussion was deleted by @باسم. I posted it again, and again, it was deleted by him. He then left me a message on my user's talk page, saying the following:

"توقف فورًا عن المس بالثوابت واستفزاز المُستخدمين ولو كان ذلك في نقاش المقالات! لك أن تُحب وتكره وتُدافع وتُبغض من أردت بينك وبين نفسك أو في مُجتمعك مع الذين يُشاطرونك أفكارك، لكن أن تنقل هذا الكلام إلى صفحات الموسوعة، مُستترًا بالحياديَّة أمرٌ غير مقبول. لو تكرر منك هذا فستُمنع فورًا. احترم نفسك واحترم الأغلبيَّة!"

This is the English translation:

"Immediately stop violating principles and provoking users, even if it is in discussing articles! You can love, hate, defend, and hate whomever you want between yourself or in your community with those who share your ideas, but bringing this discussion to the pages of the encyclopedia, cloaked in neutrality, is unacceptable. If you do this repeatedly, you will be banned immediately. Respect yourself and respect the majority!"

Again, I posted the request to change the title for a third time. I was then banned for three days. The reason? كلمات بذيئة بالصفحات (vulgarities), even though I never cursed anyone.

When warned he would be reported to Wikipedia's administration, he left the following comment:

"تفضَّل وخُذ اللقطات التي تُريد ولو رغبت ألتقطها أنا لك، ثُمَّ اشتكِ حتَّى تشبع، لكنني سأظل لك ولأمثالك بالمرصاد. لا تتحجج بالحياديَّة وتتخفَّى خلفها وأنت لا ترغب إلَّا بالإساءة للإسلام والمُسلمين، ولا ترغب إلَّا بسكب حقدك في هذه الموسوعة بصورة استغباء للقارئ. عُد لمثل هذه التعديلات وسأعود خلفك. إن لم يكن بإمكانك لجم نفسك فابتعد عن هذه المقالات واهتم بما يُفيدك ويُفيد القُرَّاء!"

This is the English translation:

"Go ahead and take the shots you want, and if you wish, I will take them for you, then complain until you are satisfied, but I will remain on the lookout for you and people like you. Do not use neutrality as an excuse and hide behind it when you only want to offend Islam and Muslims, and you only want to pour your hatred into this encyclopedia in a way that fools the reader. Come back to such modifications and I will come back after you. If you cannot restrain yourself, stay away from these articles and focus on what benefits you and the readers!"

This user has tremendous power over Arabic Wikipedia. He has been editing it since 2007. The moment anyone brings up mention of neutrality, he shuts it down. I'm not the first to ask for the slur "the Liar" to be dropped from the title. When someone requested the same back in April 2021, @باسم replied:

"احترم نفسك وبلا شطحات وقفزات لاستنتاجات! هذا الرجل يشتهر في جميع المؤلفات التاريخيَّة بِمُسيلمة الكذَّاب، وفي ويكيبيديا لن نخترع أو ننتقي له إسمًا آخر بحُجَّة الحياديَّة. التاريخ لا يعرف الحياديَّة ولا المُسايرة، التاريخ وقائع، وواقع هذا الرجل أنَّهُ كذَّاب ادعى النُبُوَّة وثبُت الأمر على هذا، وأي تبديل في هذه الوقائع هو استغباء للقارئ وتشويه لتاريخنا، وهو أمرٌ لن يكون في ويكيبيديا العربيَّة. بين قوسين "دعوة الحيادية لا تعني تجميل التاريخ وانتقاء ما نُجمِّله منه". لتكن هذه المرَّة الأخيرة التي تستخدم فيها هذا الأسلوب في الكلام، ولو أنك توجهت إلى الزميل"

This is the English translation:

"Respect yourself and do not rush to conclusions! This man is known in all historical literature as Musaylimah the Liar, and on Wikipedia we will not invent or choose another name for him under the pretext of neutrality. History does not know neutrality or conformity, history is facts, and the reality of this man is that he is a liar who claimed prophecy and the matter has been proven on this, and any change in these facts is foolishness to the reader and distortion of our history, which is something that will not be in the Arabic Wikipedia. In parentheses, “The call for neutrality does not mean beautifying history and choosing what to beautify from it.” Let this be the last time you use this style of speech, even if you are addressing a colleague."

Is this what Wikipedia stands for? Does it stand for someone dogmatic to tear down neutrality in order to favor his own religious beliefs? I thought Wikipedia was all about being neutral. Not necessarily unbiased; I don't want flat Earth to be mentioned as a serious theory, but still, we can speak about it with neutrality.

I hope swift action can be taken soon. FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This concern appears to be about edits on the Arabic Wikipedia. We have no jurisdiction over that, so you need to take up the complaint there. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That's the issue, Phil: I'm banned. I can't even make the complaint over there. And even if I could, many of the admins handling complaints over at Arabic Wikipedia share the same values of upholding religious beliefs (typically Islamic) over impartiality. This is why you see the Arabic admin in question nonchalant about someone filing a complaint against him, since he knows nothing will happen. FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

However, the English Wikipedia cannot do anything with another language's Wikipedia. There is literally nothing we can do here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, this is pretty disappointing. I understand English Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over Arabic Wikipedia, but to not even give contacts of other people who potentially have jurisdiction over Arabic Wikipedia is simply saying "these admins can do whatever they want to do, and you can do nothing about it". So much for Wikipedia being a beacon of information! FlantasyFlan (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi, is this the correct place to add information about a sockpuppet investigation to notify administrators? TheFriendlyGuyy (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:SPI is designed for that sort of thing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What if both already have pages and are currently marked as different accounts, but they seem to be the same? TheFriendlyGuyy (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Again if you have evidence or diffs that would be something to look into, SPI is the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Persian Language page redirects to Israeli flag?

Hello! I was going down a rabbit hole about different parts of the Persian language, but when I type in or click on the actual page for the Persian language, it just shows an Israeli flag. I have been using my phone, so I switched it to desktop mode and it did the same thing. Then I tried searching for the Wikipedia page for the Persian language page and it still did the same thing. I don't know if it's a thing with me or what, but I wanted someone to look into it. Thank you for your help 2607:FB91:223F:CF3E:25CE:824B:7F2:C46D (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)