Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Jul Aug Sep Oct Total
    CfD 0 0 0 0 0
    TfD 0 0 0 6 6
    MfD 0 0 0 1 1
    FfD 0 0 0 1 1
    RfD 0 0 0 29 29
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    ThecentreCZ unblock request

    There is a (weak) consensus here to unblock, but nearly every editor has noted that there is a short amount of rope and any future issues will lead to a re-imposition of the block by any administrator. Daniel (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

    Copied from their user talk page:

    Hello, I would like to ask administrator to put forward my request to the Administrators' noticeboard for unblock, according to WP:Standard offer. I have been contributing to other Wikimedia projects meanwhile as is recommended for users at unblock requests.

    I would like to acknowledge my misconducts and mistakes like of inproper citations, especially that I did considered List of banned political parties and also other instances of lists as Stand-alone list, because I didn't take in consideration that there is also column which contains ideologies and year of occurance and I did not given proper citation in my first edits. I then reverted the edit more than once which let to the editor to report it as an incident there. Sadly, I didn't get a chance to properly repond to the most of the instances discussed and apologize again in the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because I was blocked for a period of month on the same day that the incidents were raised, on 15 March 2024, and I couldn't respond anymore. Factically it was somehow connected to the instance of incident of other blocked user, who probably used his account for singe-issue editing, but he also did other benefitial contributions to Wikipedia so I just presented my concerns there. In the case of disruptive editing and and insults, I would like to say that I will no longer edit contentious topics and use such language I used. I would like to apologize for about 3 vulgar words in the last 5 years I used, which could have been rightfully taken as insults and about 8 edit disputes, where I wrongly accused someone of something they have not ment. I agree that vulgar-insulting words are unacceptable and it was proper reason for blocking. It was very bad of me, but as of my editing I many times got into situation that people removed sourced information and it is not always easy to keep cool thinking and distuinguish proper and inproper editing, as I did many sourced corrections in about 10,000 edits I've made. In the matter of what I will be participating in the future, as I created about 80 articles in the past on English Wikipedia, I will continue to create only sourced articles with proper information and I will not participate in any disputes and in disagreements in such disproportionate language I did in the past. Thank you. ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)


    Final comment from ANI thread prior to block. signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • That is a pretty messed up discussion, and past. Still, I'm inclined to accept this with the understanding that there will be a short WP:rope for future incivility, and a low threshold for refusing to source content. For me, the saving grace is you also have a history of creating worthwhile articles. I don't care if your mind is "politically incorrect", however, I do mind when it comes out in your interactions with others here, which is disruptive. Honestly, that is why you got the indef block; not the sourcing; it was the comments re: autism/retard, and by community standards, it was a perfectly valid block. Editors here have a very low tolerance for that stuff, even when it is said in jest/hyperbole/as slang. If you can restrain yourself, then I'm fine with an unblock. My guess is that not everyone would agree, but we aren't here to punish "wrongthink" (as a lot of people use terms in RL that wouldn't be acceptable in this public forum). We do need to enforce a reasonable level of civility which this clearly breached, in order to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's fine to unblock TCCZ, but certain restrictions might apply. Insulting other editors is a huge mistake, TCCZ. I consider weak support for the unblocking. I hope TCCZ will not repeat the same mistake he did before. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support unblocking as editor seems to understand why they were blocked and that what they did was wrong. It must be understood that such unblock is on pain of swift redoing should further offences occur, but let's at least give a chance here. Mjroots (talk) 15:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'll leave an opinion on this soon but just want to point out the AN/I thread that got them indeffed. It's important to understand what this user had actually done that resulted in them getting blocked. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm unsure why the user is mentioning the amount of uncivil comments they've left over the years. They certainly deserved an indefinite block for their actions but considering that they seemed to have apologised for that and have promised to not do it anymore, I agree with Dennis Brown on giving them another chance to see if they have improved their behavior. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rosguill had already posted this above, so I'm assuming everyone opining had already read through. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support: If this is admins-only, then delete this and notify me on my talk page. If not, then I'll input my opinion.
    The user seems like he's apologized for what he's done, and I think WP:ROPE applies. I say that we give him a second chance, but if he makes any edits in bad faith, he gets hit with a block. Maximalistic Editor (talk) 09:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    IBAN appeal

    I would like to request an appeal of the two-way involuntary interaction ban between myself and MaranoFan. It was imposed by the community a year ago in October 2023. The conflict originated in the context of nomination pages like FAC. I wouldn't interact with them at those types of venues in the future anyways, and I don't see why replying to one another in a WikiProject discussion or something similarly low-stakes would lead to further conflict. To my knowledge there have been no violations of the IBAN in the year since it was active. I genuinely believe it has served its purpose; let's move on. Heartfox (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak support - As long as those two people are moving on for a long, it is not useful to let IBAN in place. Ahri Boy (talk) 07:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - The IBAN discussion was reopened and reinstated after being closed once, because some thought it was also necessary to prevent drama on noticeboards and stop the wastage of community time. The fact that this has not been acknowledged in the opening statement looks to me like dodging blame and does not instill me with confidence that that behavior would be avoided. I would have appreciated being reached out to through email or something else but, alas, ANI has been taken as the venue directly without reaching out to me or any individual admin to waste less community time. IBAN remains necessary.--NØ 07:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Since my participation on the Carey article has been brought up, it is related to efforts to save it from losing FA status (I stumbled upon the FARC since Carey came up while I was doing research for another article). I started helping there because the comments there were not being engaged with. Authorship is looked at to determine major contributors, and Heartfox's shows up as 2.8% which doesn't really qualify (even I have 1.1%). Anyways, on the topic of the IBAN itself, since there is no admission of wrongdoing and they feel the necessity to assert that their original escalation to ANI was "valid", it is absolutely still necessary.--NØ 01:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    MaranoFan, I said above that "I genuinely believe it has served its purpose". This was me saying I am acknowledging my responsibility; ie the IBAN had a purpose. The second ANI was unquestionably valid as it led to the exact thing I suggested and this was later affirmed at AN, so it was not a waste of time even though I understand your point of view. MaranoFan, you are one of the rare people on Wikipedia who actually improve the project by writing quality articles. I respect you more than 99% of other editors and wish we could move past this era. Sincerely, Heartfox (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have appreciated being reached out to through email or something else but, alas, ANI has been taken as the venue directly without reaching out to me I don't think this is a reasonable expectation (without comment on the merits of your other thoughts), because it would be a de facto breach of the IBAN. We don't expect IBAN appeals to be preceded by an IBAN violation. Grandpallama (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I don't know all the history of this, but it doesn't seem wise to lift an IBAN if one of the parties objects. We've got 6,898,024 articles; surely there's enough room for both parties to find stuff they're interested in without having to be editing the same pages. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well right now anytime I edit Mariah Carey in the future, which is an article to which I am one of the top-ten authors and is one of my top-ten most-edited articles, I have to go back to the 30 edits MaranoFan made yesterday every time and ensure I don't change anything that they happened to add or get potentially blocked for IBAN violations. This is very discouraging to my activity on Wikipedia. Heartfox (talk) 19:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So it seems like the solution there is to p-block both of you from that article. RoySmith (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no history of edit warring or content disputes so that seems completely excessive. Both users are members at WP:MIMI, so "We've got 6,898,024 articles" doesn't apply here. The IBAN is preventing improvements to articles when both editors have to tread over eggshells when editing even though the IBAN had nothing to do with content. MaranoFan should be able to fix a typo or a misplaced link in an article I wrote so articles can be improved, and vice versa. To continue an IBAN in part because I opened a valid ANI thread over a year ago and because I am appealing the IBAN to the community instead of an individual admin (which is not even the process?) is unjustified. Heartfox (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What would that accomplish? McYeee (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Let's give such interactions a chance. It's been a year and he seems to have learned his lesson. We can always re-enable the iban. Buffs (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on, guys. Heartfox said he would "be certain to avoid [me] in the future" in November 2022 and ended up starting two ANI threads about me after that. They also called me "someone so insecure in real life or online, it is low-key scary. Due to their insecurity they see everything I do as a form of competition against them and go to FAC coordinator and Did You Know talk pages to spew nonsense about how I am trying to 'take them out'", which they were just allowed to get away with even though I had been blocked at the time. After the IBAN had formally been enacted, they joined an RfC I had started, a mere 15 minutes after I was having a heated argument there and took the opposite side. They have also gone to an FAC a mere few days after I reviewed it, to "agree" with two of my comments ("I would agree that People's Daily does not seem to be a high-quality source", "I would agree that claiming "crisper and warmer" to be a paraphrase when it also happens to be verbatim from one of the citations attributed to the consensus is problematic") but making sure to indicate that they did not agree the work had to be done outside the FAC process. Anyways, this is my last comment here. All I am saying is, they have some trouble staying away from me and it is well documented.--NØ 18:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per MaranoFan's diffs. When the person on the other side of the ban opposes it because of violations, and the best evidence is (1) several diffs before the ban was imposed, and (2) one diff afterward, which doesn't show signs of "interaction", then (3) I suspect that there's no violation, or otherwise actual diffs probably would have been found. After a year without violations, WP:ROPE I suppose; as Buffs says, we can always reimpose it if needed. Nyttend (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I can understand from where these concerns of MaranoFan are coming from. Unfortunately, MaranoFan has faced a lot of harrassment and it was really difficult for Wikipedia community to provide her with a pleasant environment where she could edit productively. However, this appeal is sincere and should be accepted. Capitals00 (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support accepting appeal request, with the additional statement that it can be reimposed with a quick consensus should issues reoccur. I second Nyttend's comments immediately above me. Daniel (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German

    The name of the suspect at Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German needs to be suppressed once again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Or maybe a new RfC needs to be held on the issue? Taking a quick look at the article, the trial is now underway, so it's going to be attracting fresh attention from casual editors. The circumstances of a year and a half ago regarding the individual are different (beyond just arrested and charged), so it might be worth revisiting, even if just to reaffirm there is no consensus to include. Grandpallama (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really a disconnect of WP:BLP that I haven't known how to even begin addressing until now. For this case, we have the following in the article: and on October 31, was charged with two counts of murder. - properly sourced to a reliable source that names the suspect. It is absolutely absurd that we must avoid naming the suspect on Wikipedia even when it's named in a source that we link to in the same sentence. BLP is a very necessary policy. However, it should not prevent naming someone as a suspect when they are named in reliable sources. Currently, BLP states the following: editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. This should be changed to "not including material - in any article - that suggests the person has committed a crime". Reporting on accusations should not be subject to BLP so long as those accusations are sourced. The fact someone was charged with a crime is almost always due, even if they were not convicted of that crime. Being charged with a crime does not imply guilt.
    In other words, I agree with Grandpallama above - if there is a prior consensus that the name of the suspect is inappropriate... there needs ot be serious reconsideration of that issue and of whether it's a BLP issue to begin with. This is a high profile crime and the suspect's name is linked to from the citation at the end of the sentence. Surpressing it here does fuck all for preventing it when it's literally one link click away (or are we claiming we don't encourage readers to use our citations to verify the information we present?). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The rationale behind BLPCRIME is that we shouldn't name non-public figures, particularly criminal defendants, who did not choose their status. Reliable sources naming someone is one thing, but I believe that we have an ethical duty to avoid creating a permanent record—one that affects how search engines, AI chatbots, etc. present information—for someone who might be innocent. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a perfectly reasonable take, and I don't know that I have a position on inclusion vs. exclusion. But I do question relying on RfC results for a situation that is different now than it was in April 2023. Separately, I see the RfC resulted in no consensus for inclusion, but I'm not sure how that leapt to "edits must be suppressed". Grandpallama (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See, I'd support that... but the problem is that no other source has this sort of policy. When charges are first announced, sure, they will wait for an actual indictment before they report a name. But I cannot think of a source that has a similar policy.
    The concern over presenting an indicted/charged person as a criminal is real. That is solved through requiring the prose be accurate. It is not our problem if an AI chat bot uses Wikipedia to hallucinate that someone was a criminal. It's not the fault of the news organization for reporting that someone was charged with a crime and that information is misused. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If editors want a wider RfC on BLP policy perhaps at WT:BLP there could be merit for that I guess. I don't see what purpose an RfC on naming the suspect will serve at this time. The trial is set to end by November 15th. With an existing RfC even if it was no consensus, and considering the BLP importance it seems to me ending any RfC early with a new consensus is questionable no matter how clear any initial consensus seems to be. Meaning the RfC should run for at least a full 30 days before we can name the suspect. And this is a jury trial meaning that barring very very long jury deliberations we should have a result within 1-2 weeks of the trial ending. So at best starting an RfC now, we might be naming the person 1 week before the situation is likely to change significantly with either an acquittal or conviction. While it's always possible there will be a hung jury or some other kind of mistrial, I think better to just wait those 6 weeks or so and see what the situation is then and then do an RfC. Further if things have significantly changed, there will be much more reason why it might be reasonable to end the RfC early if consensus seems clear. Nil Einne (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For now, we should suppress the edits, then repost the name only if there is a conviction. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that an RfC would be worthless at this point due to the time constraints and with the majority of the points above (aside from the need to supress a name that is covered in the majority of reliable sources and citations in the article. Seems rather drastic to leap to the need to supress when the name is widely published).
    And at this point, is the guy even a 'low profile person' anymore, where BLPCRIME is concerned? Looking over the old edits of some of the people who had a hand in actually making that policy, Bbb23, SlimVirgin, and even though he didn't have a hand in making the policy Jimmy all seemed to think that a high profile crime could make someone a high profile person.
    There is also the fact that the subjects attorneys pushed for his name to be released a while back 'in the hopes it would bring tips [1]' or similar. A press conference followed by a press release, and later a fundraiser to get his name out there.
    Are we not supposed to take into account what a subject wants in terms of inclusion/exclusion? Jimmy said yes years ago [2] [3], ARBCOM said to consider the legal and ethical implications of our edits for BLPs, WMF stated we should be Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest.
    I could understand waiting for a resolution to the trial to follow a strict following of the letter of BLPCRIME, but if the subject/his attorneys wanted his name out prior to the trial to help him, it seems like waiting for a conviction before considering what they want goes against the above paragraph. It is essentially saying a policy put in place to protect someones reputation from false accusations holds more power than what the subject wants, which seems wrong on so many levels.
    Awshort (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I agree that there may be cases where defendants who have not been convicted yet may want to publicize their names—such as in cases of civil disobedience, public ransoms, or acts of terror—I do not believe that this is one of those cases. The comments at the pressers were pretty bare bones and the press release expressly states: "We do not want to try this case in the media and we intend to adhere to the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct that provide guidance on pretrial publicity." The spirit of BLP is that we shouldn't publicize the name of a a person who hasn't inserted themselves into the press, and a limited press conference, press release telling journalists to buzz off, and a fundraiser page do not, in my view, meet that threshold. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The original edit that sparked this discussion I believe was by me; I added the name to the 'trial' infobox parameter and added the name of the trial further down with just the last name of the defendant since I thought MOS/LAW was the guideline to follow when legal things were being discussed. It was pointed out to me later that this is incorrect, and it's only relevant for legal articles. That is what Jax ran across and I believe wants supressed for whatever reason.
    My intention was to try to update the article a bit and add a subsection later about the Indiana Supreme Court ruling that involved the suspect in this case, which is under a different case name and ended with the Judges issuing a new ruling about when a suspects court appointed counsel can be removed, since it was notable and widely covered at the time (and essentially set a new case law for them, I think [4]). Are we not allowed to list trial names now because it can be seen as a BLPCRIME violation?
    Awshort (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These decisions are very fact-specific. This case is in the States but we write policy for the globe; I don't think we ought to publish the names of the accused in cases that geolocate to Russia or China, for example. I think we have the right rules and wouldn't encourage an attempt to change them. We have a presumption against publishing the names of unconvicted people. Talk page consensus could overrule that presumption in individual cases and I wouldn't object if that happened here. Even though the name is published in reliable sources, this is at heart an ethical judgement we're making, so a reliable source is a minimum threshold to start a discussion, but not a mandate to publish the name.—S Marshall T/C 10:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Masada_myth Procedural RfC Closure

    The RfC on Talk:Masada_myth#RfC_on_the_article_lede appeared to me to be malformed and unanswerable so I proposed a procedural close. There is no dispute properly demonstrated at the RfC and the editor who began the process has not clarified the situation at all. The RfC asks editors to answer Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes? without making any mention of what the basis for the question is, what the disputed nature of the content is, and seemingly without having actually undertaken any attempt to WP:FIXIT themselves as they haven't edited the article at all except to revert the edit of another editor after they began the RfC Special:Diff/1251948920. The discussions the editor who started the RfC refer editors to read for context in regards to the RfC are long, meandering, and full of sarcasm and mostly seem to center on fixing a DYK Hook that has since passed. Is the lead "OK" or "Not OK" is an overly broad question due to WP:NOTDONE, and this opinion has been shared by other editors on the RfC itself. The creator of the RfC has insisted twice now that I take my motion for a Procedural Close of the RfC to the Admin Noticeboard Special:Diff/1251937669, so, here I am. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved, but as far as I know the ship sails for a procedural close once this many people have responded substantively to the RFC question. Andre🚐 02:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC does not satisfy the requirement of having a clear-cut well-posed question. Since no specific issue is raised in the RfC, nobody knows what things are actually relevant to it and the discussion is wandering all over the place. Basically it says "I don't like the lead, do you agree?" An uninvolved administrator should close this RfC (whether as procedural or "no consensus" doesn't matter), with the understanding that a properly posed replacement can be opened. While I'm at it, someone should examine the behavior of the RfC poser User:Herostratus who asserts that the editors of the page are clever antisemites. Zerotalk 03:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't find the word antisemites in that diff, did you mean a different one? And as far as the RFC question, "Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes?" Seems clear enough to me, it's not specific about article text changes but it appears to be a question to which you can answer one way or another and then as a result, will determine to either change or not, the lead. Andre🚐 03:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The word is not there, but the implication is. "Myths like this omit any mention of African-American may demonstrate an African-American resistance to modernization which may have contributed to a culture of backwardness and poverty among African-Americans in the South" and whatnot. Can probably find a historian who said that if we dig enough. Want to go edit that article? Won't get far will you. The hypothetical the editor is presenting here implies bigotry in response to the other editor saying all the bolded words you mentioned (and all the issues you raise elsewhere) appear basically verbatim in the sources - fully quoted in the citations - in the references section. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 03:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, but that is different thread. We are talking about the RfC. Maybe I'm an asshole. Maybe my motives for starting the RfC were bad. I don't think that that matters enough to close down the RfC if it is otherwise OK. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway... I didn't insist on anything, but I did say "step up or pipe down". The editor decided to step up, xir perfect right, so here we are. I tend long-winded, so here goes. Skip it if you want.
    So... at least three editors at least asked for a procedural close as malformed -- a nonsensical question, a question from which no actual benefit could come, and so on. That's enough that you have to pay attention, yes. I opened a separate thread to discuss it, at Talk:Masada myth#Procedural close of above RfC? and there's more material there.
    I wrote the RfC. It is:

    Is the lede for this article basically OK (except for maybe some minor tweaks)? or is it Not OK and needs some major changes?

    In all this, I haven't yet seen any suggestions for what should be written there instead. I have asked.
    My reasoning for starting the RfC was this:
    • The article lede is very poor -- POV, and way overly negative in my opinion. I can back that up with good evidence (doesn't prove I'm right, granted). Ofc that is the personal opinion of one person, yes.
    • The matter involves Israel, and the Jewish people generally. People are having really really really strong feelings these days about Israel and Palestine, both ways. Let's not pretend this isn't so. It's a data point.
    • In the local discussion, there were some editors -- two or three -- who were defending this (bad IMO) lede super strongly. I wasn't going to get anywhere (I believe that, on grounds of being required to assume good faith and to be civil, I'm not allowed to say if I think that this was because of emotional and political factors rather than ice-cold NPOV scholarship, let everyone decide for themselves.
    • Yup, I did get sarcastic in an earlier thread. Within bounds I think, but definitely not my best moment. (I have strong feelings too! But mainly that this is the sort of thing that is going to lose us Michigan). But anyway that's a different thread. In the RfC itself I haven't been too involved and have not yet "voted".
    • So the reason I started the RfC was to get more eyes on the matter. Eyes backing me up? Hope so -- I'm human. But whatever happens, it is what it is. IMO the RfC itself is neutral and I did not canvass.
    • I offered a general big-picture RfC because it's a very fraught, emotional question, we want to go step by step. If the consensus is "OK", we're done. If it is "Not OK", we can move on to another discussion on how to fix it. I did not want to start off with "Should we have the current, or this version I have provided?" cos I thought that would bog down into "Neither. say such-and-so" "No, say so-and-such" etc. If I'm wrong, may I please have some suggestions of what the RfC should say, instead and we can start a new one I guess.
    I think that some these requests for procedural close are political. That is my personal opinion. You decide. In fairness, the first person to request a procedural close was summoned by bot, and thought the RfC was terrible and was mad about it. So there is that.
    But still... a number of editors are engaged in the RfC discussion to possible useful effect, so I think a shutdown is too late and would be not excellent. Herostratus (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't insist on anything
    I am unsure how I am supposed to take essentially telling me to shut up or take it to the admin noticeboard in response to proposing a procedural close as anything but insisting I take it to the admin noticeboard. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 04:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not my puppet, colleague. I mean I offered the option to pipe down (I did not say shut up). and of course you always have the option to roll your eyes and mutter "what a jerk" or whatever and move on. God knows I do that often enough. Herostratus (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Two editors seem to have missed it so I'll quote from the Herostratus' diff to show that the accusation of antisemitism is there explicitly.
    "The editors we are dealing with here are clever. They are not going to use material that is not well sourced. That would be stupid. So they are clever, so what? Have you not heard of cherry picking. Have you not heard of spin, of propaganda. The Devil can quote scripture. [followed a few sentences later by:] So, the material is not anti-Israeli, itn is anti-Semetic." So, once the subject has been established as the editors of the article, and they are described as engaging in spin and propaganda, it is said that the material they wrote is antisemitic. In my opinion, a charge of antisemitism against other editors (except on a behavioral noticeboard with strong supporting evidence) should merit an immediate indef. Zerotalk 04:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An accusation of antisemitism combined with comparing editors to The Devil? Yeah, a pretty clear case of a personal attack in the form of serious accusations lacking evidence. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Herostratus opened an RfC while showing with long and tortuous personal harangues that they have not troubled themselves with reading the sources. It was also clear that the quip about editors being 'clever' was a disingenuous shot at the putative ulterior motives driving those who actually have read the sources and aided in the composition of the article, a point unambiguously underlined later by the crack:' the material is not anti-Israeli, it is anti-Semetic.' That misspelling always puts me on my guard, since it crops up frequently as, for me, an index of quarrelsomeness uninformed by any serious reading. No fuss was made, but I will note that when I tweaked the lead to remove 'by Jews', - precisely because of my own sensitivities about generalizing about Jews (a premise of antisemitism that all Jews are involved whenever one or another does this or that) - Herostratus reverted to restore it, after waiting 5 days, just as this report opened. That is deeply ironical. In context, Herostratus is insinuating those who support the article are motivated by antisemitic feelings, and, with his restoring the usage 'by Jews' I considered potentially coloured by the kind of imprecision that plays to antisemitic feelings, telling me he thinks editors like me are perhaps both anti-semetic and 'philosemitic'. This is on a par with the vexatious incoherence of most of the things written on that talk page.Nishidani (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None. Of. This. Has. Anything. To. Do. With. The. Question. At. Hand. Which quashing the RfC or not. If you want to want to have a conversation at WP:ANI on grounds that I have made false accusations of anti-semitism, OK, do that. That's a different conversation.. Herostratus (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    <- So much inane timewasting trolling. The malformed RfC should be shut down regardless of how many patient people participated. The editor should be made to go away. It would be an act of kindness. WP:DNFT Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Procedurally closed or not, this RFC is going absolutely nowhere, an unfocused mess.Selfstudier (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In case anyone is as confused as I was: the African-American bit is comparing this article to John Henry (folklore). Nobody's suggesting that African Americans need to be mentioned in Masada myth. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly just shoot me, maybe

    It's too late to procedurally close the RfC now. It'll age out on soon enough. Yeah it was badly written, but too many people have engaged anyway.

    BUT

    I don't know if topic bans are imposed her as they are are WP:ANI, but really there is maybe some editor behavior to consider, I don't know, just raising the question. Maybe just my behavior, fine, I hereby turn myself in.

    If I should be topic banned, fine, if that's the decision (I never engage in this subject anyway, I don't care much about it per se, it's stressful and people feel really strongly about it and its hard work, I just came to that article because of a hook, and honestly if you want to put me out of my misery it'd be a kindness). If other editors should be topic banned, I don't know, that'd be up to you. I am not suggesting it as that is not my remit. Maybe nobody here should be topic banned, or maybe everybody here and their dog should be topic banned on the principle of "you made me get up and come down there".

    So IMO what happened is this:

    A lot of these editors are really really mad at me because of my behavior in the immediately preceding threads, Talk:Masada myth#C'mon people and Talk:Masada myth#Hook. Then I made an RfC. Yeah the RfC was poor, but still, asking for a procedural close so vociferously was just a proxy for being mad at me generally. That is my personal view of what is going on here.

    Hey, people get emotional, its a emotional subject, it's understandable. And I was not at my best in those threads. No wonder they're mad at me! And it is entirely in the purview of the admin corps to consider larger factors like this, up to an including behavior going back to the Eisenhower Administration, and fine.

    My defense -- we are talking about Talk:Masada myth#C'mon people and Talk:Masada myth#Hook now -- is basically

    1. Yup I lost my head and was sarcastic and didactic and maybe prolix and (if you say) disruptive in places, my bad.
    2. I pride myself on at least trying to be an ice-cold NPOV editor. I make a point of occasionally looking at articles of people I despise and who are not generally popular here (Jim Jordan etc.) and trying to make them more fair if they're not. I do feel kind of strongly any POV. But I keep my head.
    3. But not here. I think that the POV I saw here was just really red flag egregious and [can't say]. I'm not sure if any people agree all that strongly. But believe I am right anyway. I formed my own opinion about various other things, which I will now keep to myself. So yeh I lost my head a bit.
    4. Some of the statements and implications I made I can demonstrate to some level of satisfaction, some relate to other editors' internal feelings and motives etc. and can't be proven. Doesn't mean I don't regret making some of them. I do. Doesn't mean some of them weren't prolix, inflammatory and counterproductive. They were. Doesn't mean some of them were unkind. They were. As to whether or not I thought they were nevertheless correct or still do... I'd best keep that to myself I guess. I'm not going to lie to you.Herostratus (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fake news websites

    Singapore government just had this ten websites blocked for "potential hostile information campaign", stating that these websites are using domains either resembles legitimate news websites (i.e. zaobao.sg vs zaobaodaily.com) or gives an appearance that they have a connection to Singapore; content are AI-generated; gives an appearance that certain sentiments are an reflection of Singapore's public and/or government.

    While my first instinct is to put these sites onto the spam blacklist, given that Singapore does engage in censorship practices that include blocking websites for not following POFMA orders/directives (among other reasons/laws), I would like second opinions before doing so. Out of the ten, one (alamak.io) has been used as a source for two articles on English Wikipedia. – robertsky (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

    Appeal overwhelmingly declined. Daniel (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction being appealed
    One month block by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs) for repeated ECR violations
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by IdanST

    I believe my ban is unjustified for the following reasons: 1.This one is clearly an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. - pointing out that Maariv (newspaper) "source" is a LIE. Maariv NEVER reported on this lie, the source is in fact Al Jazeera which has been proven to have lied in this instance, as shown HERE. 2. This is not an incivility nor breaking the rules, it's allowed under WP:BARN. 3. This is a warning before taking actions, like reporting, for blatant violations of WP:POINTy and WP:WAR. I understand now that I should have reported the user instead of leaving a notice on their talk page, as it seems that discussing and warning is discouraged, and direct reporting and banning are preferred.

    IdanST (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to clarify that I appealed the first block.
    I didn't appeal the second block yet because I am not aware of the alleged violations for which I was banned for one month. IdanST (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC) {{{1}}}[reply]

    Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish (IdanST appeal)

    First block for a week was based on [5], [6], and [7] which are all clear ECR violations. Their talk page access was pulled by Doug Weller. When the block expired their first edits were [8], [9], and [10], which are also clear ECR violations. They continued with personal attacks on their talk page and again had their talk page access removed. Oh, and the Simple English Wikipedia page on barnstars doesn't have much weight on en.wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Doug Weller (IdanST appeal)

    IdanST says that [11] was an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. which it clearly is not, just a statement that something is a lie. this is a personal attack on ScottishFinnishRadish. Yet more attacks here Doug Weller talk 15:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST

    • I may be a simple Wikipedian farmer of minor corrections and !votes, but a few things confuse me.
      1. Why aren't these pages under ECR protection? It seems that this is a simple solution to the problem
      2. Some of these cited by SFR and Doug seem to fall under WP:NPA, not "clear ECR violations". We need to be a little more precise if we're going to ban/block people. Those alone are worthy of a block given previous interactions.
    Buffs (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-EC editors are allowed to make edit requests on the talk pages. Generally, article talk pages aren't ECP unless there is enough disruption to necessitate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These do not appear to be edit requests, but personal attacks. That they were on an ARBPIA talk page seems immaterial. Buffs (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A personal attack explicitly and particularly related to an ECR topic area, such as Your Constant Lies ...regarding Israel and Arab–Israeli conflict,[12] is surely a clear two-fer. NebY (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    YMMV, I suppose. NPA seems to be reason enough for a block without additional justification. If anything, such behavior there should be grounds for ADDITIONAL measures Buffs (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing about this appeal gives me confidence that this editor will be a net positive with respect to ARBPIA content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This edit[13] is clearly note an edit request and the editor had been previously warned, I would oppose the appeal. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • IdanST chooses to defend only three of their edits, and their very first defence demonstrates the appropriateness of the current block. This disruptive post was clearly not a request, let alone an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1, and that IdanST claims that it was, and makes no attempt to suggest their editing will improve, shows that this block and maybe more will be needed until they understand and accept the various limitations and restrictions on their editing. NebY (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The appeal should be declined for the reasons set out by ScottishFinnishRadish. Additionally, the polemical style of the appeal and the appellant's personal attacks and their mischaracterization of their edits indicate that the appellant should be topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict as unsuited to collaborative work. Sandstein 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think a topic ban would be effective as the existing extended-confirmed restriction is being ignored. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Nableezy has a (Personal attack removed) userbox

    More than enough time has already been spent on this discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nableezy, on their user page, has a userbox showing support for Hezbollah, which is not allowed, as per this discussion. The user in question has also just been generally mean-spirited and extremely biased, especially to matters about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thank you, Pyramids09 (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While I am in general agreement with criticism of the userbox, I don't think is going to go anywhere. The userbox itself (by design) doesn't directly express support for Hezbollah, and when I discussed this with Nableezy they stated the purpose of the UBX was to highlight a hypocrisy in Wikipedia's policies. (I am unconvinced by that, but that's just me.) Nonetheless, I believe this is a debate that has taken place many times in the past and, sadly, goes nowhere. — Czello (music) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That stuff about "mean-spirited and extremely biased" is an incredible WP:ASPERSION. You might want to avoid that in the future to avoid a block. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking the question "could I be wrong?" is a good habit. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's news to me that any and every act of 'violently resisting' aggression is classifiable as terrorism. If that is so, then we shall have to rewrite the history books from the Battle of Thermopylae and the Jewish–Roman wars down through the Indian resistance during the frontier wars to things like the Spanish Maquis, and the French and >Italian resiatance movements. The Greeks should have bowed to Xerxes and Darius, the Jews succumbed eirenically to Titus and Vespasian. the Sioux consigned their bowsnarrows to General Custard, the Spanish government should have capitulated en bloc with the people after Franco's coup d'état, de Gaulle should have chummed up with Pétain, and the leaders of post-war Italy should have been gaoled as terrorists for opposing the Republic of salauds, etc. Nishidani (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as if core site policy has changed, but it's odd to point to a 2008 discussion the same way one would point to a contemporaneous one. Nableezy's work here seems equal parts political and rhetorical. I am personally unmoved by OP's outrage over it, though. What is unacceptable is calling them pro-terrorist—let's not mince words here, that's the intent of the language you chose. Remsense ‥ 论 10:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I quite like the immediate sabotage of any point you may have had by throwing in "mean-spirited and extremely biased" as if it was going to make your argument stronger. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Think we’ve gone through this already. nableezy - 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's become an annual holiday tradition. Levivich (talk) 13:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request

    Hello, I recently moved the Imphal Airport Wikipedia page to Bir Tirkendrajit International Airport, but I accidentally used the incorrect spelling. The correct title should be Bir Tikendrajit International Airport, which reflects the official name of the airport. Unfortunately, I am unable to correct the move myself due to system restrictions. Could you kindly move the page to the correct title: Bir Tikendrajit International Airport? Thank you very much for your help and time! Best regards, AstuteFlicker (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, in the future you can go to WP:RMTR for things like this. nableezy - 14:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike

    The article 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike has a move request at Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike#Requested move 27 September 2024. It has started on September 27 and should have been open for just a week; we're almost in a full month. The last vote was made on October 7. I know that this is a controversial topic, even reached with arbitration remedies, but someone should close it (although non-admin closures may be valid, it may be better if an admin closes it, considering the controversial nature of the topic). Cambalachero (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, closed as no consensus. Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WDBZ

    User:Welcome to Dragon Ball Z was made on 24.09. Today 24.10 they made 500 edits to their talk page like this this one. They then got the "extendedconfirmed" user group because they were created 30 days ago and made 500 edits. Could an admin remove this group please? Fulmard (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They are now attacking User:Magnolia677 and it looks like a "MidAtlanticBaby" puppet. They should be blocked. Fulmard (talk) 07:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked. Nthep (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nthep Could you block BossedUpWithACheck? This account was created on the same date and is doing the same thing now of ramping up edits. Fulmard (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 got there before me. Any CU around who can do a sweep for sleepers? Nthep (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had a look. Those familiar with the matter will know that that might not portend much. Informed by my magic goggles, I've also preemptively removed TPA from the 2nd account. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrator Elections: Voting phase

    Administrator Elections | Voting phase

    The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

    As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

    • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
    • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

    In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

    Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

    Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

    You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

    MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration committee 2024 election: nominations to start on November 3

    The nomination period for the 2024 arbitration committee election will start on November 3. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to talk to them now, well in advance of the election. For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Internal Error when opening Special:Notifications

    Is anyone else having issues with the notifications? I'm getting:

    2024-10-25 05:06:40: Fatal exception of type "InvalidArgumentException"

    when I try to go to Special:Notifications and if I open the top notification window it just shows "no notifications"? Raladic (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Try WP:VPT if nobody here has an answer maybe :3 -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 06:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems to have resolved itself overnight. Thanks. Raladic (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of my user account AKS.9955

    Dear Admin, I have been an active user of Wikipedia since past several years. I do not wish to continue being on this site, and owing to personal attacks and privacy concerns, I request that my user account be deleted / made indivisible (you decide best way). I wish you all the very best. Thanks and have a good day. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy link to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:AKS.9955 and regional airline articles in India and Kyrgyzstan. Sincerely, James Bond GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if any administrators reading this wish to read the thread and make a decision concerning ARK.9955's autopatrolled and NPR rights, that would be most appreciated. But for a TL;DR version - AKS.9955 has had a financial stake in the airlines TezJet and IndiaOne Air, created those articles, and failed to disclose that they had a COI regarding them during creation/deletion discussions. The sourcing in the TezJet article is likely poor enough for autopatrolled to be pulled on that basis alone (the article is cited almost entirely to Planespotter's and the company(AKS.9955)'s own website.) Glancing through their Xtools reveals a host of similarly-sourced articles, such as Sky FRU, Taftan Airlines, Hongkong Jet. Which isn't the end of the world- and AKS.9955, this doesn't need to be the end of your time on Wikipedia. You're clearly passionate about the project - you just need to be whole lot more forthcoming when it comes to declaring when you have a connection to an article subject, and you can't personally attack editors when they bring that up.
    For the sake of anybody watching, the some of the personal attacks I'm referring to can be read below:
    All these James Bonds getting a high after pointing out a COI [...] I think Wikipedia has reached a point where it is no longer possible to contribute constructively without some sore losers sitting in their basements and preaching the world how things work. (emphasis original)
    GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:VANISH. It is not possible to have an account deleted and vanish is only partially effective. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, courtesy vanishing would be clearly rejected in this case because this user is being scrutinized for sanctions. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issue if they want to WP:Vanish, although they need to point to the two discussions when doing so, so the Steward may make a determination as to the fitness. I don't see any other sanction that is likely. My removal of rights wasn't a sanction as much as it was because he wants to vanish, combined with the fact that they don't seem to have the skills to use the tools properly. As for avoiding scrutiny, that would be more of an issue if they come back. Some may see it differently, but ultimately, it is up to the Steward (or Global Renamer, per policy) to decide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    24.43.82.89

    This user has made many unconstructive edits, which seem very immature. I'm going to presume that they're a school IP, but either way, they should get hit with a ban hammer Maximalistic Editor (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    See also the edit filter. Blocked for a week. Thank you for reporting, Maximalistic Editor, but for another time, it's better to take such cases to WP:AIV. Bishonen | tålk 12:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    Disruptive editor via multiple ip addresses (I think)

    For the last few days I’ve had to deal with an anonymous user, possibly the same person across multiple ip addresses. Here’s the most recent ip address: Special:Contributions/77.65.93.205. Here are the other ip addresses that I suspect are the same person: Special:Contributions/109.173.147.66, Special:Contributions/109.173.147.194.

    This user keeps making repeated disruptive edits on the same pages, plus similar disruptive edit on other pages.

    I’m hoping that something can be done about this user and their disruptive editing. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The chances that this is the same user are very high. All IPs come from a small town in Poland. Block them. Full support from me Maximalistic Editor (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The anonymous user, under the ip address Special:Contributions/77.65.93.205, is still making disruptive edits. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The anonymous user, under the ip address Special:Contributions/77.65.93.205, is still making disruptive edits despite having a huge warning against them. Dipper Dalmatian (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Diffs of their being a pest, please. Not everyone is going to dig through the entire contribs history of multiple IPs. The easier you make a mop’s job, the more likely one swings the banhammer. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 12:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Query re possible clean start for a blocked user who hasn't edited in 14 years

    Hi admins and friends, once again, I don't know if this is the best forum for this question so redirect me if it isn't. I came across a {{helpme}} request from @TheAmazingCoffeeMan who wanted to appeal a block on his old account @GageCSayre, which he can't log in to because he's lost the password and email address. Given that the block was imposed 14 years ago and he apparently hasn't tried to edit in the interim, would he be a candidate for a clean start? If so, would it be enough to declare this on both user pages? Or does the 14-year-old block prevent a clean start? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) Well, technically it wouldn't be a clean start because those don't apply to people who have active sanctions (including blocks), but this is a fairly normal place for an unblock request, and if they were literally only blocked because of one day of vandalism 14 years ago I wouldn't expect there would be any issue with one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:QUIETRETURN. If he returns and start editing in new areas, there's no need for a helpme request. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be sock puppetry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can only speak as one member of the community, but I have no issue whatsoever with this user participating with the new account, and I certainly don't think TheAmazingCoffeeMan should be forced to jump through too many hoops simply for trying to do this properly instead of quietly editing. If we have to WP:BURO this, then I suppose they can just post a quick unblock request wherever an admin sees fit? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree, although it would've been better if they'd just not said anything about the old account, it looks a fairly ruitine block and would likely merit a WP:ROPE unblock, which I will just go aherad and do so as to put the matter to rest. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will, as I do every time one of these threads pops up, plug my user essay User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice.I appreciate an essay that is blunt and honest about the sausage factory. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 03:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just thinking out loud, Taz, is it worth linking WP:LTA in second bullet point If there is a history of sockpuppetry, it is not particularly extensive or disruptive? Excessive SPIs on the same menace tend to equal LTAs, in my experience, but hey, you’ve been Wikipedia-ing a lot more than I have, so I can be wrong. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 12:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would narrow my meaning more than I intend. There's lots of socking that falls short of LTA but would definitely disqualify someone from the benefits of this unwritten rule. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    More input?

    • It was brought up on my talk page that when this user filed an unblock request, they admitted to a few other socks, and one of them was blocked as a sock of a long-gone vandal with a large sockfarm. It's a fair concern and I asked TheAmazingCoffeeMan to address it. Here is their response:

    I looked through the sock puppet investigations archive for Alexcas11, and I read some about the editing patterns of the sock puppet accounts alongside the IP addresses used, and I can say those accounts (besides RoyalRumble24) don't belong to me. I also looked at the IP addresses used, and I can safely say none of them track to my location (I live in the United States, but that's as specific as I'll get). Moreover, the account Alexcas11 and its sock puppets appear to have been active and subsequently blocked before I even started vandalizing Wikipedia and got blocked for it. Additionally, the way I went about vandalizing articles mostly involved falsifying dates, and the only article about a made-up topic I ever created was an imagined 2011 remake of Home Alone. All the other articles deemed inappropriate for inclusion I wrote as RoyalRumble24 were about people deemed ineligible for Wikipedia's notability criteria.

    I would take this as a "no" to the question of if they were the person operating the account, and it is still my inclination to just hand out some rope and see what happens, but thought I'd run it by this board in case others feel differently. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 05:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are no other issues, I'd go for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT consultations, October 2024

    The Arbitration Committee has received applications for CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT queue access and has reviewed them in consultation with the functionaries team. The Community is invited to evaluate the candidacies and comment at the CheckUser and COI VRT consultations until the end of 1 November 2024 (UTC).

    On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser and conflict of interest VRT consultations, October 2024

    Administrator recall policy adopted

    After a request for comments, Wikipedia:Administrator recall is now a policy. The procedure is as adopted by the 2024 RfA review. Some questions remain, which may be discussed at the policy's talk page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your well-reasoned and diplomatic close of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a surprise to me. How many attempts to do this over the years have failed? This will take some mental readjustment. Liz Read! Talk! 08:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no idea this was going on either, as I don't remember seeing any notices. On paper, it looks interesting, but I haven't examined it close enough to have an opinion yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 08:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no idea this was going on either, Ditto. Where was this promoted? MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 10:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was borne out of one of many proposals at WP:RFA2024. I don't think there was any mention of "recall" on Template:Centralized discussion until after the conclusion of RFA2024 Phase I, by which point it had already been decided that the community wanted a recall process. The Phase II discussion (to hash out specifics) treated the Phase I consensus as immutable – wrongly, in my view, given my point about T:CD. The drive to create WP:AR should have been spun out of RFA2024 at the first stage and linked separately to get broader input, given the far-reaching potential of this process. Had that happened, the Phase I and II consensuses might have been very different. That RFA2024 has succeeded in producing a desysopping-style policy where other attempts failed is due to the fact that the Phase I recall proposal was a rider and inadequately publicised. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 11:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I echo the sentiments above - this should have been much more widely advertised. GiantSnowman 11:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole RfA 2024 review process, including this aspect of it, was notified to virtually all noticeboards, T:CENT, watchpage notices, discussed in The Signpost, etc. If you missed that there was a discussion about reforming the RfA process and adopting recall, it's not because there was a lack of notice. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The above would suggest otherwise. GiantSnowman 13:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Copying @isaacl's list from the RfC that was just closed:

    Regarding notifications about the second phase of discussion: a watchlist message was posted, the centralized discussion notice box was updated, and a link was posted to the Administrators' noticeboard (there was also a link present in the announcement of the closure of phase 1). A mass message was sent to what I believe is a list of participants in phase 1.

    Unless by lack of notice you mean that a courier didn't personally deliver a letter to you informing you of these discussions, I'm not sure how much more notice was needed. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this very RfC that was just closed was at the very least advertised at T:CENT. So it's frankly flat-out untrue that none of these discussions were advertised. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anyone claiming that "none of these discussions were advertised". What I see, based on the links, is that there was no centralized notification specifically about the new AR process until Phase I of WP:RFA2024 was over and it had already been decided there would be such a process. It seems no one realised its implications during Phase I and acted to make them clear to the wider community. AR is big – right next door to a WP:RFDA process, and arguably the biggest change to administrator policy since WP:INACTIVITY was introduced. The proposal for a whole new policy shouldn't have been packaged in a round of RFA reform ideas, because that will have limited the Phase I discussion to regular RFA reformers and WT:RFA commentators. So in terms of procedure and notifications, there were mistakes. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 16:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's tricky. The RFA 2024 review process was sprawling, with many discussions over many months. People have a limited amount of time to follow all of that. I was aware that such discussions were taking place. I was not aware that there was a specific policy proposal to adopt recall, though in general I'm not opposed to the idea. Whether the policy actually enjoys consensus will be determined the first time it's used. Mackensen (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It does have consensus, with the phase 2 RFC and then this recent RFC confirmed it. Both pretty well advertised and attended. PackMecEng (talk) 15:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I came across this very messy RfC by accident when it was almost over. Only 25 EC names on a petition are needed to force an admin to jump through hoops and they don't have to give reasons. There is no provision for anyone to object to the petition (even if the admin did none of things they are charged with). In particular, the admin cannot formally respond to the petition. So: write some polemic about an admin you don't like and advertise it in a few places. Some of the 25 names will come from people who have been sanctioned by the admin and didn't like it, and the rest from people who never heard of the admin before but are disturbed by the allegations. Then the admin has to go through an onerous re-admission process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing prohibiting an admin from responding. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been aware of this proposal from the beginning, but chose not to participate in the second phase. While I am a bit uneasy about some of the details, I think we need to see how it goes. If the process is used abusively, or turns out to be disruptive for the community, we can take steps to fix it. Donald Albury 14:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Donald. We might learn from early uses of the procedure that changes are required, and that's fine. Being a policy does not mean it's set in stone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is more or less my thinking as well, if it does turn out to be a vector for abuse I am confident that the community will address that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm for the process, even as I expect it to fail in it's current form. It is open for abuse and I expect that we see petitions for all the usual suspects so disliked by sockpuppets, LTAs, and POV pushers. But what they will show is how to reform the process.
    Some form of admin recall has been asked for for years, and each attempt to try and implement something has failed to even make it this far. There comes a point where you just implement something, anything, and see how to make it work as you go. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The very limited number of responses to the RfC does appear to suggest it was poorly advertised. Unless I'm missing something, one place it doesn't appear to have been properly advertised is, ironically, here (it does appear as a single line in the Admin Newsletter, but that's easy to miss) which one would have expected to be the first place for notification. Black Kite (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zero0000, I agree. Also, if the first attempt at a petition fails, not to worry – the filer just needs to wait six months, then try again. And all it takes to start a petition, leaving Admin X or Y in limbo for the next 30-40 days, is one person deciding that Admin X or Y "has lost the trust of the community". SuperMarioMan (Talk) 17:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will be interesting to see how it pans out. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I continue to be surprised 1) that this RFDA-in-all-but-name process originated from attempts to reform RFA, the exact opposite; and 2) why a lot people seem to regard this new process as no big deal. It's a well of negativity that makes Wikipedia as a whole an even more negative place. I pity whichever sysop has to run the gauntlet first, because the specifics at WP:AR look pretty shaky to me. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 16:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that didn't take long... SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to humbly advise any editors with concerns about the suitability of the process through which this policy was adopted to refer to the RfC linked in my first post, which was dedicated to that matter. It resulted in a consensus that the process was sufficient and no further ratification step is required. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A petition has been started (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_recall_petition_for_Graham87_has_been_initiated). Any minor issues that arise will hopefully be resolved through the course of the next month. To those claiming it didn't have enough advertisement, I'll reiterate what's been said above: the third RFC was posted on CENT and sought to address that question. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A look at the example WP:Administrator recall/Graham87 shows how we are doing so far. There are 5 "signatures" in favor of recall, some accompanied by to-and-fro with other editors. There are also 15–16 editors (hard to count) who oppose the recall. However, under this policy opposition to the recall doesn't count at all, so those 15–16 editors are wasting their finger muscles. I'm wondering what other formal decision processes we have on Wikipedia for which only opinions in one direction are considered significant. Zerotalk 04:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think it would have been better to do administrator recall as a trial period, with an expiration date of some kind. This is how some of the other big changes in WP:RFA2024 were handled, such as administrator elections and 2 days of no voting at RFA.
      Also, wasn't the goal of RFA2024 to make everything related to adminship less toxic so we could attract more admins? Making admins go through 30 days of drama for incidents that are too minor for arbcom doesn't seem like a great way to reduce toxicity... –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      IMO it's complicated. I think it's well recognised especially by non-admins is that one reason why RfA is such a problem is because adminship is generally a wikilife-long thing with it very very hard for admins to lose the tools. And it's also historically been basically impossible to even sanction an admin the way an ordinary editor would be. While there's some aspect of WP:unblockables involved, the nature of adminship has generally meant admins are protected from any real sanction until and unless they lose their tools.

      So while admins are supposed to demonstrate a higher level of commitment to our policies and guidelines and be less likely to make personal attacks, edit war etc; and many do, there's been a feeling that some don't and yet have never really been properly challenged over it in part because they are admins. I.E. they're getting away with stuff it's really unlikely a regular editor would get away with. And when it comes to questionable use of the tools, it has to be extremely egregious for anything to happen although an ordinary editor similar misusing something (whether tools or just general editing) would long ago have been stopped from doing that.

      Things have changed a bit in recent years with arbcom seeming to be more willing to take cases and perhaps more willing to remove the tools, and even just more willing to take cases has meant some it's been easier to lose the tools since admins have either formally resigned them or effectively done so by leaving Wikipedia rather than participate in the case. Also there's at least one high profile case where an admin was cbanned without regard for the tools.

      Still I think many of us plebs still regard admins as having a special level of protection that normal editors don't and therefore we treat RfAs as a much bigger deal than they arguably need to be. I.E. Yes adminship might just be a few tools, but you pretty much get to get keep those tools unless you misuse them very very badly, and you also get to do stuff few other editors would even putting aside the tools.

      So while making it easier to remove admins does have the unfortunate effect of "increasing toxicity" when we have these recalls, there's a hope it will make adminship less of a big deal and make RfAs less toxic since we don't have to be so worried about the consequences of making a wrong decision. Whether it will be better or worse in the long run with recalls, I don't know. Note I say this as someone who can I think count on one hand or at least two hands the number of RfAs they've participated in but who did support recalls in the first RfC.

      Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      P.S. In fairness, I will also acknowledge that admins generally also have to put up with abuse that isn't so accepted when directed at us plebs. Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • As someone who IIRC supported recalls in the first RfC and didn't participate in the second or drafting of the rules and didn't really participate in the final one I do feel that this has been way messier than it should have been. In particular, whatever was said in the first and second, I'm unconvinced it was ever wise to treat this as a policy that could go into effect without a final confirmation RfC especially without a formal trial period. I always expected there would be a final confirmation RfC with a specific developed policy in place.

      And I don't feel the final RfC was really that since at least at the beginning the details still weren't quite sorted and it wasn't even really worded as "This is our policy on recalls, should we go ahead with recalls with this specific policy? As always on Wikipedia changes are always possible, but this should be considered the policy which will be implemented if you support it." or something along those lines. Instead it was IMO fairly unclear that the final RfC was even going to be a final RfC or IMO even what the third RfC was hoping to establish.

      For further clarity, I was aware of that final RfC but I didn't participate in part because I felt it a mess. I expected even with that RfC we'd still have to end up with yet another confirmation RfC once the tinkering finished, and I expressed concern that it was therefore a waste of time early on (to the editor who started it). I did watch it slightly and was aware it seemed to be developing into a final RfC before it closed but I still didn't participate in part because I didn't care but also because I was still unsure if it would really be the final RfC given the messy start and low participation. I can't help thinking there were others who read about it and saw how messy it was at the start and thought, we'll we're never going to get a consensus for recalls from this so not worth my time. I'll wait until the final RfC when everything is clear.

      I'm not saying the closer was wrong, but I do think the whole process was way messier than it should have been and this is probably part of why we're we are now without editors surprised we actually have a policy for recalls now in place.

      And I have to say, it's unclear to me if this is even definitely resolved. The first recall, the admin doesn't seem to be challenging the process. But what happens if an admin does especially when the first recall petition succeeds? Have the bureaucrats even said they will remove adminship since they accept that there has been clear consensus for this? I do think those supporting the first recall have done the process no favours either but that's more of an aside.

      Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      In my opinion, there's just a lot of hiccups coming from way too many sources that have made this process messy. In an ideal world, I'd like the third RFC on Village Pump amended to my wording choice too. But unlike the ideal world, Wikipedia often has "Everyone wants this discussion but nobody wants to start it" happening. While it was not my preferred 3rd RFC, I respect Barkeep for starting the RFC when he did. And for better or worse, nobody else amended it or tried to establish a need for 4th RFC after that.
      A running theme I am noticing in a lot of this thread is people were personally not aware of this process. I don't think consensus can wait for everyone like that. That way, we keep relitigating things over and over in the name of WP:CCC.
      I completely agree that Recall should not be considered unchangably set in stone, and there's been more messiness during the process than any of us would like. I just also believe that the central idea still has value (even if many details differed from my preference). And I hope community members attempt to fix the process in whatever direction they prefer, instead of shuttering the entire process prematurely. Soni (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think many people (myself included) were waiting for the talk page discussions to reach a settled proposed text before starting a clear and final "do you want this?" RfC, but this was cut off by BK's RfC. – Joe (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • So as the person who closed the phase I discussion (that found consensus to develop some form of recall procedure) and followed everything since with increasing exasperation, I will just say that this is a shining example of how not to build consensus for a new process. The discussions were convoluted, bureaucratic and under-advertised at every step of the way. At no point was the community clearly asked "do you want to adopt <specific proposal> as a policy?" and yet, now we apparently have a new policy with a specific procedure. I hope we can draw a line under it and move forward with normal, open, consensus-based improvements to the new process. – Joe (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Under advertised? They were on CENT, in the admin newsletter, at the pump, and on a watchlist notice. And the third RFC was the point at which the community was asked "so you want this as a policy." That third RFC was at the pump, on CENT, and in the admin newsletter. Can we not spread misinformation about "under-advertised"? What more advertisement could we possibly have done? Come on. Levivich (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      And the third RFC was the point at which the community was asked "so you want this as a policy" – it should have been, but the question actually posed was not "do you want this as a policy?" but the utterly bizarre "is there already a consensus for this?". This is to my knowledge the first time we've ever used an RfC to (re)close another RfC and the result was predictably chaotic. Most people did not really understand what was being asked and those that did understandably didn't take time to read the sprawling preceding discussions to understand why the consensus was under question. And now somehow we have a "policy" out of this mess. That by the way is what I mean by under-advertised (not unadvertised): these discussions were mentioned, but the questions were posed in such a weird, orthogonal way that many people did not understand that the result would be a new administrator recall policy. – Joe (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's possible to make any major change to Wikipedia without people complaining that it was underadvertised. Fair enough to call the discussions convoluted and bureaucratic, but they certainly weren't hidden. -- asilvering (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      the third RFC was the point at which the community was asked "so you want this as a policy." Wasn't the third RFC a close challenge type RFC rather than a fresh polling of consensus? I thought it was a close challenge type RFC, so I did not participate in it. I feel like in a close challenge type RFC I am supposed to read the old RFC and make a judgment about whether the closer got it right or not, and there is no opportunity to inject my own opinion about the issues at hand. The exact third RFC question was Is there consensus to have administrator recall based on the consensus reached during Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Closer here. The way I viewed it was neither as a "do we want this" RfC or a close challenge RfC, but a "do we need another RfC" RfC. Personally, I would not be surprised if, after choosing to not participate in a "do we need another RfC" RfC in favour of waiting for the next RfC, the noes prevail and we don't have another RfC. RfC RfC RfC RfC RfC. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      FWIW as someone who views the third/final RfC in a, I think, similar way to Novem Linguae I can accept that by not participating in the RfC I risked the outcome being what it was and so it's not something I can really complain about although I do feel it's fine to comment on how I feel the process has been a mess.

      My view is undoubtedly affected by the fact I did and do support a recall process so that was also part of the reason I didn't care. Also I had read it again perhaps a week or two before closing so I did recognise that despite my misgivings, it was looking like this could be interpreted as a final RfC resulting in implementation. (I did see the suggestion by the Barkeep it could be closed, but I felt it had been too long for it to be a good idea especially with the level of support.) So I can understand why those for which neither of these apply might be much more unsettled by what happened with the third/final RfC.

      One thing I didn't maybe make clear in my lengthy above statement. My initial and main concern was that we'd actually get a non consensus or even consensus against and then opponents will say well that's it let's end this no point going further, and supporters would say that's not fair the RfC was partly based on an incomplete still be worked on draft.

      While this wasn't what happened part of my concerns IMO still plays out but in a different way. Given how messy this has been, there is a risky it's all going to just fall through and recall will be destined to be something that became 'tried that, never again'. Or alternatively as a I highlighted above, when an admin recalled actually opposes the process it's all going to break apart and either end up at arbcom or with some nasty mess if they aren't de-admined due to uncertainty by bureaucrats.

      However you can also say I'm part of the problem, I supported recalls in the first RfC but didn't care enough to actual helped draft a procedure or anything like that. And while part of the reason is because I don't care that much, I recognise that if we don't have a good procedure it's more likely to fall apart because others especially potentially affected admins will care.

      Nil Einne (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm thinking about proposing some changes in light of what's going down at Graham's petition. First of all, 30 days is just way too long. Should be shortened to 10, maybe 7 or 14 days. Second, maybe there should be some 'crat ability to implement a SNOW close for especially spurious petitions. Anyone have thoughts on that? Probably going to propose those at the village pump later today. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Need help to open page with contentious name *igger rock - historic cemetery in Quebec

    Hello, I have been directed here after trying to create an article with horrible name, but is necessary to use as this is what the place is referred to as. The current populations are rewriting the history of this place. It needs to be entered into Wikipedia to protect many people's research and work and also chronicle the Black lives lived here as well as hold space for the 300 free Black ppl that were dispersed and disappeared:

    https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/201610/01/01-5026419-la-reconnaissance-de-nigger-rock-comme-site-historique-demandee.php

    thank you


    I&I22 (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I created Nigger Rock. DMacks (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem moving a page

    Hello, I would like to request moving the page Dinapur Cantonment to it’s official name Danapur Cantonment. Due to system restrictions I am unable to do it myself. AstuteFlicker (talk) 06:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RM/TR would be the right venue for this. – robertsky (talk) 06:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved it. Seems like there is a history of it moving from Danapur to Dinapur, though. Might warrant a full RM? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 10:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vile racism allowed to remain for 12 hours

    Really awful racism allowed to remain in place for 12 hours. Suggest revdel. AusLondonder (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done - any future instances can be requested via WP:REVDELREQUEST, to avoid links of offensive material being inadvertently seen more widely. GiantSnowman 13:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, yes I did want to make the point though how concerning it is that such material remained in place for 12 hours. Surprised as well it wasn't picked up by an edit filter or tagged as potential vandalism. AusLondonder (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's always going to be difficult for an automated tool to pick up stuff like that when the article already contains racism, slurs and other fruity language. That is, it's easy to pick up but hard to distinguish everything else. That's why we have humans. Thanks for your vigilance. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An accusation that I'm not quite sure what to do about

    2001:B07:6461:80A1:E15F:7BB3:50B5:FA8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Hello. This is my first time posting to these boards, so I hope I'm doing it properly. I considered putting this at ANI, but it didn't seem like it fit the descriptor of urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem.

    So, about a week ago, I posted a lengthy comment at Talk:Elsagate, questioning how the information specifically concerning post-2017 events was being presented. I would then go on to edit the article per my analysis.

    Some time later, the IP linked above left this reply. Now I'm not quite sure of the context they're referring to, and so I'm not sure exactly who they lobbed this accusation at, but I originally interpreted it, as I don't think is unreasonable to do, as directed towards me. I gave them the benefit of the doubt, and so asked them, both on the article's talk page as well as on theirs, to clarify.

    Given they didn't clarify, I think it's a very inappropriate comment to leave. However, since it's technically not necessarily directed towards me, I'm not sure if I can cite NPA or the like. So that's why I'd like to ask administrators' opinions on this, and whether their comment should be struck (since, after a full week, they have not done so themselves). I wouldn't normally care this much about personal attacks, real or hypothetical, but an implication such as the one they left there is a serious one, and I will not tolerate it when it is baselessly targeted at me.

    Thank you. LaughingManiac (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome to the admin noticeboards. I've proper-removed it from the history. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, much appreciated! LaughingManiac (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My involvement with ARBPIA

    Nableezy recently requested that I not close any more discussions relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, citing my engagement with the content. The only example he provided was my starting this discussion, although I'm sure we can both think of a handful of others. (I know I've participated in one other discussion involving Al-Jazeera's reliability, made this edit to 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, and made a handful of prose edits to Israel-Hamas war; I've probably made a few other edits in the area, but I don't remember any.) I don't think this constitutes a reasonable basis to assert involvement with the whole topic area and said as much; Nableezy responded simply that he would raise the issue here (or somewhere similar) when I next close a discussion in the area. I'd rather not have that threat hanging over my head, so I'll ask for wider community input now. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Have to say I am not impressed about that thread at RSN. Nor was I terribly enthused about your deciding to open yourself, this follow up RM.
    There are plenty of discussions elsewhere, perhaps best to pass on the AI related ones. Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not generally a big fan of broadly construing involvement across entire topic areas, at least for RfC closers. WP:INVOLVED itself speaks of disputes and not of topic areas. I'm also generally of the opinion that closures should be evaluated on their merits and not factors concerning the closer's person. As long as you don't close discussions on questions on which you have commented before, I don't think there is a problem. Otherwise, we'd be disqualifying closers for some unreasonably vague feeling they may be biased more than anything else. Speaking from experience, I've closed a few PIA RfCs with no complaints so far, even though looking at my user page it should not be difficult to infer what general opinions I hold on that topic. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s not a threat, but until it’s an issue I don’t plan on engaging in this here. But if there are future closes by an involved editor I’ll try to demonstrate that their closes have historically shown a propensity for taking a certain consistent position in favor of one bias that aligns with the arguments they’ve made in content related discussions. nableezy - 18:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    taking a certain consistent position in favor of one bias that aligns with the arguments they’ve made in content related discussions – Is there any way to determine whether this applies that isn't just casting aspersions? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By going through the closes and the content related edits? That is a general statement about any involved editor, so I don’t know how that could possibly be "casting aspersions". nableezy - 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like you're withholding evidence against Compassionate727 until such time that it suits you, while simultaneously attempting to pressure them into behaving how you'd like them to. Please just lay it out now like they've asked; how is Compassionate727 WP:INVOLVED? ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:47, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy has indicated that they do not presently think there is an issue, and that they therefore prefer not to engage with this question. So why are you actively trying to stir up conflict? If you have input on Compassionate's query, by all means give it, but don't stir shit for the sake of shit-stirring. --JBL (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw what I felt like to be the latest example of Compassionate727 showing that they have both contributed to content, and have a position in that content, and to closing discussions in the topic. I have previously asked editors that I have varying feelings about, including ones I think highly of, to not close discussions in the topic area when I feel they have crossed the threshold into "editor". So I politely asked that they no longer close discussions. They declined. As there presently isn’t an issue, and I didn’t intend to spend my Sunday afternoon digging up the diffs from past closes and positions that I think disqualifies them from playing the closer role, that’s the end of it as far as I’m concerned. If and when there is an issue then I’ll spend that time. But right now I’m going back to the game I’d rather focus on. Bear Down. nableezy - 21:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors closing discussions they haven't been involved in should be fine, it's difficult enough finding editors who will close RFCs. If an editor has made, or makes, bad closes that show their bias then it should be brought up here. But I'm against discouraging editors from making closes simply because they may have a bias, as there is no editor without bias. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    agree with maddy and activelydisinterested that until more evidence shows up, we should not consider every editor automatically involved because they had some prior engagement with the topic.
    also think we have ways to deal with bad closures anyways. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Editors closing discussions they haven't been involved in should be fine" is much too weak and allows for easy abuse. At a minimum, it should be "Editors closing discussions unrelated to topics they have been involved in should be fine". Zerotalk 02:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This presupposes that the close will be bad or biased, and that an editor with bias can never make a neutral close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, it presupposes that some things might happen that for sure will actually happen. Under your proposal, someone with a strong POV about an RfC could just refrain from participating and instead close it to their preference. This would subvert the whole idea of an RfC. Zerotalk 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It supposes that editors with a bias (all of them) would only ever make closes in favour of their biases. Past events do not back this up. There have absolutely been instances were editors sat out RFC and then closed them as per their preference, they were overturned using the pre-existing procedures for doing so. Acting in that way isn't just a bias or POV but deliberate and malicious. So you point is correct if you expect editors with a bias or POV to behave maliciously. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most bad closes are not overturned. In contentious topics there are always lots of socks, off-wiki coordination, and other stuff going on. We can't stop it, but we can try to mitigate the damage by adopting policies that reduce it. One example is to have a strict policy on involvement, for both administrators and ordinary editors. Zerotalk 12:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If closes are not overturned how are you judging that they are bad closes? WP:SPI is one way and WP:ARB is another. Assuming good faith, even from those we disagree with, is generally the best way. The idea that INVOLVED is as broad as you interpret it isn't universally accepted. If you have a proposal for definitely making it that broad you should make it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most socks are not detected and hardly any off-wiki coordination is suppressed. It's nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. If everybody behaved properly all the time, we wouldn't need rules. But they don't. You are also incorrect that editors with bias would only apply that bias to a close if they were being deliberately malicious. Bias doesn't work that way. People with bias believe they are being even-handed when they aren't. Zerotalk 13:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And the rules are what they are, if you have a proposal to change them you should make it. Separately as I said all editors have bias, the believe that bias alone would always make a close bad would therefore mean that no editor could make a close. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, my view is that AGF is not generally the best way, it is generally the worst way, maybe one of Wikipedia's most counterproductive policies when applied to the PIA topic area. And the notion that "universally accepted" things will be optimal solutions for PIA is going to be wrong in most cases. I think starting this discussion should constitute a reasonable basis to assert involvement with the whole topic area. I think this is probably the kind of simple strictness that a test for 'involvement' in the topic area should have. In my view, efforts should be made to minimize or eliminate faith-based assumptions about anything or anyone in the topic area. Good or bad faith-based assumptions about any account that does anything in the topic are equally bad, especially when it comes to things that people are very bad at doing in an environment like PIA like modeling intent or trying to predict future behavior. Regardless, any system used in PIA, even a very strict involvement test, will be gamed by someone at some point. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can decide to not follow WP:AGF it is only a guideline, I think that is a mistake that only adds to mistrust of Wikipedia. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't disagree more with this anti-wiki sentiment. AGF is a key pillar. Andre🚐 20:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on man, it's not an anti-wiki sentiment. It is a pro-wiki sentiment. It is an anti-overconfidence, pro-rationality sentiment. I already use an assume nothing approach because the error rate is lower than an assume something approach when interacting with actors in the topic area. It works fine, it reduces the chance of conflict with both familiar and unfamiliar accounts. It means I don't have to think about intent, pro-this or anti-that categorization or pay any attention to the biased voice in my brain feeding me disinformation and pattern matching nonsense. It keeps my eye on the ball, what people actually say and do, not what the stack of unreliable heuristics in my dopey primate brain make up to model a person. The fact is that there is already mistrust. Denying that is just silly and will result in errors. AGF is largely inauthentic theater in PIA, one more thing that is exploited and weaponized by partisan actors. I think AGF can work well and be useful when editors already have a lot of information about each other and become overconfident about their theory of mind abilities, after they have had many, many interactions, as a reminder that while you may think you know this person, and you think they are up to no good, you should think about the counterfactuals and consider that there is a decent chance that you are wrong because you are not as smart as you think. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what AGF is. AGF is the idea that when you meet an unknown editor you should try to charitably interpret their actions to put them in the best light. It doesn't mean discard rationality or ignore evidence. It means that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, you should not jump to negative conclusions. I really shouldn't have to explain AGF to an editor with over 30k edits since 2007. AGF is largely inauthentic theater in PIA If true, explains a lot of the problem. Andre🚐 04:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be an example of overconfidence and the errors we make when modeling other people. Of course, I know what AGF says, including that its scope is not limited to unknown actors. And obviously as an editor with over 30k edits since 2007, I've had the opportunity to observe thousands of instances of the actual features and effects of rule as it is deployed in the field by editors and admins in a very diverse set of contexts. There is misalignment, as usual. I prefer an empirical approach when it comes to understanding what Wikipedia's rules mean to people and how they work in practice. The inauthentic theater feature is just one of several inauthenticity related features of the PIA system. Inauthentic civility is another (something I support by the way, not because I care about civility, but because it increases the signal to noise ratio of discussions). Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Signal to noise ratio of discussions is a good heuristic. But AGF is more than inauthentic theater. And yes, it's not limited to unknown actors, but there are limits of good faith. Ironically, the example you gave of modelling a person you know well is when I think it's hardest to AGF. If you already understand where someone is coming from it will heavily color your expectations because you do have a model of that person. You do also need to AGF someone you know, but there will necessarily be a conflict in situations of dispute with someone you already know or, especially, when you have people who have made mistakes known to you or disagreements that are on a low burn. Regardless, though, the purpose of AGF as a ceremonial aspect of communication is related to the concept of steelmanning and there is a rational reason for this. Now, we don't have thoughtcrimes. You can privately suspect that every new motivated account that seems somewhat good at doing stuff is a sock even though you might rationally know that Wikipedia is a website used by thousands of people and is frequently visited by entirely new users. Just don't say it in public when you're forming that suspicion because it's a violation of good faith and once that cracks and we allow bad faith in, it poisons the discourse. You can still collect evidence and find a sock and maybe be right a lot of the time, or maybe the system isn't giving you good feedback about whether you are right or wrong. Still, AGF means you should default to assuming good faith at least in public because to do otherwise is insulting due to its insinuation of low expectation and making a negative conclusion about someone based on where they seem to be coming from before they've even done anything wrong. Andre🚐 04:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If small edits make an editor involved, we should follow that. If they don't, they don't. This standard has been unevenly applied. I previously accused someone of being involved based on small edits, and there was not a consensus that they were involved. I'm not sure what the precedent should be, but we should apply it consistently and not haphazardly. Andre🚐 20:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    An administrator recall petition for Graham87 has been initiated

    Information icon There is currently a petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Graham87 for Graham87 to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA). If the petition reaches 25 supports from extended confirmed users, an RRfA is required for him to maintain his toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy.

    I request that anyone wanting to comment keeps discussion on the petition and its talk. Sincerely, Dilettante 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that this petition has been withdrawn/closed. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reopened, since there were more signatures than the OP. Besides, we need to let the procedure run, so we know if we need to fix it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as I dislike the ugliness going on there, and totally apreciate the OP trying to acknowledge the obvious, the close was out of process.
    There's clearly some issues with this process that need fixing, or at least clarification, I think we can all see that. The thirty-days-to-certify aspect in particular needs adressing, but also the fact that a petition to open a recall process was being treated like the process itself, and there's really nobody with any clear authority to address issues as they arise. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do wonder if we should even have Discussion sections in these petitions. Since it just causes a lot of fighting and arguing. When the whole point of the petition is are there 25 established editors that indicate lack of confidence in the person as an admin. It's basically just a binary question in that regard. SilverserenC 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After about a day, I have several takeaways about the recall process in general based on the discussion so far:
    • There should be a process to snow close petitions. It's clear that barring some major bombshell, nothing will come of this one. Withdrawal was likely the correct response, but it's WP:BURO'd back into existence.
    • Several people didn't comment on the actual issue at hand. Graham87 spent years blocking newbie accounts that had made only minor mistakes and frequently told them some variation of "you are not welcome here". This was written off as being kind of mean every once in a while. It seems several participants didn't bother to read the ANI discussions.
    • A huge swelling of admins immediately came out to oppose. Almost all of the early opposition that built up inertia against the petition was from admins. I can't help but think there's a perverse incentive here from several admins who expect to see themselves at the other end of this.
    • Some people used the petition as a place to express general displeasure with the process. Several people failed to participate in multiple widely advertised discussions and then took out their frustration with WP:POINT behavior.
    • It would help if there were a baseline "arguments to avoid". A few examples:
      • Appealing to due process implies that being an administrator is a right or an entitlement. Someone should only be an admin if they maintain the trust of the community, so arguments about whether it's fair to the admin aren't helpful. The admin serves the community, not the other way around.
      • Since the point of recall is for long-term patterns where no individual problem rises to Arbcom, it's not reasonable to argue that "if this was serious it would be taken to Arbcom".
      • Similarly, "this was discussed at ANI" should be a prerequisite to recall, not an argument against it.
    Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was under the impression that RFA2024 was meant to make the admin process less toxic. It seems odd, then, that we've introduced a process that makes de-adminship more toxic. Some people don't seem to understand there's a human being on the other end of this shambles. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm completely confused on the whole process. What is it? People just have a place to voice support for the petition and others can provide feedback. What's the result supposed to be? A !vote if enough people sign on (like many petitions)? Are they de-admined immediately? Who decides? What's the threshold? Seems pretty vague to me. Buffs (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikipedia:Administrator recall holds the answers to all of your questions. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, it doesn't.
      A petition is closed after thirty days. If it gains at least twenty-five valid signatures within that period, the administrator is required to make a re-request for adminship or be a candidate in an administrator election.
      It doesn't state that the WPian is desysoped, it just says that they are required to make a re-request for adminship. If it fails, are they desysoped? While it's ongoing, do they retain the tools. It also doesn't define what the options are for an outcome. Can they just be suspended for a while? Etc. Buffs (talk) 04:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The page says that if they do not start the re-request for adminship within a reasonable timeframe, [a bureaucrat] may remove the administrator privileges at their discretion. Implicitly, then, the recalled admin retains the bit until either they choose not to RRfA or have their RRfA rejected. It also says that if the admin passes the RRfA they retain the bit; therefore if they do not pass they do not retain the bit.
      Given the page says nothing about suspensions then no, this process does not allow for a suspension of the rights. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone interested in this process more generally should probably watchlist Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Current. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (possible, but not assured) Hoaxes

    Resolved to satisfaction of the reporting editor. Star Mississippi 17:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At the risk of getting recalled, I've raised attention of this matter at WP:AFC (see: Battles in the Pontic-Caspian steppe), however, this may benefit from someone with more experience addressing WP:HOAXs than me. (I'm not even entirely certain these are hoaxes and want to tread carefully out of concern for making a new editor's first experience at WP an extremely negative one. However, I just get the gut sense this is one of those occasional attempts to make a demonstration about WP. More likely than not, I'm mistaken and have done a shoddy job at source verification.) Thanks, in advance. Chetsford (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, disregard the above. I've gone ahead and blocked this editor. On further examination, I'm satisfied this is an extremely elaborate hoax. Chetsford (talk) 05:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User Report: Niasoh - Repeated Vandalism and Harassment

    = User Report: Niasoh== NoorBD (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Right off the bat, I see that you have been edit warring, breaking the 3 revert rule on the first article you edited. Please read WP:Vandalism and understand what is and is not vandalism before you start throwing accusations around. Donald Albury 12:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OP’s Talk Page should set any mop up nicely for a WP:CIR or WP:NOTHERE WP:BOOMERANG. Not sure which. MM (Give me info.) (Victories) 14:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I went with DE, but yes all would apply. NoorBD is now INDEFfed. Star Mississippi 17:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    CheckUser access for administrator election scrutineers

    The Arbitration Committee has been informed that, following a request from an English Wikipedia editor, Stewards Johannnes89 (talk · contribs), EPIC (talk · contribs), and Yahya (talk · contribs) have volunteered to serve as scrutineers for the administrator elections being held this month using SecurePoll. The Committee notes that SecurePoll election scrutineers often use local CheckUser permissions in order to fully perform their functions.

    The Arbitration Committee has been unable to locate community discussions that establish consensus for appointing Stewards from outside the English Wikipedia to serve as CheckUsers for this purpose, which would bypass the Committee's established procedures for functionary appointments in ordinary circumstances.

    Nonetheless, the Committee has decided to appoint the three Steward volunteers as English Wikipedia CheckUsers for the duration of the election in order to facilitate the election process. In future cases, the Committee will request a showing of affirmative community consensus for selecting scrutineers from among Stewards outside the English Wikipedia before granting such access outside of the ordinary procedure.

    Accordingly, the Arbitration Committee grants temporary English Wikipedia CheckUser permissions to Stewards Johannnes89, EPIC, and Yahya, solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the ongoing administrator elections.

    For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser access for administrator election scrutineers

    Is WP:RECALL a policy?

    In her otherwise decent close of Special:PermanentLink/1253547916#Administrator Recall, Maddy from Celeste specified that Wikipedia:Administrator recall shall be marked as a policy and then did so. The problem is that the RfC did not ask if the page should be upgraded to a policy nor did anyone in the discussion subsequently propose it, making this aspect of the close a supervote. This perhaps happened because Maddy mistook the discussion for a change to an existing policy (On the English Wikipedia, there are no formal requirements for policy changes [...] this RfC is a valid way of figuring out where we want to set the threshold for this particular policy amendment) and/or, as they acknowledged when I asked about it on their talk page, because they forgot that we have an explicit process for proposing new policies. Nevertheless Maddy has said that given the significant developments these last two days, [they] do not feel comfortable making any unilateral changes [to the close] at this point.

    So as a partial challenge of that close, I'm asking: is Wikipedia:Administrator recall a policy page? – Joe (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I refer to my comments on my talk page. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the third (for now) active discussion about RECALL live at AN - shows that it's totally not a controversial idea at all! GiantSnowman 19:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    I am currently running a pool on when RECALL will be brought to ArbCom. Squares are filling up fast. Contact me for information on how to bet, and how to send me the money for safekeeping in the mean time. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]
    • Per WP:POLICIES, "Policies have wide acceptance among editors". It seems clear to me that this is not the case with this recall process. Sandstein 19:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's probably no one who argued more strongly than me against making this trainwreck into a policy. But Maddy correctly read the consensus as saying that this should be adopted and put into effect (and not simply as a trial). So if the community has reached a consensus to put something into effect, that can lead to a desysop, I cannot see how that would be anything other than a policy. If other editors are just now waking up to the fact that they should have joined me in speaking up earlier, well, it's too late now. At some point, we will have to have an RfC to revoke this policy, but for the time being, it's a policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This should be adopted and put into effect – I agree with that, it's the "policy" designation that seems unwarranted, given the lack of an explicit proposal to adopt it as one. I want to avoid on the one hand watering down the definition of a policy as those guidelines and processes which have the highest level of consensus on the project (because come on, this is clearly not that!) and on the other making it harder to improve the current process through normal editing and consensus-building. Pretty much everyone seems to agree that this process needs amendment, but usually the way to make non-trivial amendments to a policy is through an RfC, and pretty much everyone also agrees that we don't want more RfCs on this... – Joe (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I see that distinction as wikilawyering. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We would have done if we had been aware of it! (see previous section re:lack of notice). GiantSnowman 20:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that's an issue. But the people who pushed this through insisted that they did everything required in order to publicize the discussions, and they have a point. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it matter if it's a policy vs. a procedure? Is RFA a policy? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, in practice it's considerably harder to change a page tagged as a policy; and nope. – Joe (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a process (or policy) it's far from ready, as the Graham87 petition and all the various discussions around the project-space are showing. It's not a case of ironing out small details; the very fundamentals are being questioned and challenged. More workshopping is needed. WP:AR should be returned to draft policy status and discussion centralised on its talk page. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 20:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What parts are far from ready? What aspects of admin recall that haven't already been discussed during phases I and II of the RfA 2024 discussion and subsequently still need to be hashed out? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, within the last 48 hours alone, questions posed on WT:AR have included timing of petition closures, the structure of the petition page and naming of its sections, the maximum runtime for petitions, early closure rules (or lack thereof), and the applicability of WP:SNOW (now at WP:VPP). Valid, key questions. I think a large part of why they're being asked now is because up until now, no one had much idea of how the policy/process would actually work in practice. As currently presented, the content of WP:AR feels scant, hardly a solid foundation for launching petitions. And the attempted early close and subsequent re-opening of the Graham87 petition further damage the process's credibility. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Policies have wide acceptance among editors". This policy/procedure does not have that level of support, as has been evident over the past 48 hours. Per SuperMarioMan above, this policy/procedure should be temporarily put on hold and then workshopped extensively to make it better. Daniel (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with this take, assuming it can even be made better, which I'm not sold on. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Opposition largely seems to be coming from admins, which makes sense but is hardly representative of editors at large. I would advise admins to take a step back and accept the wider community's opinion here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I kind of have to agree? I know it's a surprise that the policy made it through but it appears to have done so on a legitimate basis? To those folks challenging the close, is there any example of irregularity or a flawed read of consensus? Andre🚐 20:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      While it is true that because this involves admins and thus admins shouldn't try to discourage the process, it still is a matter that this recall process will need to be managed by admins and thus has to confirm within the framework of other processes across the board, and that's where the debate seems to be happening, that as currently written and executed, it leaves a lot of missteps that need to be addressed with the help of admins to make sure the process is able to actually work. I don't see this as admins opposing any recall process, just that this one does not have the rigor thst admins experienced in P&G writing can bring to tighten it up and avoid the pitfalls happening now. — Masem (t) 13:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, process not policy. The original proposal didn't include listing it as a policy, most of the !voters didn't opine on whether it should be a policy, and similar pages like WP:RFA are not policies. The policy is Wikipedia:Administrators, which links to WP:RECALL. That's all we need. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Adding: This isn't to say it shouldn't have the same "force" as WP:RFA. And regarding notice, being an RfC at VPP and linked from CENT checks enough boxes. IMO the RfC was presented in a confusing way (consensus-for-consensus with a handful of lengthy, fragmented discussions summarized in the background section), but that might just be me, and neither I nor others adequately objected on "this is confusing" grounds to constitute a real obstacle to consensus [about consensus] forming. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 to both of these comments by Rhododendrites. -- asilvering (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who's going to be the first non-admin blocked for the lèse-majesté of seeking to recall an admin, per this policy? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those editors who say that they didn't know that this was being discussed, I expressed my concerns to theleekycauldron, the admin who oversaw the process, months ago, and you can see that discussion here: link. Here's a link to a discussion where I tried to get a better process for deciding whether or not it would be policy: link. At that time, I think editors really were looking to conduct the decision process more carefully. But that got short-circuited by the RfC here: link, which established the present consensus (however one wants to characterize that). You will see me arguing strenuously, but to little effect, that this was going to go badly. I and others argued that it was premature to hold that RfC, but Barkeep49 insisted that the time was right. That discussion was at Village pump (policy), and was advertised on CENT, so I really do think editors should have been aware of this earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was aware of RFC3 thanks to T:CENT, but the wording of the question in RFC3 was confusing to me, and led me not to comment. I thought it wanted me to read an old RFC and summarize what the consensus was in that, rather than coming to a fresh consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Maddy's closure was appropriate. However, the first application of the policy left a lot to be desired. I would like to see the normal editing called out in the close to refine the policy become a lot more vigorous as a result. In particular, we need to decide if petitions are allowed to devolve into a RRFA prequel (in which case 30 days is ridiculous) or if they are not (in which case stricter guidance on commentary and discussion is sorely missing).Tazerdadog (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If editors believe that admin recall should not have the force of policy, at this point there are two options as I see it: close review of the RfC or start a new RfC seeking to strip admin recall of its status. Demanding that the policy status of admin recall be immediately stripped and that it be sent back to the drawing board is not how we establish and maintain consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's what this is. A close review. – Joe (talk) 07:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If only people read a little past the heading before commenting. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops. My bad. trout Self-trout. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CONLEVEL is pretty clear that Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. It's overwhelmingly clear from the response to the recall attempt on Graham that there's not actually a favorable community consensus on a wider scale than the couple of dozen editors who happened to respond to that not-particularly well-publicized RFC. Instead of demanding that we force through a bad process, perhaps consider that the original close was not reflective of what the broader community actually feels about this. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're conflating two different things; I oppose the recall attempt but generally support the process, even though it's not perfect. (I haven't reviewed the discussion and don't have an opinion on the policy or not question yet.) Legoktm (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As someone who also opposes the specific recall, I'll add my much more noncommittal +1 to that. I don't really care too much about the specifics of the process and I'm supportive of considering it much more fluid and amendable than typical until a few months and/or recall petitions have passed, but I am overall supportive of having a process even if it's one that needs to be worked on (and even if I do believe we have another community initiated process that's sufficient, albeit only as a side effect and with likely a much higher... "activation energy", so to speak). Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This (and a bunch of other comments here) seem to be a back-channel way to revert the consensus process rather than any of the official ways to revert an RFC. Everyone agrees that this has been an incredibly rocky start for the process, other people are trying to fix it. But a bunch of editors suddenly complaining about the process, no matter how respected, does not suddenly revert consensus. In these three threads, editors who have concerns about this project are (rightfully) way more likely to comment now than the editors who already agree with calling it a policy. I encourage the former to follow the proper way instead of claiming lack of consensus without proof. Soni (talk) 02:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It was well advertised, I was aware of it but didn't comment or read much of it. If a well-publicised well-attended RfC closed less than a week ago is 'limited consensus at one place and time' then I have no clue what the wider community consensus ever could be.
      If you didn't participate in an RfC for whatever reason and disagree with the result there are ways to go about it, citing CONLEVEL isn't one of them. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The distinction between policy and procedure in this case may well be worth diggin into, but the idea that this has to stop because "admins didn't know about it" is the fault of those admins, as it was on CENT and in the last issue of the admin newsletter, and the overall RFA 2024 process has been going on for.... I dunno feels like forever. I didn't think it would pass, and I think this first attempt at using it has thrown some serious issues with it into the public eye, but this wasn't snuck in any back door. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 02:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is policy and enjoys consensus. The whole process was well advertised and had a lot of participation. Could it of been more? Sure, but it was sufficient. There are things that can be worked out with the process as shown, but there is no question that there is consensus to have a process. So basically, since this is a close review, Endorse the close. PackMecEng (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The policy modified is primarily Wikipedia:Administrators, WP:RECALL is really just the procedures for how to follow the policy. — xaosflux Talk 13:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fourth time is the charm huh? Yes, it is a policy. How many times do we need to ask this question before we accept it as such? fanfanboy (block talk) 13:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This question has not been asked before. Please read the top of the section if you have not already. – Joe (talk) 18:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the actual question Joe is asking, namely "should WP:RECALL have a {{policy}} tag, my response is that I don't especially care one way or the other; the tag at the top of the page doesn't change what actually matters, which is that the process has teeth (i.e. if an RRFA is failed, a bureaucrat will actually desysop the admin in question). But since at least Joe cares, sure, remove the tag, it was never authorized to be there. Mach61 14:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maddy's close was correct. I happen to think it's more process than policy because it's a process Admin X goes through to keep or lose their Admin flag. It's not a policy because there's no clear X/Y outcome. It's petition pass/fail, RRFA pass/fail. As both of those are subjective, it is not a policy situation. However it is a policy in that (using the current example) Graham cannot close Diletantte's petition because they filed it per the framework established. It has bugs as any new process does. Let it run and sort it out before the next. Disclosure, current petition opposer but not involved in RFCs as far as I can recall Star Mississippi 15:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is WP:RFA a policy? No. Is WP:ADMINELECT a policy? No. Is WP:RECALL a policy? Also no. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, admin recall is a policy: it has wide acceptance ("global consensus") and was thoroughly vetted by the community. Three separate RFCs over the course of a year, with over 100 editors participating, advertised at the Village Pump, AN, CENT, the Admin Newsletter, user talk page notices, and watchlist notices. If that doesn't count as thorough vetting and wide acceptance, then nothing will. Admin recall is a standard that must be followed (subject to IAR)--bureaucrats shall desysop following a successful recall--so it's not like a guideline or essay. And anyway, the mechanism by which advanced permissions like sysop are added and removed obviously must be done by policy and not by any lower level of consensus. The reason WP:RECALL should have a {{policy}} tag is because it's the page that documents the policy. To the extent this is a close review (I'm not sure about that), endorse and (involved). Levivich (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not a policy This is blatantly obvious. The RfC that was concluded indicating it is a policy did NOT include any mention whatsoever of asking if it should be policy. None. Nada. Zip. Nothing. In fact, several people who commented on the RfC noted that details of the policy still needed to be hashed out. The fact is, there was no vote to make this policy. User:Maddy from Celeste, I appreciate the effort you put into making this close, but this close is a mistake in making this a policy. The question was whether the recall process has consensus, NOT if the recall process should be policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really mind whether the contents of WP:RRfA are moved into WP:ADMIN instead, but that particular sub-section I think has the status of a procedural policy. I also don't feel all policies have the same barrier to change, if that's the main concern. Changing a fundamental part of WP:NPOV requires a very different level of consensus compared to a policy with 15 talk page watchers. There are things with admin recall that will likely need tweaking; I think reasonably advertised talk page discussion has the ability to make such change. Re procedure: I don't think procedural policies need an explicit vote to that effect. Many current procedural policies didn't, eg AFAICT WP:File mover was promoted after xaosflux noticed felt it shouldn't be tagged as an essay, and nobody objected. Ditto with WP:IPBE per [14][15].
      Ultimately, WP:RRFA details procedure on a process that many in the community likely care about the details of, and said thing is built up by defined rules approved by consensus, as opposed to fuzzy conventions built up over time by trial-and-error. I think these are the some of the hallmarks of procedural policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:File mover was promoted after xaosflux noticed felt it shouldn't be tagged as an essay, and nobody objected. WP:FMR appears to still be an essay. If you read the box at the top of the page carefully, I don't think it's claiming to be a policy or guideline. Instead, someone wrote a custom ombox that seems to be rather unclear, instead of using the standard {{Information page}} tag. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's categorised under Category:Wikipedia procedural policies and listed at Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Procedural. In any case, there's WP:IPBE and these are just the first two I checked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I suspect all the userright procedural policies fall under the same bucket. The RfC behind them usually just asked if such a userright should be created / unbundled. The creation of a procedural policy page was either done by a single editor, or said by the closer to be done as in page mover's case, but was not the RfC question explicitly, and until the closer mentioned it, nobody else did afaict. My point being, I suspect very few of the current procedural policies had explicit confirmation votes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A question from a very active editor

    What should I do if I just-so-happen to be someone who is mildly-to-very famous, and/or is siblings with someone like that? Like, ultra-famous?

    I've helped with plenty of stuff on WP:COIN before, but I have no idea how to proceed in this scenario. I trust that people will know that I am telling the truth about this, as I have over 15,000 edits on this site.

    Can my publicist make disclosed COI edits on my behalf (using their own account- not mine)?

    How do I verify to administrators that I am who I say I am? I don't really want this username to become publicly tied to me, for the sole and only reason that legions of fans might descend upon my talk page, wreaking havok.

    Again, I'm not going to say who I am.

    Not asking on anyone else's behalf, by the way.

    Live long and prosper. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Your editing and the editing of someone you hire relating to you as a person outside of Wikipedia are two separate things, in my view. As long as the two never cross paths, there's no reason you need to dox yourself to anyone. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The easiest approach is for you to simply not perform any edits in your conflict of interest. Then, there's no need for you to disclose. Your publicist, on their own account, could disclose (WP:DISCLOSE) their own conflict and simply not mention your account. For example, let's say you are Liv Tyler (for example, you obviously aren't). Don't edit Liv Tyler, don't edit about your family or your movies or anything else for which you have a conflict. Your publicist discloses that they are Liv Tyler's publicist, without mentioning TheAwesomeHwyh at all. They are then free to edit within the normal bounds (which, frankly, means they probably should only be suggesting edits on article talk pages, making clear it's a COI edit request). If you want to be extra careful, ensure you and your publicist don't communicate over Wikipedia (and... why on earth would you) and don't connect from the same IP address (WP:CHECKUSER). You may wish to privately disclose your own conflict to WP:ARBCOM (others will correct me if I'm pointing you in the wrong direction there), noting your publicist's account too and indicating you'll avoid COI edits. Now, you can validate that you are Liv Tyler (for example). We sometimes require that when people pick a username of a famous person. But, I don't think that's something you want or need to do here. Far better to keep this account anonymous and simply avoid the whole mess, yes? --Yamla (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are precisely my thoughts, stated much more thoroughly. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I won't even mention this account to my publicist. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liv, can you get me tickets to the Captain America:Brave New World premiere? ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 23:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TheAwesomeHwyh, a potential pitfall of your plan is Meatpuppetry. You can orient your publicist to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and let them know that you would like the Wikipedia article about you to be improved. You need to emphasize to the publicist that they must make the Paid contributionsdisclosure. But if you give them a specific list of things you want added, removed or changed, then that would be a policy violation, so be cautious. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    if you give them a specific list of things you want added, removed or changed, then that would be a policy violation, so be cautious. Meatpuppetry is defined as having another editor make the same arguments as you in a content debate; it is unrelated to hiring a paid editor. Generally, when you hire someone to write for you, you tell them what you want and they try to do it. For example, MrBeast could decide to hire a paid editor and instruct that editor to propose a much shorter version of the controversies section that downplays all allegations. That paid editor could then draft a new section and attempt to argue that it's actually more due and balanced than the current article version. Meatpuppetry would be if MrBeast proposes those changes himself and then secretly persuades 100 established editors to support him in an RfC. The former follows our COI policy, the latter does not. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree. If there's no deceptive or disruptive use, I don't think it should be considered an issue. To be honest, as long as their main account avoids the same topic area or any projectspace discussions (except those that directly affect the account), my reading of the socking policy (not that I have any particular expertise in this regard) is that they are even permitted (even if it's not necessarily recommended) to create a separate account under their real name (though, the policy comes at it from the opposite direction, where the main account is under the real name and the alternate is a pseudonym). The security of said alternate accounts of course, is the editor's individual responsibility. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "don't connect from the same IP address" -- I thought checkusers can only access data from actual edits made through an account? Not from just logging in. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nythar: Not any more. For better or worse, this whole situation will remind too many people of the Lourdes saga. At least, compared to that account's first edit, we know for a fact that the OP is not a blue-and-yellow macaw. :-) Graham87 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing at all similar to Lourdes and any comparisons should be dismissed out of hand. Hwyh did the right thing asking and there's literally no policy that prohibits an existing editor from hiring a paid editor to do things that they can't because they have a COI. That's the whole point of the COI policy. If a famous person wants to edit Wikipedia unrelated to their own life, they should be allowed to do so without creating a real name alt and making their own COI edits. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, all! Due to the fact that there seems to be a bit of controversy as to how to proceed with this, I decided that I will disclose that this is my account, eventually. I'm waiting for something important to happen in real life (which still might not happen) before I disclose this.
    I also have a separate, slight conflict of interest with basically everything to do with the LISP programming language. I actually recently acquired one of the companies that used to make Common Lisp software so I felt like I should disclose that. That's a separate WP:COI, though.
    I will also disclose that I used to edit under User:TraderCharlotte as I had briefly forgotten the password to TheAwesomeHwyh. I no longer go by "Charlotte", though.
    Second star to the right, and straight on 'till morning! TheAwesomeHwyh 18:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I probably won't post any more comments on this thread as I actually haven't asked my publicist if they're okay with me posting this stuff on this public noticeboard. Whoops...
    Ad astra per aspera. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there is an established system of verification of famous people mentioned under the real names section of the username policy. Verification in this case is done by sending an email to the volunteer response team (VRT) and quoting the resulting ticket number if needed. Graham87 (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive IP

    Can an administrator please block the IP address 71.172.48.193; has been repeatedly adding false information to the articles of different animated series, seems to be mostly targeting Monsters at Work, adding a fake season 3 and characters and guest stars who have not appeared at all. HotDogsforDays (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's 71.172.48.193 (talk · contribs). I don't see any discussion on the issue. Please try to engage with the IP (and see "you must leave a notice on their talk page" above). An admin such as myself has no knowledge of the topic and the IP has to have an opportunity to explain their edits. Johnuniq (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unmerge my enwiki account from global

    Please switch all of my rights (extended confirmed, reviewer, comfirmed user) into the account TienMinh-mun6xnChing, I'm no longer use this main account for contributing, thanks. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This will not "unmerge" anything (we don't do that), but sure I've moved your account flags. — xaosflux Talk 13:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    unblock request

    I made an edit request that conformed to the WP template and guidelines. Multiple users vandalized my edit request by deleting it. I was blocked for reverting that vandalism.

    I know the rules of edit requests and I understand and respect why they are what they are. Mikewem (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This matter is being dealt with at the editor's talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for a general look-in on Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe

    Posting here to suggest an admin take a look at Talk:Tony Hinchcliffe. Looks to be spiralling into various policy infractions and misuse of the page as a forum. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I collapsed an unconstructive thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rambling Rambler any particular things you want to highlight? There's a lot to read there EvergreenFir (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir to me skimming through it I got a general sense it was devolving into Not A Forum discussions more about their views on the comedian and cancel culture rather than actually discussing the article proper. Rambling Rambler (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EvergreenFir if asked to be more specific I'd say the dispute over the neutrality of the lead seems to have in particular descended into people's views on the comedian and their brand of humour rather than the actual neutrality of the lead. Rambling Rambler (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what we've experienced on the talk pages of Trump and RFK Jr. for long beyond my recollection. It will likely continue for Hinchcliffe until his 15 minutes from the MSG rally are up. We can observe and interject when things get too far FORUM-y. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Trump rally at Madison Square Garden has also come close to derailing with a number of editors who definitely have never participated in AfD, but this seems to be status quo for any American politics article or discussion lately (those of you moderating and closing these discussions right now; you're doing good work). Nate • (chatter) 23:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Authenticity regarding [citation needed] spam.

    Hello there.

    I've discovered IP User 50.102.149.14 seems to have a knack for contributing on many articles (such as this) where instead of contributing constructively or providing sources, the user finds any paragraph that contains a statement without a source, and marks it as {cn}. That'd be constructive and helpful, were it not done to the extent the user is doing it. There's a balanced argument of 'is this constructive editing' that, judging on their talk page, I am not the only one questioning.

    This is a sticky situation that peaks my interest. Does this classify as disruptive editing, or is {cn} working as intended to bother people into providing sources for their statements? Synorem (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In this case talking to the IP editor appears to be working. In the general case, I believe indiscriminately adding cn's can easily be disruptive, even for completely unreferenced material. The tag is only helpful if applied sparingly to indicate an absolute requirement for an inline source to comply with referencing policy, ie "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations". Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversely, the most constructive way to object to a {{cn}} tag is to add a source. That way everybody wins. – Joe (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    AIV backlog

    Hi. There's a heavy backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. A♭m (Ring!) (Notes) 07:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1254288050"