Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

    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.

    information Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archivessearch)

    Open tasks

    [edit]
    XFD backlog
    V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
    CfD 0 1 3 79 83
    TfD 0 0 7 2 9
    MfD 0 0 1 3 4
    FfD 0 0 7 15 22
    RfD 0 0 0 72 72
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Behaviour of Wallis Sabiti

    [edit]

    User repeatedly engages in violations regarding the topic of Armenian genocide, publishes similar articles, where he cites fringe sources and his own opinion, and clearly pushes his own agenda through Wikipedia. Example 1, 2. He ignores the results of AfD discussions and creates similar articles again and again.

    I propose topic ban for him.

    Athoremmes (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Athoremmes supports the revisionist Treaty of Sevres and ultranationalist United Armenia project on their user page. They use Wikipedia to push their Armenian nationalist agenda. Wallis sabiti (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Post at least one instance where i do this in my edits. Athoremmes (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This user supports United Armenia in accordance with the Treaty of Sèvres.
    Both of you can have your behaviour examined here. Please comment on your own behaviour. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And what did I do? Athoremmes (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing what's exactly wrong in the 1st permalink you list as evidence, Athoremmes. The second is slightly concerning, only for the fact that Wallis sabiti refers to Athoremmes with You support the Treaty of Sevres and revisionist United Armenia project on your user page. You are the real POV pusher., though I will note that Athoremmes has engaged in the exact same conduct prior to it, stating You engage in POV pushing. The suggestion of a topic ban seems like an overreaction at the moment. Perhaps the two of you should just step away from each other for an extended duration if you aren't able to communicate constructively. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a second time this user creates the same article which was deleted by moderators earlier with the same name and the same problems. Moreover, he is also under a sockpuppet investigation and likely uses it. Athoremmes (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The place for that accusation of sockpuppetry is SPI, but so far CheckUser has only turned up a "Possilikely", so unless the behavioral evidence is damning, I don't think that's necessarily proof positive that Wallis has been engaging in such. In addition, I don't really see a large pattern of behavior here. Two articles being deleted is hardly grounds for a topic ban. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If being mentioned in a SPI investigation was "proof" of anything, then many of our long-time editors would no longer be editing. Heck, I was mentioned in an SPI investigation when I first started editing. Unless there is verification by our Checkusers, simply being mentioned in an SPI investigation is not indicative of any wrong-doing and shouldn't be brought up when we are discussing completely different problems with someone's editing. Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say that I'm somewhat surprised that the other editors who've commented here don't seem to see any problems? Armenian violence in the Ottoman Empire is an obvious piece of genocide denialism sourced to fringe, denialist sources such as The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey and papers by Michael Gunter, Justin McCarthy (American historian) and Guenter Lewy. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 07:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They're now editing articles on the Greek genocide to add more genocide denialism into pages. User:Wallis sabiti/Greek atrocities is more of the same rubbish sourced to genocide deniers and Turkish government sources, and they've just attempted to move the Greek genocide article [1]. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More disruption from today [2] [3] 86.23.109.101 (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As IP has also noted, Wallis sabiti continues POV tendentious editing with actions such as: tendentiously moving the Greek genocide article to "ethnic cleansing" today with no discussion [4], adding non-RS fringe and failed WP:V to Greek genocide [5], adding fringe failed WP:V to Genocide [6], making disruptive comments on Armenian genocide talk where they placed unreliable accusations against one of the most esteemed scholars in the field of Armenian genocide [7] (the other day they made gross WP:BLP violation on said scholar's wiki article [8]). I think admins should take a look at this continued disruption. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And now an IP from turkey is trying to remove this comment... 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked that IP for 31 hours. BusterD (talk) 10:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by the continued disruption, the editor is not interested in building an encyclopedia and should be indefinitely blocked. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree 100%, enough is enough. And now IP trolls are brigading this thread. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Supporting the decision. Athoremmes (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Continuing making WP:FRINGE articles full of genocide denial is bad enough and already grounds for sanctions, but minimizing massacres to ‘incidents’ [9], and making gross WP:BLP poorly sourced or unsourced violations directly translated from tr-wiki [10] while being reported in AN is the final straw for me. I was going to suggest a tban, but clearly this genocide denialist user is unfit to edit wikipedia and not here to build an encyclopedia; this kind of editing should never be tolerated here, wikipedia isn’t a venue for fringe denialists to push their ‘ideas’. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly Athoremmes (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there some guideline about this? I would like to understand better why the admin team would not just always start with the tban? Czarking0 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a note without any consideration of the diffs above, both Athoremmes and Wallis Sabiti have received AA CTOP notifications in the past few months, and so are recently aware of the CTOP considerations. CMD (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The user KhndzorUtogh using an IP address as a sockpuppet

    [edit]
    Not the right forum for sockpuppet investigations, not a productive path here to make deulling sockpuppet allegations. CMD (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The user called "KhndzorUtogh" using this IP address 86.23.109.101 as a sockpuppet and he uses this IP address to support the changes made by his own account. If you don't believe it, check out the changes made by IP address 86.23.109.101, they are all changes that support KhndzorUtogh and even the writing style and sentence structure are the same. as far as I know, using sockpuppets is FORBIDDEN on Wikipedia. Or are some users exempt from this? Huh? 37.155.10.93 (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Another IP similar to this one [11] ? Is this a sock/meat ring or something to defend Wallis sabiti? FYI, I edit with my account only. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose indefinitely topic banning KhndzorUtogh from Armenia—Azerbaijan related articles for sock puppetry and POV pushing. 213.14.255.20 (talk) 13:12, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    lol, WP:DENY. Definitely IP meatpuppetry or sockpuppetry going on here with all these IPs randomly commenting one after another. Is it possible for admins to check if these IPs are connected or not? [12], [13], [14]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock request by Sandbh on behalf of Eric Scerri (User:Scerri)

    [edit]

    I’m submitting this request on behalf of Dr. Eric Scerri User:Scerri, whose account has been blocked since 2008, on the following grounds: "Spam / advertising-only account".

    He is a widely recognized authority in the history and philosophy of chemistry and the periodic table.

    He made 13 edits in 2005; 12 in 2006; and 21 in 2008. These edits were to correct his own biographical details; add resources, external links, and references to his own work; some typo fixes; and the deletion of some new age content in the [[History of the Periodic Table]] article.

    He recently submitted an unblock request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scerri but, not being sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia unblock procedure, his request was denied on procedural grounds.

    A subsequent unblock request posted by him to his talk page failed to gain traction.

    I posted another unblock request on behalf of User: Scerri to the same talk page, including some history and discussion of Dr Scerri’s circumstances, and WP policy. This request attracted some interest, including a suggestion for an admin to weigh in. On March 30th 2025, @DMacks: indicated he would consider an unblock if it included a restriction against self-citing without prior discussion in which Scerri participated on-wiki (could be centralized rather than per-article) and a general requirement to respond in a reasonable timeframe when edits are questioned. I've heard no further from DMacks.

    Dr Scerri is happy to accept the restrictions proposed by DMacks i.e. no self-citing without prior discussion in which they participated on-wiki (could be centralized rather than per-article) and a general requirement to respond in a reasonable timeframe when edits are questioned.

    Thank you for your time and consideration of this unblock request.

    Conflict of interest declaration: Dr Scerri is the editor of Foundations of Chemistry; three of my articles have appeared in that journal. In 2018 I participated in a debate on the periodic table, with Eric Scerri, and Philip Stewart, a then chemistry professor at the University of Oxford. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO any unblock should also require that they only use the talk page to propose changes to their bio on the talk page via edit requests etc rather than directly editing it whatever they are citing. Maybe also to Foundations of Chemistry. WP:BANEX would apply of course. While I'm a strong believer that COI doesn't forbid editing in the general case, once an editor has shown they don't know when their COI edits are okay and when they aren't, things change a bit. While it does seem that the main concern with Scerri's editing is their tendency to add citations to their own work, it just doesn't seem a good idea to say general editing of their bio is okay when an editor has trouble recognising COI problems. Also I'm slightly concerned as worded the proposal seems to suggest that if Scerri is told on RSN that a source they are citing is reliable, they're going to think they can then use it all over even when they are just adding it to stuff already supported by citations. But I guess most RSN discussions of specific sources do make clear context matters and more importantly provided Scerri always makes clear what and why they are asking, this probably shouldn't be a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto what Nil Einne said. Restrictions are required for me to support, along the lines that Nil Einne already laid out. I would further suggest he should be able to appeal the restrictions here after ~500 edits or 1 year, whichever comes last. Dennis Brown - 09:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scerri needs to say in their own words and from their own account that they agree to the terms. While you may advise them, Sandbh, and that is truly helpful, you cannot speak entirely on their behalf as we don't know whether they in fact agree. While i'm not yet sure how I feel about unblocking at all, I think any successful unblock would need to be contingent on them avoiding self citing but also using edit requests in areas where they have a vested interest. I'd be curious to hear from the editor why they all of a sudden want to edit again after 17 years. Star Mississippi 14:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. In reviewing this unblock request, the following logged-out statement by User:Scerri, recently made here on their Talk page, should be considered: I recognize the general preference for using talk pages or formal edit requests in autobiographical articles, but I must be candid: given my professional commitments, I simply do not have the time to engage in back-and-forths on talk pages or through formal edit request channels. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was my main reason for declining their request. 331dot (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dennis Brown, Star Mississippi, JoJo Anthrax, and 331dot: Thank you for your comments. I will ask Dr Scerri if he could post here, and say in his own words and from his own account that he agrees to the unblock terms, plus anything else he would like to add. Sandbh (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    He's blocked, so he can't post here, but he can post on his user talk page. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I'll ask him to post on his user talk page, and will let editors here know when he has done that. Sandbh (talk) 03:52, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having not heard anymore from Dr Scerri, I've just now emailed him to ascertain his position. --- Sandbh (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've heard from Dr Scerri, and he intends to post to the User: Scerri talk page. I'll post an alert here. Sandbh (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sudden change at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

    [edit]

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


    I was clearing a backlog, when the set of the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion was dramatically changed. Many targets on the current list have no CSD tag or any history of application (as if the category had been switched or redefined). Seems like an actual problem. Not sure what I'm seeing. Can I get a few eyes? Thanks! BusterD (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like many in the category are correctly tagged. I'll continue my cleanup. Examples of no csd tag (but appear in the cat): XSET, TSM (esports), Team Vitality. BusterD (talk) 11:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Suddenly these items have vanished from the cat. This issue is apparently resolved, perhaps because I declined the speedy tag linked below? BusterD (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The speedy tag on the template redirect should have been inside noinclude tags to prevent it from affecting pages transcluding it. —Kusma (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Just haven't seen this particular mistake lately. I have a reviewer chompin' at the bit. I'll ask them to look at this thread. BusterD (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also seeing a tag in transclusion/redirect related to this csd request. This seems unrelated to the issue causing my OP. BusterD (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fully protected edit request

    [edit]

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


    Could an admin make the change I requested here Talk:Aristides de Sousa Mendes#Protected edit request on 12 April 2025 (2)? It's a simple fix to a reference. For some reason User:AnomieBOT/PERTable is only listing the first edit request, so it may have been missed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Floquenbeam. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Featured article summary bot problem?

    [edit]

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


    Today on the frontpage the featured article is Muhammad IV of Granada. The summary of the article has the following sentence: "The initial years of his reign were marked by civil war between his ministers, drawing in Castile, Granada's neighbour to the north."

    I am not sure what that sentence means. There's no "drawing in Castille" in the main article. There's this sentence though: "The initial years of his reign were marked by conflict among his ministers, who vied for control of the young sultan's government." TurboSuperA+(connect) 05:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no bot. Summaries are written by humans and do not match the article's lede 1:1. This bit summarizes the sentence you quote and the two after it; "Drawing in Castile" seems like a reasonable summary of secured support from Alfonso XI of Castile. If you do see an error in a TFA summary, feel free to report it to WP:ERRORS. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a grammar mistake. Civil war (subject) marked (predicate) the initial years (object). If the support was drawn from Castile, then I don't see how civil war can draw support. His ministers are not the subject of the sentence.
    I posted on WP:ERRORS rather than have a discussion here. TurboSuperA+(connect) 06:29, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin I was wrong. Can you close this thread, please, so it doesn't take up space? TurboSuperA+(connect) 07:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Talk:JSTOR constantly being used as a soapbox

    [edit]

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


    Since at least 2020, Talk:JSTOR has been used as a soapbox by various IPs. They store content of interest on it, despite a built-in feature in the website itself. I requested talk-page protection twice; the first time, it was semi-protected for a month, and the second time, it was rejected as protecting talk-pages is rare and indefinitely protecting them is apparently unusual. Nevertheless, this issue persists. Is there anything that can be done for this Talk page? There has not been a constructive comment on it since 2020. I propose pending changes protection, but unsure if that will be allowed for the reason I've stated before. This edit shows the talk page's condition before I spotted the issue. Any admins have thoughts? jolielover♥talk 17:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've protected the page for one year, and expect we can revisit the problem once a year or so if and when it resurfaces. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Appeal to remove topic ban on politics and 0RR restriction

    [edit]

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

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

    I am hoping that my work outside of the edit warring and the passage of time can count as time served,

    I still have much to contribute to the politics topic that does not involve edit warring over lead paragraphs which was the reason for my ban and restriction because this is the topic that I am most familiar and have the most knowledge in,

    I have understood the distinctive harms of edit warring and have not continued/will not continue such behaviour. I would very much like to demonstrate this change within the topic banned,

    Please remove the topic ban on politics and the 0RR restriction enacted on this account,

    Thank you for reviewing and considering this request. Bcmh (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Bcmh, to evaluate this, it would help if you would provide links to the discussions where this topic ban and any editing restrictions were imposed as well as any other discussions where the conditions were altered. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Diff where they agreed to the ban and restriction as part of a unblock. Nobody (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for responding, Nobody. Liz Read! Talk! 08:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bcmh You appealed this in April 2024 and were told that we need to see "enough [edits from you] that we can determine that you have changed". You made 25 edits in the following months April-August 2024, followed by one this month, editing about 10 pages in all, including one interaction on a talk page. Do you understand that this is very little evidence to support your assurances? NebY (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bcmh, you were blocked for edit warring in November, 2022, and in your unblock request at that time, you promised to use the suggestions provided for page protection and dispute resolution instead of edit warring. Despite that promise, you were blocked for edit warring in January, 2023 and February, 2023. Why should the community believe your promises now when you broke several previous promises? Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    closing merge proposal with incorrect destination page

    [edit]

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


    I recently proposed to merge 2025 Copake plane crash with Westchester County Airport by accident; I meant to merge it with Columbia County Airport, the intended destination of the flight. Can the merge request be closed administratively or simply deleted? Not sure of the correct response here. Carguychris (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone ahead and procedurally closed the merge proposal due to the mistaken target. A new merge proposal or AfD can be filed @Carguychris:. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Carguychris (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Question about WP:ONUS and RfCs

    [edit]

    Does an RfC that was closed with no consensus invalidate a previous RfC that had been closed with consensus?

    There was an RfC in Talk:Turkey in 2017 that was closed with consensus by Sandstein (Talk:Turkey/Archive_27#RfC_Genocides).

    There was a newer RfC that just concluded (Talk:Turkey#RfC_on_massacres_and_genocides_in_the_lead). It was previously closed as rough consensus [15], reopened [16], and closed again with no consensus [17]. The newer RfC has multiple sources, including WP:Tertiary sources to assess MOS:LEADREL and WP:DUE.

    The RfC closed in 2017 was very problematic and I have several concerns:

    • There were no sources whatsoever in the RfC
    • The RfC was not worded neutrally. There was no "None" option
    • It includes multiple blocked editors, including long-term abuse ones

    The reason I'm bringing this up is that I'm concerned about the WP:GAME implications of such a problematic RfC establishing consensus, while the newer RfC with reliable sources and lengthy debate based on sources was closed with no consensus. Per WP:ONUS, consensus is required for inclusion of new content.

    Does the newer RfC invalidate the consensus of previous RfC? Or should I proceed with formal RfC challenge for an old RfC from 2017?

    I discussed this with Sandstein at their talk page, but I am still unclear. Note that this issue would also cover 2 contentious topics (WP:CT/A-A and WP:CT/EE) Bogazicili (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "No consensus" in the new RFC means no consensus to change the results of the prior RfC, IMHO. Without commenting on whether the original RfC was very problematic or not, a non-consenus result on a more recent RfC means the status quo is maintained - which means the original RfC stands. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:23, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't "no consensus" mean no consensus for inclusion of the material? Shouldn't WP:ONUS apply?
    Your interpretation makes the whole process very susceptible to WP:Canvass and WP:Socking.
    And yes the fact that 2017 RfC does not have a single source is "very problematic" Bogazicili (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Contentious topics also mentions refrain from gaming the system
    Isn't establishing consensus with problematic RfC gaming the system?
    Should the 2017 RfC be challenged here through normal WP:CLOSECHALLENGE or should this issue be referred to WP:ARBCOM? Bogazicili (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view ONUS wouldn't apply. ONUS says that there has to be consensus for something added to the article (even if the challenge comes much later). In this case the previous RfC, if I follow correctly, said, "INCLUDE". Since the new RfC closed as NOCON we would follow the general advice of NOCON which is to stick with status quo (assuming this isn't a contentious BLP claim). I get the frustration when a questionable RfC close looks like a super vote but reverting a close that ~1/2 the editors are happy with would take closer to a 2/3rds majority. That's how the system works. Note that I'm assuming all RfC closings stand etc. It would be way to late to challenge the 2017 close and most editors would say, open a new RfC. Since one was just opened and closed only new information or perhaps some time to reassess WEIGTH would change things here. Springee (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can understand your argument if the two RfC were equivalent. But they are not.
    One has sources and lengthy discussion based on sources.
    The other has:
    Why can't we challenge a 2017 RfC? It should have been closed with Not enough participation per Wikipedia:Advice_on_closing_discussions. It's a controversial topic and there was not a single source.
    How are you evaluating consensus in an RfC without a single source? 2017 RfC reads largely like a WP:FORUM debate. Bogazicili (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was challenged - and the challenge closed without consensus. Therefore, the previous status quo applies - which is the previous RfC's result. You might not like it, but that's how Wikipedia works. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:33, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin closure requested (lab leak)

    [edit]

    A lengthy discussion involving over 30 editors was archived on the lab leak talk page without a formal closure [18]. I’m seeking administrative input to help establish consensus and resolve the dispute on how to include the story in the article. I see a closure was already sort on the closure requests noticeboard [19]. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussions do not need to be "closed" prior to archiving, and this was not a RfC; rather it just got stale and the bot archived it (thankfully. on an over-stuffed Talk page). Your edit left duplicate copies in the archive and current Talk which is bad. I'd say this is another example of the kind of thing which has given rise to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#COVID-19 lab leak theory. Also is this a WP:LOGGEDOUT request? Bon courage (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not saying it has to be closed, he's requesting it be closed because it ended up turning into a pseudo-RFC on inclusion because of all the tagging and the wide participation. Also, I'm not sure that citing a request that was declined is the best move here.
    Alternatively, someone on the talk could just "eyeball it" and say inclusion/no inclusion, but I'm guessing someone would object to that as well. This is a remedy for that.
    To be clear for closer, I believe we're talking about the thread "German Federal Intelligence Service 2020/2025." Just10A (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He? Bon courage (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The best summary of that very long and meandering conversation is that it found no consensus to take any specific action. It's archived. Let it stay that way. Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it's not archived, it's currently on the talk page. Just10A (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I had to unarchive it. I really don't know why the MiszaBot config is 7 days, as if we are rushing things through. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's especially troublesome because editors frequently cite WP:NODEADLINE. Ymerazu (talk) 03:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the talk page has been at 100k since March 15th. If users stop replying to a discussion for a week, then generally a discussion should be archived on such a talk page. If the discussion is restored and no one responds, including when it was restored, then it should be archived. We can't keep every discussion on an active talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a vast majority of editors are for including the content in the article. The talk page MiszaBot configuration of 7 days and 50k is way shorter and lower than the default 30 days and 100k. We are not in any rush to create an encyclopedia. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    50k doesn't matter except for how much space the archive page is set for. 50k is low, but I assume there is a reason for it. 7 days for an active talk page that is having stale discussions makes sense. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there won't be a reason for a 50K archive size limit (beyond personal preference or [rarely] ignorance – someone might, for example, mistakenly believe that will trigger early archiving if the Talk: page itself gets longer than 50K). That article already has so many archives (~10 per year) that it really ought to be running a larger archive size than average. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are demonstrating why there is a need for the discussion to be formerly closed. A majority of editors are *for* including the story in the article, with only a minority of editors opposing. Its the same for the next three discussions down the talk page. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not a strict vote, but you are correct. Not just a majority, but the overwhelming, vast majority as well as general argument postures were in favor. If this was just assessed without a closure, it would probably be added. Some editors would object to that, which is why this method is preferable. Just10A (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus is not a vote at all. A single !vote based on sound NPOV reasoning would counteract an infinity of !votes which were not. Bon courage (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We're saying the same thing. "general argument posture" = legitimate reasoning expressed by community. I'm really not in the mood to argue semantics here. Let's stop being litigious, get an assessment, and go from there. Just10A (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    COVID 19 Lab Leak Edit Restrictions?

    [edit]

    Related to this page and edits by IP editors - the page currently has a notice on it saying that it requires extended confirmed status for edits. Generally, if this is the case, IPs and new users are supposed to restrict themselves to formal edit requests. This is absolutely not the case with this page swamped by IPs and SPAs engaged in lengthy debates that absolutely are not derived from formal edit requests. Does the Lab Leak page have an Extended Confirmed edit restriction as part of its CTOP designation? Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See this request for protection of the talk page. It’s been decided that restrictions to the talk page are uncalled for now. 2804:18:965:8AD1:153D:BC8D:5552:DDFB (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't what I was asking about though. Simonm223 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but the decision was clear about the alternatives to henceforth follow and it took into account the fact that COVID is CTOP, which was stated in the first paragraph of the request (All COVID topics are already considered contentious topics (WP:CT/COVID)) and several times throughout the discussion ([…] apply ECP given that COVID is already deemed contentious (WP:CT/COVID) […], […] idea for an admin, acting under CTOP authority, to grant this request., etc.). In the decision, it was stated that In some ways, this talk-page looks like the talk-page of a controversial topic should ideally look: mostly friendly, hassle-free discussions and exchange on how to proceed., contrary to what you suggested. But, of course, any further clarifications or alternatives on how to proceed are welcome. 2804:18:965:8AD1:153D:BC8D:5552:DDFB (talk) 00:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The list of topics with ARBECR is here Wikipedia:General sanctions#Arbitration Committee-authorised sanctions. The current areas are Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. While it's theoretically possible either of these but particular the latter could apply to parts of the lab leak and related articles, it definitely would apply to anything here and would be very limited. Note in addition there are community authorised general sanctions extended confirmation required in WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:GS/AA, WP:GS/KURD. However GS/community ECR diverged from ARBECR when ARBCOM made it stricter and limited non EC editors to edit requests, and there's been a reluctance among the community to go that far. As I remarked in the protection discussion, while admins can in theory EC protect talk pages if disruption is really too bad, and of course they can EC protect articles, they cannot apply ARBECR where it does not already apply. This was requested in another CTOP area but was sorta declined. (See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion. Having read this again, it seems to have been a bit bogged down and it wasn't that clear a rejection as I thought, still it didn't come to be. Also I had incorrectly thought there was a general request to allow ARBECR as a page or subtopic level sanction, but that wasn't the case.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant would not apply to anything here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, if this is the case, IPs and new users are supposed to restrict themselves to formal edit requests. I disagree with this. I think restrictions on what new users can say on talk pages only applies to WP:ARBECR topics such as Israel-Palestine.
    I would support indefinite extended-confirmed protection for the talk pages Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory and any other COVID-19 origins-related talk pages receiving significant disruption. This is more targeted than WP:ARBECR and I think would take care of the couple of talk pages that are being regularly disrupted. Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory has been on my watchlist for years and it is exhausting to keep up with that page. I get the impression that there are many WP:MEATPUPPETs that arrive in bursts depending on what DRASTIC, Alina Chan, etc. post on microblogging websites. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I drop by that article every now and again. I agree that it's wearing. I think that ECR for the talk page might be a bit much, but I wonder if a simple SEMI, perhaps as a long experiment for 6 to 12 months, would be informative. Would the POV pushing move to a different article? Would editors be less stressed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy to support 6-12 months of semi. Sounds like a good compromise. I don't think disruption would move much because this only affects a couple of very specific articles related to covid-19 origins. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name the articles offhand? COVID-19 lab leak theory and Origin of SARS-CoV-2, presumably, but what else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are the two that come to mind. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MiszaBot config and limiting community participation

    [edit]

    User:Simonm223 reverted my attempt to adjust the MiszaBot configuration to apply default archiving settings [20]. This contributes to the perception that some discussions - such as the recent one with 30 editors overwhelmingly supporting inclusion - are being prematurely closed to prevent the content being included in the page. It aligns with a broader pattern, including an ECP request from another involved editor [21], in what looks like an attempt to limit participation from the wider community and readership. This article needs more and wider community participation, not less. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Good revert; that Talk page is already unmanageable without having the bloat dial turned up. The COVID origins topic area has historically been plagued by SPAs, POV-warriors, socks, the CIR-compromised, and other types of disruptive editor (witness the long list of sanctioned users). When topic areas become too overburdened in this way – a recent example is Israel/Palestine – Wikipedia will, yes, restrict access rather than broaden it. In fact the whole page protection mechanism shows this dynamic as a general way of controlling disruption. I am beginning to thing "COVID origins" needs the same kind of ECP regime that Israel/Palestine has. Bon courage (talk) 20:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing IPs from the discussion in question, we still have a majority of registered AC and XC editors who take a position you oppose, so it would seem you're as keen to restrict established editors as you are unregistered or logged out ones. There are four concurrent discussions on the CIA, BND, DIA and FAM statements on the topic, and in all cases you seem to oppose any inclusion, where a majority support inclusion in some form. It is clear who the POV warrior is here. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's WP:NOTAVOTE (and erroneously thinking it is, is one of the perennial problems in this topic area). If editors are editing logged out as a form of socking then that would of course be very bad. Bon courage (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is forced to a vote when a minority of POV editors make it that way. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jesus Christ guys. We don't need to litigate everything. This is adding to the exact issues both sides of describing instead of alleviating them. No, we don't necessarily need to change the archive settings; we can just manually revert it when appropriate, as in here. But this isn't the appropriate forum. Let's stick to getting a closer for the discussion (instead of wanting to suppress one, which seems a little bizarre) and take any other discussions to the appropriate forums, probably the talk page. Just10A (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I think there needs to be some discussion here in context of the broader pattern noted. Besides for trying to prematurely archive discussions and close off talk pages, certain editors are hatting discussions they themselves are involved in. On the Origin of SARS-CoV-2 talk page, at least three threads have been closed in this way, all by the same editor who requested ECP. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note User:Bon courage has just manually archived the discussion where with the open closure request, demonstrating again the need for the discussion to be formerly closed by an administrator. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I fixed it, but yeah this is just weird. If no one wants to close it after some time, sure let's remove it. But I have no idea why someone would want to try to actively suppress a neutral party coming in to close a discussion. Just10A (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Are editors again putting the same content in both the Talk page AND the archive? This will break things. Bon courage (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If we want to fix that issue we can, but that's totally different from knowingly archiving it when it's being discussed. It's not a dichotomy. Just10A (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      And why have you copied different stuff to that under discussion? What is going on? Bon courage (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't do it, I'm just undid the edit. If you want to fix the technical issues without removing the discussed topic from the active talk page you're more than welcome to. But again, it's not a dichotomy, those are 2 separate issues. Just10A (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors own the edits they make, and one assumes very large (164k) edits to the Talk page of a WP:CTOP are made with extreme care. You have made a big mess, with multiple sections of the Talk page now duplicated in the archive. What are you doing? Bon courage (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      All the more reason for you not to archive the discussion. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The discussion has never been out of the archive. But two editors (you and Just10A) are copying "the discussion", and several other archived discussions, back onto the Talk while leaving them in the archive, and edit-warring to keep it broken. This is disruptive. Bon courage (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A minor technical issue. Of much greater concern is the effort to suppress the outcome of the discussion. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "What are you doing?" I undid an edit made by an editor who erroneously argued that the only way to fix an otherwise good edit with technical issues is to completely erase the edit instead of just fixing the smaller technical issues and leaving the rest. Which is fine. I can do it myself, but I imagine you are more aware of archiving technicalities than I am (since you are clearly vocalizing it, and that's not my primary editing expertise). If you refuse, I'm more than happy to try my best. But it's obviously not a justification to remove it wholesale when you can just fix the minor issues. It's not "all or nothing," that's just a false dichotomy.
      Now, for the last time, I really think being this litigious is not helping anything. Let's just get an assessment and go forward after that. We're not in a rush. Just10A (talk) 21:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm beginning to suspect it's the "German intelligence" thread that the IP is on about, rather than the "Expert Survey" one. But who knows? I'll leave this mess for somebody else ... Bon courage (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Great. Well, aside from the fact that refusing to assist with known technical issues without the quid pro quo of removing the whole discussion is pretty much a textbook example of not being here to improve the encyclopedia, I'll try to fix it myself. Apologies to anyone if I make mistakes, it's not my primary editing realm. Just10A (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I fixed the issue, at least per WP:ARCHIVE. If we could get a close now, that’d be great. Just10A (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I disagreed that it was fully fixed, but I just went through the archives and fixed a few of the issues I saw. I will say though that the settings being at 30 days is too much in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps its best for you to leave it to an administrator. 216.215.70.66 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • 30 days archiving period for that talk page is excessive given the pace of discussion. 14 days is more appropriate. Also reducing the archive size down to 50k given that there are 46 archive pages is ill-advised. If anything the archive size needs increasing to 150k at minimum. TarnishedPathtalk 08:55, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree, except I'd suggest 200K for the archive size. Most articles shouldn't be generating 10 separate talk-page archives per year.
      Wikipedia's a complicated place, so just in case the processes are unclear to anyone looking at this, here's a few facts that might be useful:
      • If you want to request a closing summary of any discussion, including a discussion that has already been archived, please make those requests at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Anyone can make those requests.
      • There are technically no limits on the age of a discussion that is posted to Wikipedia:Closure requests. You could technically request a closing summary for a discussion that happened two decades ago, although AFAIK nobody has ever been silly enough to do that.
      • Wikipedia:Closure requests limits itself to closing discussions that are on the English Wikipedia. That is the only location restriction (e.g., they will not officially accept requests to summarize discussions that happened at Meta-Wiki or on Facebook). The discussion can be on any page at the English Wikipedia. If the discussion is 'archived' (meaning: copied out of the current discussions and into a subpage) by the time the closers (who are not necessarily admins; that's a different role) respond to the request, then the closer will simply un-archive it at that time. Closers are accustomed to unarchiving discussions and will not be surprised or concerned about this at all.
      • The archive size (e.g., |maxarchivesize = 150K) is about how big the archived subpage should get, before the bot creates a new archived subpage. It has absolutely no effect on the size of the ordinary Talk: page. For example, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) has a maxarchivesize of 300K (unusually large), but the current discussions sometimes exceed twice that, and they are frequently a third of that. The effect this has, especially on a busy talk page, is: How many separate archives will you have to click on, if you want to find a discussion that happened last year? How many discussions will usually be in each subpage? We try to keep this at a fairly "medium" size, because people working on smartphones and other low-powered devices find extremely large pages to be difficult to load and navigate, but having them be too small is not helpful to anyone.
      • The timer before bot archiving (e.g., |algo = old(14d)) is about how long the bot should leave the discussion on the talk page after discussion has →stopped. Please take careful note of that last word, "stopped". For example, if the bot's archiving timer is set to 14 days (as shown in this example), and you post a bump-type comment ("Would somebody answer me?") every 13 days or less, then that discussion will never be archived by the bot. To give a more realistic example, if the bot's archiving timer is set to 14 days, and discussion is busy for a couple of weeks, and then you have an occasional comment for another couple of weeks, and then it finally stops, then the bot will archive the discussion 14 days after the discussion stopped. The bot's timer does not care about when the discussion "started"; it only cares whether the discussion has stopped for longer than the archived time.
      • It is normal and expected to adjust archiving settings based on page activity. Most talk pages don't see much traffic, so they'll have settings that keep everything for a year or more, or they won't use bot archiving at all. But when traffic spikes, it's normal and expected to adjust the archiving settings. Did the page get big? Then please speed up archiving of the inactive(!) sections so the bot will clear out the older discussions on the page. Did the page get small again? Then please slow down archiving of inactive sections.
      I suspect that the procedural parts of the concern here are based on a misunderstanding of how the archiving bots work, so I hope this explanation will be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @WhatamIdoing thank you for making the first three points explicit. I spent time CSD'ing four archive pages for that talk page because editors had been messing around with the archives, moving discussions out of them and back to talk, in what appears to be a mistaken idea that WP:CR couldn't deal with any discussions which had been archived.
      I think we should be ultra clear that editors, especially inexperienced ones, should not be messing around with archives, unless they have a clear understanding of what they are doing. TarnishedPathtalk 23:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Turkish Wikipedia Block - Seeking Advice

    [edit]

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


    Hello, I’ve been blocked on Turkish Wikipedia and I believe this was a misunderstanding. I’ve tried to resolve the issue locally but I was not successful. Is there a way to escalate this or seek help from cross-wiki stewards or the Arbitration Committee? Thank you in advance. Buzutku (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We cannot help you with issues on the Turkish Wikipedia, which is a separate project. I don't think the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee can help, either. Stewards would be your best bet. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Attempted doxing issue

    [edit]

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


    IP is using information not shared or found on the user's profile against the subject. Also see IP's message on subject's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UST_%28company%29&diff=1284897722&oldid=1284752784 Zinnober9 (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done some cleanup, and left some warnings. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example of how OUTING rules allow people to get away with COI editing with impunity. This person has been open about their real life identity, but not open about their COI when editing the page about a company they are associated with, which for an admin seems extremely poor form. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The connection to the company is disclosed, but not their position or some other details I removed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct that he did disclose the connection a decade ago, I stand corrected. Ideally there should be a connected contributor template on the talkpage which there is currently not. That said it still seems poor optics for a wiki admin to be editing the article of a company that they are an employee of, even if the edits aren't overtly promotional spam. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There in fact appear to have been multiple people closely connected with the company editing the article. Not 'a' major contributor as the template says, but several. One has made the connection explicit on their user talk page, but others appear not to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian

    [edit]

    The Arbitration Committee is considering motions to address WP:COI editing and WP:UPE by Tinucherian. The motions and discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Proposed arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akash Ambani (4th nomination)

    [edit]

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


    FYI, someone canvassed for this article’s deletion at a well-known Wikipedia criticism site (they received a frosty reception there).

    It also looks like there’s some bludgeoning happening at that AfD. A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 20:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems the person who posted on Wikipediocracy actually canvassed to keep this promotional page. See this comment from Szmenderowiecki. After exposure, the canvassing user deceptively changed his Wikipediocracy thread to support "delete". It was meaningless though because the article was already getting deleted. Koshuri (グ) 08:00, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There’s follow up from the admin there that the second comment was probably not edited. In any event, whichever side is doing it, this AfD is being canvassed there and probably other places. The Wikipediocracy canvasser was an unknown there. —A. B. (talkcontribsglobal count) 00:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think admins are needed at the AFD until it comes time for a closure. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Removal of Adminship of Bbb23

    [edit]

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


    Nothing actionable here, actions from 5 years ago which were already dealt with and posts on Quora and Medium are not a serious basis to carry out this discussion. Fram (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    How far can a dysfunctional Admin go before they are properly sanctioned?

    Given an event that occurred in 2020, we know it is a very, very long way indeed.

    In June that year, the Arbitration Committee removed Checkuser privileges from administrator Bbb23. Some here will know it was due to a degree of abuse and disruption that beggared belief. (The article at this link offers a briefing for those unfamiliar with the case. [22])

    However, if the Committee had held Bbb23 to the same standards as every other editor, he would have been immediately subject to a permanent ban. Shamefully, that never happened.

    A post on Quora speculated: "Bbb23 evidently is legally immune on Wikipedia, and the other administrators even defend him due to confirmation bias, not because of actual logic or rationality." [23] An article on Medium sheds further light: "On one side, there were the pragmatists, level-headed forward-thinking editors who agreed with ArbCom’s decision, on the other, the cavaliers, who revered BBB23 as a buccaneering champion of Wikipedian sovereignty." [24] Experienced admins and editors will know exactly what is meant by this. That his protection derived from a small cadre of 'Good O' Boy' admins –– types we've all regrettably encountered in our time –– who, with game-playing duplicitousness, back each other up in matters of egregious behaviour. However, as the Medium article bluntly adds: "for most, BBB23 was a known cyberbully and tyrant." [25]

    Due to endless threads elsewhere on the Net (Wikipediocracy, etc.)[26] detailing his behaviour, Bbb23's real world identity has long been known, and is showcased on websites, such as Encyclopedia Dramatica, with other unfortunates. His own Wikipedia page once featured a block icon "This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice", and additional text that preached: "My biggest disappointment with Wikipedia is the level of incivility and aggression on the part of some established editors and admins....I find it ironic that many of these same editors happily display tags and comments about civility on their user pages. I guess they don't practice what they preach." [27] It should have served as a red flag. However, whether it was due to a pathological lack of self-awareness, or pure deceit, is not the point.

    The point is: the behaviour has been tolerated long enough.

    After his exposure, and hand slap by ArbCom, Bbb23 slunk off for a short time, before returning. Did he learn anything on his hiatus? Regrettably, for him, for WMF, and for editors, Bbb23 has quietly, consistently, and without oversight, continued his same bullying, wilful actions. Another post on Quora catalogues some of this:

    "Bbb23 is also infamous for:

    •Threatening users to revoke their access to their own talk page, for simple formal questions.…and actually doing so. • Bbb23 gives users ambiguous and unclear instructions, then threatening to sanction the user if they fail to follow along. • Falsely making innocent users who behaved appropriately feel guilty. This psychological manipulation technique is called “gaslighting”. • Forming brigades of fellow administrators against users. • Falsely labelling any criticism against him 'trolling'…and anything else he does not like. • Massively discouraging prolific editors, thus withholding value from Wikipedia which they could have added."[28]

    The policy of Assume Good Faith unfortunately serves bad actors very well. And ArbCom has always been slow to act, because reviewing such behaviour is complex and takes time.

    However, in the case of Bbb23, we have an individual whose behaviour has already been the subject of deep scrutiny. The sanction was enacted only after an entire decade(!) of breaches [29]). Bbb23's behaviour has also been well-documented across the Net, with literally dozens of complainants. One might excuse a few such complaints as sour grapes, but the sheer volume of them, tells their own story. Forensic examination of his administrative behaviour over the past 12 months alone will further endorse this. His past and continued status as an Administrator is not only a public stain on Wikipedia, but compromises the project, and undermines the goodwill of its community.

    I regret having to necessarily detail all this, but post here in the sincere hope that admins who recognise the situation is long past the time when it can be ignored, step up, and do what long ago should have been done. I therefore request that discussion and nominations for the removal of Bbb23's adminship, and indeed editorship, begin. As his Talk page is protected (oh the irony) I've been unable to post an AN-notice on it. Hallannata (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    You appear to have created your account for the expressed purpose of making this grievance, so you're clearly not a new user. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's that about shooting messengers? Sadly, the number of aggrieved editors, and ex-contributors, over his behaviour is an endless one. I'm sorry it has to be me. Hallannata (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Closure of the above thread

    [edit]

    The discussion I raised was not simply over past behaviour, which was provided as background, but as the editor who closed it well knows, recent behaviour, which I requested be examined. If this page is not the place on Wikipedia to raise such a matter (really?), I welcome direction as to where on Wikipedia to do so. If this is indeed the appropriate place, then perhaps others could assist in presenting it more formerly if they share the concern. Thank you. Hallannata (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hallannata has been blocked for violating WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I blocked as a sock, as this user is clearly evading either a block or scrutiny(or both). 331dot (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    request for making a redirect page for Cyrus the Great

    [edit]

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


    Could someone please make a redirect page called "𐎤𐎢𐎽𐎢𐏁" for Cyrus the Great (it is a name for him in Old Persian) X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't an administrator issue, you may use the Redirect Wizard to propose a redirect. 331dot (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ahh ok sorry then X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Genre warriors

    [edit]

    [30]

    [31]

    IP users adding unreliable genres on Lana Del Rey's article regardless of their hidden messages. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 04:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Verhaltensweise des Nutzers 2003:F6:7F14:A815:5486:47A4:31E6:38F

    [edit]

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


    der Nutzer 2003:F6:7F14:A815:5486:47A4:31E6:38F verhält sich in der Art und ausdrucksweise in den Diskussionen höchst unseriös und gegen die wikiquette. Dabei ist er in seiner Art und Ausdrucksweise nicht nur unhöflich sondern bringt andauernd förderungen oder Persönliche Meinungen ein, ohne Quelle zu nennen, die macht eine recherche schwer bis unmöglich. Im aktuellen fall geht es um die Diskussion Schützenpanzer Marder . Stumpewilli (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the English-language Wikipedia. We have no control over what happens over at de.wikipedia.org. Discuss it there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stumpewilli: die richtige Seite für Dich wäre Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung, die sich unter Anderem auch mit Verstöße gegen die Grundprinzipien der Wikipedia (insbesondere gegen die Richtlinie Keine persönlichen Angriffe) befasst. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for support Stumpewilli (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Controversial changes on Turkey article without consensus

    [edit]

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


    The user called "Ye9CYNMD" recently made a controversial change on "Turkey" article without consensus. This user wrote "authoritarian government" in the "government" section of the article Turkey without getting consensus. The sources he gave are almost 10 years old and the opposition won the local elections in Turkey last year. Such a thing doesn't happen in an authoritarian regime, right? I think the admins who want consensus for almost every change to the article Turkey will also take a look at this issue. I demand that the user in question, "Ye9CYNMD" be prevented from editing about Turkey. 37.155.78.254 (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute, so I have commented on the article talk page. We don't block because of one disputed edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...especially when RS agree with the "authoritarian" description. The existing citations were somewhat out of date, so I have added five more which are all from reliable sources (BBC, NYT, Le Monde) and dated this year. I don't think there is much doubt that a regime that arrests their political opponents is authoritarian; I am more surprised that the article itself does not go into any recent detail on this, though there is detail in Erdogan's own article (which incidentally also describes his rule as "authoritarian". Black Kite (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Arresting political figures doesn’t really count; sure a step forward authoritarianism, but at least the opposition can still theoretically win! Datawikiperson (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also India arrested their political leader and yet they are not considered authoritarian. Datawikiperson (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • opposition
    Datawikiperson (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    J. K. Rowling under siege

    [edit]

    Various article about Rowling's books and their derivatives are being supplied with less-than-WP:NPOV comments on the author's opinions regarding transgender issues. Special:PageHistory/Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone illustrates the issue. It looks like the attendees of some internet forum are going into the world, feeling righteous. More eyes are needed. Favonian (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This is useful to track likely problems: Special:RecentChangesLinked/J. K. Rowling. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a pretty widespread, organized spree. Maybe very liberal use of page protection for 3 days or so? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with that approach and have applied it to the article mentioned above. Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:Harry Potter has also served me well. Favonian (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a few more three-day semi-protections. Knitsey is doing a lot of the vandal reversions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys are on top of it; every time I check a Special:RecentChangesLinked, someone has just reverted the most recent vandalism. I'll still try to remember to check from time to time, on the many hands make light work theory. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I only realised after my revisions, that I probably should have left the reverts until they were blocked. I caused more clean up. I'm putting related articles on my watchlist now, such as Strike (TV series). Knitsey (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I suggest continuing as you had been, if you have the time and inclination. I’m using the signal of multiple reversions as an indication that protection may be needed. There’s some other related articles that had a single hit-and-run vandalism that I’ve ignored for now as an indication of less disruption thus less need for protection.
    And your reversions keep the article in proper shape for those casual readers coming by to use the wiki.
    thank you for your help! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I can keep reverting. I've gone through just about everything Rowling related and waych listed it. I noticed a few had some reverted vandalism that happened once. Knitsey (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    organized spree? Nah, doubt it. She's just pissed off too many people at this point, especially with that recent picture of celebrating the latest anti-trans ruling with a cigar. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Floq on this one. Same "contributions", moving from east to west with the sun and alarm clocks. That's what internet fora are "good" for. Thank you all for your efficient response! Favonian (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Sarek here and would like to suggest that adding "anti-trans activist" when describing someone who is very clearly in fact an anti-trans activist is not "vandalism". I agree the information is likely WP:UNDUE on these pages but I feel like using the word "vandalism" here is a way of de-legitimizing these edits in ways that let admins deal with them with admin tools instead of letting them be resolved as a content dispute. Loki (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    very clearly is not a reliable source. If a person is called as such by and in reliable sources , then it can be treated as a content dispute. Otherwise, it's an extremely serious WP:BLP violation. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:55, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you accept "gender-critical campaigner" as a synonym for "anti-trans activist", https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/apr/18/jk-rowling-harry-potter-gender-critical-campaigner. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those seem to be more or less synonymous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Gender-critical" is what anti-trans activists (or let's be clear, transphobes) prefer to be known as, so they are indeed synonymous. You'll rarely find RS using the latter, however, as given some of these groups' willingness to claim that it's libellous in some way, it's easier to use the sanitised version. Black Kite (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there you go, then. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to the source listed above, the inciting incident here is Rowling celebrating "TERF VE day", her words, and also saying explicitly that she'd donated to anti-trans activist group For Women Scotland. Loki (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, for posterity: USA Today says she has "anti-trans views" and MSNBC went even further and called her a "notorious transphobe" in article voice. (Yes, that's an article, not opinion. I've known this about Rowling for years and even I was surprised MSNBC was so blunt about it.) Loki (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SarekOfVulcan This specific spree seems to be coming from threads [32] 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The top comment in that threads post is remarkably on point if in desperate need of copy editing "There are several problema with your edit. Even when she is, and also a piece of shit, by Wikipedia policies it is not relevant to the article, but you want it in the first page because of non enciclopedical reason. Also, your purpose is obviously not improving the page, but to make a statement, and you also invoqued users to edit the page. That's again policies as well. I really recommend you to read wikipedia policies, they are cristal clear and more or less objective." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is new stuff happening in that endless slug fest[33][34][35][36][37] so this editing may be related to contemporary events (it could also be related to a forum based clique, the two are not mutually exclusive) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian

    [edit]

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by two motions that:

    1) For repeated and egregious breaches of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on paid-contribution disclosures and conflicts of interest, Tinucherian (talk · contribs) is desysopped. Tinucherian may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

    2d) Tinucherian (talk · contribs) is admonished for repeatedly editing in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on paid-contribution disclosures and conflicts of interest. The question of whether administrative action is needed for violation of WP:COI and WP:UPE is left to normal community processes.

    For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motions regarding Tinucherian

    Killing of Austin Metcalf

    [edit]

    The name of the minor accused of the Killing of Austin Metcalf keeps getting added to multiple locations on Wikpedia. It has been reported at WP:BLPN and WP:AFD, but keeps getting added. Is there a way in which we can escalate this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not a BLP violation to name him, as the sources are not suppressing his name (which, I will admit, is odd). Whether or not there should be a redirect from the suspect to the victim is a matter for RFD. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primefac:, I understand your point. However, this same issue arose prior to the conviction of Gerson Fuentes as well as another individual whose name was posted in media who the Wikipedia community did not want posted in articles. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I guess I was thinking you were asking for administrative intervention, not just extra eyes on the situation. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a multitude of people asking that the name be removed, in addition to me asking for PERMANENT deletion of the information. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, consider this (at least for me) a formal decline of your second request; it does not meet the OS criteria, nor (because the name has been published) does it meet RD2. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that odd, given that he's black and the victim was white. That's how our media works these days. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When did English Wikipedia turn into a newspaper? Ugh. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory, the core business of a newspaper is gathering unpublished information, rather than summarizing other publications' comments. Material that is verifiable in a prior publication is therefore unlikely to be an example of 'Wikipedia turning into a newspaper'.
    WP:NOTNEWS begins this way: "In principle, all Wikipedia articles should contain up-to-date information. Editors are also encouraged to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." It also bans "Original reporting. Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories" and articles "written in news style" Since "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", we could attempt to make the case that this is one of the many that don't qualify, but IMO that case will be easier to make a couple of years from now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a previous consensus to not name the suspect? If so, some editors may be simply unaware of it and you might need to make it more visible (e.g. on the talk page or in an edit note). If not, it's probably a good idea to get a RfC started. Not an unusual thing for crime-related articles, either; see Gilgo Beach serial killings, Moscow murders, and the killing of Brian Thompson as examples. wizzito | say hello! 20:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a brief discussion on the talk page where one editor suggested it should be included if policy allows, one editor replied with a reasoned argument for inclusion, a third editor agreed with inclusion without leaving a detailed rationale. One of the second two editors (I don't remember which) added the name to the article. The redirect from the accused name was nominated for deletion at RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18#Karmelo Anthony), where I recommended keeping as it was prominently mentioned in the article, apparently with consensus as there was no opposition in the talk page thread. Since that time further comments for and against inclusion been left on the talk page and discussions have also been initiated by those who desire exclusion here and at WP:BLPN and a request has also been made for protection at WP:RFPP (the latter due to the name being added and removed from the article multiple times). As far as I can see whether to include or exclude the name is an entirely editorial matter (that I don't have a strong opinion about) balancing the prominent mentions of the name in multiple reliable sources with the accused being a minor (17 years old) who has not been convicted of a crime (I believe he has been charged, but the article isn't completely clear on that). Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]