Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yamla (talk | contribs) at 14:03, 24 November 2021 (→‎Unban request from Hulged (Wahhid): Close, ban remains in effect). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)


    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
    CfD 0 0 0 33 33
    TfD 0 0 0 0 0
    MfD 0 0 0 1 1
    FfD 0 0 0 0 0
    RfD 0 0 0 56 56
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0

    Pages recently put under
    extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under
    extended confirmed protection (27 out of 7633 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    École Des Navigateurs 2024-04-30 03:14 2024-05-07 03:14 create
    Repeatedly recreated
    		 Liz
    L'histoire juridique des paris sportifs au Canada 2024-04-30 02:50 2024-05-07 02:50 create
    Repeatedly recreated
    		 Liz
    Island Rail Corridor 2024-04-30 02:47 2024-07-30 02:47 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Lil' Cory 2024-04-30 02:23 indefinite create
    Repeatedly recreated
    		 Liz
    Cliff Cash 2024-04-29 15:24 2024-06-04 12:22 move Persistent sockpuppetry: extending Ohnoitsjamie
    Michael D. Aeschliman 2024-04-29 06:44 2024-05-13 06:44 edit,move Violations of the
    biographies of living persons policy
    		 Anachronist
    Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia 2024-04-29 03:24 indefinite edit,move Drop prot Pppery
    White Colombians 2024-04-29 03:17 2024-05-20 03:17 edit,move Persistent
    WP:ECP
    due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts     		El C
    Government of Iran 2024-04-28 20:25 2025-04-28 20:25 edit,move
    WP:CT/IRP
    		 ToBeFree
    Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives)
    		 2024-04-28 17:30 2024-04-30 15:20 edit Addition of
    WP:RFPP
    		 Favonian
    Draft:The Car Accident Lawyer Group 2024-04-28 08:07 indefinite create
    Repeatedly recreated
    		 Jimfbleak
    Battle of Ajmer 2024-04-28 06:42 2024-05-05 06:42 move Don't move an article being discussed at an AFD discussion Liz
    Khymani James 2024-04-27 21:35 2025-04-27 21:35 edit,move
    WP:RfPP
    		 Daniel Quinlan
    Minouche Shafik 2024-04-27 18:35 indefinite edit,move oops, accidentally full-protected Daniel Case
    User:Travism121212/Privacy law - Group D 2024-04-27 06:36 2024-05-04 06:36 move Stop moving this article around. Submit to
    WP:AFC
    for review     		Liz
    Travism121212/Privacy law 2024-04-26 22:17 2024-05-03 22:17 create
    Repeatedly recreated
    		 Liz
    Connecting Humanity 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move
    WP:ECR
    		 El C
    Mirna El Helbawi 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move
    WP:ECR
    		 El C
    User:Samory Loukakou/Erin Meyer 2024-04-26 18:29 indefinite create
    WP:RfPP
    		 BusterD
    24 Oras 2024-04-26 18:25 2024-06-26 18:25 move Persistent
    WP:RfPP
    		 BusterD
    Nasimi Aghayev 2024-04-26 17:17 indefinite edit
    WP:GS/AA
    , that is (so many AAs!)     		El C
    Atrocity propaganda 2024-04-26 17:09 indefinite edit,move
    WP:PIA
    and others, I'm sure     		El C
    Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 April 2024 – present) 2024-04-26 16:49 indefinite edit,move and it continues... Robertsky
    Beit Hanoun 2024-04-26 14:48 indefinite edit,move
    WP:AELOG/2024#PIA
    		 Malinaccier
    Rangiya Municipal Board 2024-04-26 13:12 indefinite create
    Repeatedly recreated
    by sock of Rang HD     		Dennis Brown
    Siege of Chernihiv 2024-04-26 12:40 indefinite edit,move
    WP:GS/RUSUKR
    		 Filelakeshoe
    Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) 2024-04-26 03:31 indefinite move Repeated article moves despite recent RM discussion Liz

    Appeal of topic ban for Paul Krugman for User:Deicas

    After a week of discussion it's clear there's zero support for removal of the tppic ban. Instead, there's consensus for an indefinite block for
    clue. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    @Deicas would like to appeal his 2013 topic ban for editing the article on Paul Krugman. Deicas (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please link to where the topic ban was discussed and address whatever the concerns raised there were. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So you were editing the article and the talk page today, aware that you were topic banned from the article? Paul Erik caught it, they might know more about the circumstances. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq and Muboshgu:  Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive782 § PLEASE topic-ban User:Deicas 192.76.8.91 (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I also saw on Decias's talk page that they claimed to believe that the topic ban was temporary, not indefinite, which would explain editing the page before being corrected. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Deicas has now been blocked by User:Acroterion for making personal attacks. I think this appeal is unlikely to succeed. The same type of behaviour documented in the 2013 topic ban (see User:Calton's links in particular) is now occurring across various articles and talk pages Talk:George Floyd, Talk:Brookings Institution, Talk:Paul Krugman. The user does not appear to understand the feedback that countless editors have been offering, both in 2013 and recently. An indef likely would save everyone a lot of time, sorry to say. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, an indef block is a lot more likely at this point than the topic ban being lifted. In particular in the incident which led to the block Deicas added something which is at the very least problematic from a BLP standpoint [1], added it back when it was reverted [2], and then took a very
    confrontational attitude to the resulting talk page discussion, culminating in an explicit accusation of bad faith. Other recent talk page discussions e.g. here show the same pattern. Hut 8.5 13:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I've placed a second block, since Deicas has returned to the same pattern of antagonism aimed at other editors after the first block expired. They're now demanding that the block be lifted so they can make a complaint at ANI. Acroterion (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on their conduct on their user talkpage, at Talk:Brookings Institution, and at Talk:DE, I recommend that the topic ban remain, and maybe be broadened, or else follow the developing consensus for an indefinite block - there is no change in their conduct from 2013. They seem to be under the impression that if they make a particular set of demands, other editors will compelled to do as they wish, they will be immune to criticism, and the editors they see as antagonists will be sanctioned. Their repeated demands that editors respond to a set of scripted questions or demands for retraction, with claims that not responding as they wish is disruptive or defamatory, have occupied the whole of their recent editing. Talk:Deicas: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Talk:Brookings Institution: [8] [9] [10] [11] and most recently [12]. Talk:DE: [13] [14] [15] Acroterion (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For the sake of cutting off a potentially endless series of wikilawyered appeals, I'm recommending an indefinite community ban, with no possibility of review for at least a year. Acroterion (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    More of the same behavior. I'd support an indef block until they show some awareness of the issues with their editing. I wouldn't leap to a cban yet, per
    WP:ROPE. If they address the issues with their editing, commit to improve and still have the same editing problems then I'd support a cban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I've been extending rope for the past week, and there is no improvement since they were first topic-banned in 2013. I see no evidence that there will ever be a change. Acroterion (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, how I see it playing out is they get indeffed, show zero clue, and end up having their talk page access revoked rather than any unblock happening. I'm just wary of going straight to a cban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not had any success in persuading @Acroterion to quote my specific statements whence he justifies the the two blocks that he imposed on me. I've requested this evidence from @Acroterion repeatedly and @Acroterion has refused to provide it (diffs available on request). Absent knowledge of the specific statements, it is difficult for me to address the what I believe to be the impropriety of @Acroterion's bans.
    @Acroterion's repeated refusals to provide the requested information are inconsistent with my understanding of his duties as a Wikipedia administrator.
    As understand the matter, @ Acroterion's actions were due to his objections  to my well-evidenced assertions that @SPECIFICO was violating WP:DE by ""repeatedly disregard[ing] other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits".  At no time during this dispute, to my knowledge, did @Acroterion attempt to address @SPECIFICO's repeated disregard for my  "questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits".
    —Deicas (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that ain't it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have browsed some of their recent edits and I agree with the summaries above -- the pattern seems universal, and not at all affected by the 72-hour block. I would support an indefinite block. --JBL (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. This manner of discussion at Talk:George Floyd, both before and after the 72-hour block, and then refusing to drop the stick here is particularly concerning. Generalrelative (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Generalrelative: Per the Talk:George Floyd that you reference. Insofar as I understand Wikipedia policy, a demand to "drop the stick" is not a policy-based justification for deleting content from an article. Do i miss understand policy?
    As to the "refusing to drop the stick here is particularly concerning" — I refer you to my comments here — User talk:Drmies. Nb. "Closing the discussion is disruptive and is harmful to the process of obtaining consensus through discussion. [ WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS) "
    It is my understanding that a demand to "drop the stick" is not appropriate until a content dispute has been a resolve at the appropriate notice board(s). Am I misunderstanding the dispute resolution process?
    —Deicas (talk) 01:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The endless wikilawyering continues; there's more of it on my talk page, following what I thought was an act of mercy on Talk:George Floyd. I don't understand how they didn't realize that an indef block (or a community ban? take your pick) was not going to be the inevitable outcome of this kind of appeal. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Deicas has 190 article edits. A quarter of them are on
    Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation, now a redirect despite Deicas's 11 edits to the AfD and 18 edits to the talk page, and on Paul Krugman, from which they are topic-banned (and they made 97 edits to the Krugman talk page). I am trying to ascertain where the positive edits are. I now fully support an indef block. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Deny the removal of the topic ban, because obviously. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block and revoking their access to their talk page per the many well-argued comments supporting the necessity of such a sanction. It's the only and necessary way to protect the project from all the wikilawyering in multiple venues. It's all a huge timesink. -- Valjean (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IDHT behavior at BLPN which concerns this edit at Brookings Institution#Notable scholars. If I counted correctly, that section shows 19 notable scholars, most with a job description. The result of the disputed edit is that the last scholar has no job description other than "indicted Steele dossier source". Recent issues discussed at their talk start at User talk:Deicas#Paul Krugman and follow, with two recent blocks and an unblock request which I declined. I will post at their talk to remind them of this discussion and that it may conclude with an indefinite block or even a community ban, and that now would be a good time to review the discussions at various pages and state here whether any change in approach would be appropriate. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Standard offer : ElijahPepe

    standard offer play out. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    I'm often inclined to offer good faith on users who are genuinely following
    WP:ROPE. My one question is that you say he's been working on the npm article, but I only see that he copied the information in January, 2021, but I don't see any further edits to it. Not really a deal-breaker; if he's given an allocution and is willing to play by the rules, I have no major issues letting him back. --Jayron32 17:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I didn't catch that, thanks, but I think as long as he doesn't break 3RR while lobbing personal attacks at the other party, and there's been no socking, unblocking looks like a net positive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, a second chance should be given. Mjroots (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to a second chance, as long as we don't suspect there's been socking. —valereee (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Two years is more than enough time. It would've been even better if they made some edits on other projects in the meanwhile, but I see no reason to object an unblock. —
    call me maybe? 20:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Pinging User:ST47 - the blocking admin - to see if they have a strong opinion either way. WaggersTALK 15:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This user's contributions seem to consist of almost nothing other than welcome templates

    I noticed that User:MollyPollyRolly's recent contributions seem to consist of almost nothing other than (possibly automated) welcome messages to new users. This is either a warm and helpful service to mankind, or possibly an undeclared bot intended to obtain extended-confirmed status without actually doing the hard work.

    Administrators may wish to review this in order to determine if this is an acceptable use of Wikipedia, or indeed the correct circumstances to deploy the welcome templates. Salimfadhley (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Non-administrator comment) Extended confirmed status only requires 500 edits and this user has nearly 5000. AlexEng(TALK) 17:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked them from user and user talk namespaces indefinitely. It looks more like a
    WP:COMPETENCE thing than trying to game extended confirmed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Ritchie333 Just noting that MollyPollyRolly is a declared alt account of User:Filmomusico (see User talk:Filmomusico#August 2021). Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 18:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (
    WP:Welcoming Committee too while we're at it? What's the "competence" issue in somebody welcoming new users to Wikipedia? Please reconsider your userspace block. AlexEng(TALK) 18:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The user has been warned
    Klu Klux Klan and who was subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet), and here (again, cautioning them not to welcome users who might be disruptive socks), and then this ANI thread. Spamming one user talk page a minute with welcome templates is not constructive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    (edit conflict) So, they've been asked to stop welcoming users with 0 edits, and stop welcoming trolls, but as far as I can tell, they have. Where have they been asked to stop welcoming people at all? And why did you block from User: namespace, too? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We are here to write an encyclopedia, which they haven't been doing since 14 October. However, as per usual, any administrator is free to reverse any blocks I make without needing to consult me. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I also using the welcome twinkle to much? I don't want to get blocked in talk spaces The furret lover (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, your entire contribution does not contain evidence that you are here to build an encyclopedia. You are obviously here to do something else.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like they're using their alt account, User:Filmomusico to edit article-space. But that's almost besides the point. They were not asked to stop before being blocked. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've unblocked. That block was too quick, and therefore based on incomplete information, and rude. It appears "disruptive editing" has really lost all meaning on WP. As has "competence". Come on. I would go so far as to say Ritchie owes Filmomusico an apology. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think MollyPollyRolly should have been blocked, but I do think that the accounts should be declared on their userpages. Flmomusico was advised to do that and said they would.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Filmomusico has a pattern of saying they will comply with various guidelines, then not doing so; lather-rinse-repeat. DMacks (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that the importance of alt-account notices was already stressed back in August and September (on their user talk page after a short block), but that this still wasn't done for some reason... This suggests that DMacks' concern is valid. —PaleoNeonate – 01:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From
    WP:SOCK#NOTIFY: Except when doing so would defeat the purpose of having a legitimate alternative account, editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts.[emphasis mine] AlexEng(TALK) 19:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Salimfadhley: Not everyone who uses an account need to create a user page. Look at FloridaArmy for example.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed - user pages are usually optional. I do feel that in this case where a user operates multiple accounts for special purposes, it would be helpful to other editors to make the purposes of these accounts explicitly known. I think this is what @Bbb23 was saying above. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Filmomusico: Others may disagree, but if you really want to keep your user pages redlinked, a prominent note at the top of both of your user talk pages would be sufficient. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm all for welcoming 'new' editors to Wikipedia. But MPR is going to the extreme on this, don't ya'll think? GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't come here much but reading this over, is Assume Good Faith a thing here anymore? RxS (talk) 02:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: IF Filmomusico has a number of other un-announced accounts. Wouldn't those be socks? GoodDay (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just gonna note that Filmomusico got an unrelated 72 hour block during this discussiom. So, the Alt account maybe does matter a little more. Or not. Slywriter (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I'm the blocking admin, and I've been warning this editor previously for their conduct. For what it's worth, I can corroborate what Dmacks said above - the editor has a history of going right back to their bad habits. While I would normally not support blocking an editor who does nothing but welcome people, the editor has been bad about curbing their behavior in regards to unsourced editing and needless infobox tinkering, so I doubt they would have voluntarily curbed their welcoming activities either. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (
    WP:ALT has to be a policy before I follow it" and "until you add alt= to everywhere else there is an image on Wikipedia I don't think we should have to do this" (despite the fact both articles were articles Filmomusico had only changed the formatting of the other day). So everybody's warnings to both MPR and Filmomusico are going to come to naught because this formatting business is a replay of Filmomusico's behaviour from April of this year, and this warning over welcoming people who aren't here to build an encyclopedia will be something they choose to ignore too. They haven't learned a single thing after being told numerous times. The negotiating and tunnel-visioning on only one issue they've been warned about in their requests (pings to Serge) to be unblocked demonstrate this too. Ss112 02:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Ss112, removing whitespace is hardly a violation of TPO. The ANI thread was about them correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes. Sdrqaz (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enough. I've created userpages for both accounts with the required userboxes.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Cross our fingers, that there are no more alternate accounts. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruption by User:Benchu937711

    User blocked. WaggersTALK 15:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Five times in the past year, this user has edited to

    WP:NOTHERE applies. User previously reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1076#Disruptive_removal_of_content. Reywas92Talk 16:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    Odd behavior from two new accounts

    Can someone please check the behavior of the two accounts at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2. They aren't acting abusively, per se, just adding what looks like valid bibiliography entries for a bunch of architects. Something has my spidey-sense tingling however. Does anyone recognize this? --Jayron32 16:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jayron32 I was also somewhat intrigued by this, and asked the most recently active account about it. I have a feeling it’s an undeclared school project or something, having seen similar enough things before… firefly ( t · c ) 17:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to say that there's more than those two. Contribs links:
    • Yeah, it's good work, so I don't know that I am really looking to sanction anybody. I suspect this is a class project of some sort. Just wanted more eyes on it; I don't think based on behavior anyone needs to be blocked as yet, but when you see something weird it is always good to get some more feedback. Let us know if you hear anything back from your attempts to make contact. --Jayron32 17:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Will do :) firefly ( t · c ) 17:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    RSN closure challenge for ASPI

    A recent non administrative closure for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute entry on the reliable source noticeboard marked it as a marginally reliable source (wp:merl). Multiple editors including myself challenged this decision but our efforts to overturn it have so far been unsuccessful. The closer suggested we take this issue to the administrator’s noticeboard (wp:closechallenge) so I have brought the issue here

    These links provide the background information to the dispute. [18]

    [19]

    Pinging the editors who were involved in the post factum discussions.

    User:Mikehawk10 Estnot (talk) 14:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    • I guess I'm not clear on the distinction of "result" vs "close". I think the close message does not accurately reflect the result of the discussion. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The close reflects the result. You disagree with the result, ergo you dispute the close. But as Dennis notes above, there is no mechanism for relitigating the result. ——Serial 20:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse close as a fair and reasoned summary of the discussion reflecting the consensus. I think this is a fine NAC and even made an amendment based on a reasoned suggestion of another editor. I don’t think the discussion was particularly heated or controversial. Any edit dispute over at the ASPI article is completely irrelevant to an RFC on ASPI as a source. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Just adding as a response to some of the discussion above - I think "defence and strategic issues" is suitably (even too) broad to describe ASPI's area of expertise. Even if the close was narrower, I don't think drilling down on ASPI's work on China as "entirely factual" is appropriate although this is the work for which ASPI has received the most mainstream media coverage. An example I raised in the RfC was ASPI's China Defence Universities Tracker that was described by the AFR as controversial. ASPI does lots of work on far less controversial and eye-catching topics like climate and trade issues for Pacific Island nations that are regularly cited in academic works. I tend to agree with the editor above that Gret's main issue seems to be with the result and not the NAC. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Elmar Baxşəliyev re-blocked for copyright violations, 28 recent articles remain

    I have been notified about the first article in this list, which is a direct translation of http://www.anl.az/el/Kitab/2017/07/cd/Azf-250397.pdf , page 60, "105. Аrаtəpə nеkrоpоlu", and thus a

    copyright violation
    . Other articles may be unattributed translations of their azwiki counterparts (linked via Wikidata). The user had been blocked for this behavior before.

    I can't check all these articles for translation copyright violations. I'd personally be in favor of deleting them all via Special:Nuke/Elmar Baxşəliyev, but I expect opposition to this idea, so here's the list of work caused by not doing this. Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    These articles are new enough to not have talk pages. I would support nuking them. Nothing to be gained by wasting contributor time checking them before deleting them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't feel like checking them all either, but I can at least say this much: The necropolis articles were pretty much identical on the German and the English WP, and I checked the Billava one yesterday before it got deleted: Google Translate did a lousy job of translating from the original language, but it was quite clear that that was a copyvio from that source. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: As the user's name matches the author of the sources from which all the copyrighted content was apparently translated and pasted in, did anyone ask the user if these sources were written by them and pointing out that they still were unable to use their own writing on Wikipedia unless properly licenced? I suspect this is the situation here - not that it excuses anything, of course. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The last name being identical, this question has indeed been raised on the user's talk page on the German Wikipedia. The problem is that he apparently does not understand a word of German, so it's absolutely no use trying to communicate with him. His machine generated replies keep being something like "Thank you for your comment, I will try to watch my grammar better in the future".
    FYI, he has also been banned on Commons several times for uploading copyrighted material. He has now been using material uploaded by another (??) user that looks very much like copyrighted material to me too. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Thanks for that explanation. What a shame. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it would convert a "copyright violation" to a "violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy", I guess. To me personally, that does make an important difference especially when determining how problematic the behavior is, and how strict the response needs to be. I wasn't aware of this; I thought I had compared the names and didn't notice a similarity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we simply don't know what the relationship between the author of that source and this user is. They might be father and son, or brothers, or just two people who happen to have the same last name. Or it might be himself, using a different first name on Wikipedia, for whatever reason. --91.34.32.188 (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anyone is doing any clean-up on these, please add "in Azerbaijan" to the first line, which he never did! Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last time I blocked him it was for copying from English sources. Communication was difficult but I did think that the message got through eventually. At a guess, what's happened here is that he didn't realise translations were also covered by copyright, or that he assumed (correctly?) that it was fine to translate his own work from another source. I don't think we should nuke all these without some more investigation. Chalcolithic culture of Nakhchivan, for example, cites multiple sources. – Joe (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for posting this here
      CCI Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 17:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

    Suspecting a user of disruptive reverting

    Lets say I wrote 3 different things in one edit. the 2 things was a small one where I changed a word to another word. For example "many" to "a lot" the other was an edit that needed a reliable source. does that make someone having the needs to undo the whole thing instead of just removing it manually?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaaBaaTheSheep (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is presumably about [20], and is not appropriate for this noticeboard, perhaps try
    WP:TEAHOUSE instead. Also pinging @Magnolia677:. --JBL (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Kyle Rittenhouse

    The Kyle Rittenhouse verdict was just returned. I suggest folks might want to keep an eye on Kenosha unrest shooting and related articles for a while. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request

    WP:3X. I am forwarding their statement from their talk page. They state that they no longer have the password to the User:Tariq afflaq account, so I told them to use User talk:Whatsupkarren
    . I'm posting this here as a clerical procedure since they can't post directly to this page; I offer no opinion on whether they should be unblocked or not.

    statement

    My salutations, After more than 6 months, I would like to appeal my ban, I didn’t use any account for editing in any way on English Wikipedia, I’m not using any account on Wikipedia other than this one, and have no intention of creating any others. and would like to apologize for all my previous actions.

    I will describe what happened to me: I was first blocked for a few hours for edit warring and failing to gain consensus on a major change, I was totally unaware of any wiki policy, didn’t know what's sockpuppetry, ( I must say that the blame is on me for not familiarizing myself with wiki policies ), I'm not saying that it's simply because of me being unaware of the policies, I repeat that I take responsibility for my actions, When my original account Tariq afflaq was blocked, I immediately created a sock ( George51725w5218 ) and came to the same talk page that I was talking in and provided some sources to support my claim ( again I wasn’t familiar with WP:SOCK ) then I was blocked, at first my actions weren’t intended to break the rules I didn’t know them, I did later and continued being abusive and I own up to it, I was extremely arrogant, and I think the ban was very needed to me, it taught me a hard lesson, and I genuinely promise to avoid the behavior that led me to be blocked/banned. I understand what I was blocked/banned for, sockpuppetry ( I should not create and use account(s) to avoid sanctions, mislead etc even if justified ), Edit warring: (Disagreements should be resolved through discussion & no POV pushing, also when I’m reverted, I must follow the standard process WP:BRD and try to seek agreement from other editor or WP:consensus, etc), gaming the system, using improper language ( I promise that I’ll remain civil, polite, courteous when interacting with other editors, via edit summaries, talk page etc, and I will refrain from responding in a hostile manner when concerns are raised, and I’ll never cause damage or disruption again Regarding my activities in the last six months: I’ve created more than 50 articles on Arabic and French Wikipedias, if you want to see the full list please tell me.

    I think the ban is no longer needed because I understand what I was blocked for and I will not do it again, I promise that I will only contribute positively and follow all Wikipedia policies, and I’ll make useful contributions, especially in articles about the Near Eastern History and culture, I hope this appeal addresses all of your concerns. thank you. Whatsupkarren (talk) 2:19 pm, Today (UTC−5)

    -- RoySmith (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Epbr123

    I could use y'all's help: I've never dealt with a compromised account before. I need a CU as well. Ritchie333, this one tried to log in as you as well. I'm sure someone knows who this is. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the situation is resolved now. The account is blocked, globally locked, and desysopped. Usually, account compromises happen when users share username/password combinations between Wikipedia and websites that have been breached. I suppose this is as good time as any to remind administrators to ensure that their Wikipedia passwords are unique to Wikipedia and that
    two-factor authentication is enabled on their accounts. Mz7 (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Level 1 desysop of Epbr123

    Under

    the Level 1 desysopping procedures, the administrator permissions of Epbr123 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
    ) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

    Supporting: CaptainEek, Casliber, Maxim For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 02:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level 1 desysop of Epbr123

    Trying to Determine if a Page was Deleted

    Hi there. About a year ago I seem to recall reading an article in English which now apparently only exists in Japanese (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%81%E5%8F%A5%E8%A6%B3%E9%9F%B3%E7%B5%8C), Chinese (https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%81%E5%8F%A5%E8%A7%80%E9%9F%B3%E7%B6%93), and Dutch (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanmingshiju_Guanyinjing). I put the Japanese version through Google Translate and it looked similar to what I remembered reading. Is there a way for an admin to check if there was an English version that was deleted? I'm not 100% sure what the English version of the article would have been called (perhaps "Yanmingshiju Guanyinjing" or "Shiju Guanyinjing" or "Jukku Kannongyō"), and for this reason I couldn't find a way to simply search for the article title, but perhaps it can be located based on the versions in other languages. I know that to request undeletion I would need to go elsewhere, but first I just need to confirm that I am remembering correclty. Thanks so much! DJLayton4 (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There has never been an article on en-Wiki under the title Yanmingshiju Guanyinjing. Mjroots (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another place to look for this sort of hint is wikidata:Q2855249, which has no links in its history. — xaosflux Talk 17:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for the help and quick replys! It seems I am mis-remembering after all! I assume the Wikidata approach is probably pretty definitive, although the English title could have been rendered in a variety of ways. Although the Dutch version is "Yanmingshiju Guanyinjing," the current Chinese version would be romainzed "Shijuguanyinjing" (the spaces or lack thereof between words being somewhat arbitarty in romanizations) and the Japanese version would read "Jukkukannongyō." Other possibilities are "Shiju guanyinjing" (with spaces) or "Jukku kannongyo" (with spaces) or the longer Japanese title "Enmei Jukku Kannongyo." Would it be possible to check these? I apologize for asking, but just want to be sure so as not to reinvent the wheel or run into the same potential deletion issue if I make this article. Thanks! DJLayton4 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those have existed, either. One doesn't need to be an admin to check whether a page has ever existed; just go to create a page with a particular title, and if a page with that title has previously been deleted, there will be a record of that above the edit window. Deor (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Djlayton4: To see if a page has been deleted go to Special:log and enter the page title into the "target" box. If it's been deleted it'll show up in the list of actions. 192.76.8.75 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent, good to know. Thank you all very much! DJLayton4 (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Djlayton4 you could also try searching https://deletionpedia.org/ -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unban request from Hulged (Wahhid)

    Ban remains in effect. Although there was some support for lifting the ban, there was no firm consensus. Hulged/Wahhid is free to contest the ban once six months have passed, no sooner than 2022-05-24. --Yamla (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hulged, who appears to be banned under

    WP:3X originally as Wahhid, is requesting their ban be lifted. The block on both accounts was placed by Drmies and the de-facto ban was noted by Blablubbs. You can see the sockpuppet investigations at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wahhid/Archive and with my checkuser glasses, I see no recent evidence of block evasion. Their request follows. --Yamla (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Hi. Please assume good faith while reading this. I am

    talk
    ) 13:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

    • Hulged appealed the block to ArbCom in April 2021, which was declined largely on the grounds of recent socking. In such cases, we generally ask that appellants wait at least six months before attempting another appeal. However, Hulged appealed again about two weeks after the initial appeal, which was summarily declined. Hulged then appealed in early August 2021; this appeal was quickly declined as well based on a combination of concerns, mostly
      IDHT and it not yet being October, and this point, the clock was reset to another six months (eligible in February 2022). There was again an appeal at the end of August, and then at the end of October. ArbCom decisions like such don't preclude the community from reversing the ban now, but I think this information is of interest. ArbCom is at a point where we don't respond to further emails from this user on the matter largely because of IDHT issues. Maxim(talk) 19:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Youch. Thanks for the additional context. I was not aware of this. --Yamla (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm far too soft (and am unlikely to have to deal with the fallout) but I suspect this person will be a net positive if restored based on their work on other Wikis. But I'll defer to folks with more experience with similar issues and this specific person. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Support - Their contributions to other Wikimedia projects is enough to convince me that their return will be a net positive. Although their IDHT behaviour as pointed out by Maxim is concerning. —
      call me maybe? 22:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Just another timesink. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, as they have made substantial crosswiki contributions.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Maxim, waste of our time. Sandstein 07:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Maxim. Forum shopping like this shouldn't be encouraged. – Joe (talk) 08:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - per Maxim and Joe. We should not be encouraging forum shopping and given their interactions with ArbCom it appears that this user will simply waste the community’s precious time. firefly ( t · c ) 10:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Although I don't doubt their commitment towards not abusing further multiple accounts, the information raised by Maxim about their appeals to ArbCom does give me pause. For context, I was the adopter of Hulged before sockpuppetry was found. Their cross-wiki contributions do suggest that this user will, if unblocked, be likely a net positive for the community. However, I do understand and partly share the concerns raised by the oppose voters. On the balance of the information given I am supporting an unban because I feel that, due to this user's constructive contributions on other wikis, giving them a second chance is more likely to benefit the encyclopedia than harm it. However, if the community decides to unban I would like to see it as a last chance. I would also be willing to adopt again Hulged if they are unbanned. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query @
      Hulged: I am interested in hearing your response to the issues raised in your past appeals by ARBCOM. My reading of it makes me concerned that even if you don't abuse multiple accounts again, you won't react well in the event of differing issues arising - an "I don't hear you" attitude is dangerous in any discussion. Your cross-wiki work makes me willing to ask you for your thoughts. I'll watchlist your talk page and copy across any relevant answer. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The response:' Hi Nosebagbear. Everything Maxim said is true. The first appeal was declined on the grounds on recent socking and I was told to adhere to the
        talk
        ) 16:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I state this with the general intention of clarifying the timeline (and specifically, to comment on "they didn't replied"): ArbCom replied/commented on 5 Aug that further appeals would not be considered before Feb 2022. This was reiterated in a reply following a 30 Aug appeal, in which we also specified that further appeals before that time would be ignored. Thus, only their 28 Oct appeal was ignored.
          That being said, if the community feels that the somewhat overzealous attempts at appealing to ArbCom are worth overlooking, I have no issues with that; personally the socking was my largest concern, which seems to have abated. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Anyone that needs a policy that explains VOAs are bad should not be editing here. Tiderolls 12:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I don't think it's likely that the user will repeat the mistake that got them blocked (i.e. sockpuppetry). Their contributions to places like simplewiki look productive and suggest that the user can be a net positive. They can be blocked again if there are any future IDHT concerns. On an unrelated note, why was arbcom considering an unblock request if they were 3X banned - do they have the power to overturn such bans? Pahunkat (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      See Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Handling of ban appeals. As this block is labelled as a CU block, that part can be reviewed by ArbCom. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Maxim and IDHT concerns. I'm not seeing enough reform to override the reset of the block. If the situation is the same in Feb, count me as a support. Buffs (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Suggested rewording of Restoration of adminship

    Please see

    WT:ADMIN#Suggested rewording of Restoration of adminship for a topic that may be of interest. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    User:Xezbeth

    I have taken the trouble to report my case from Meta-wiki here, the articles related to international actors or actresses that I have recently edited was that when I realized that I was separating the terms for example; "voice actor" covered all the work as an actor and even changed and improved most articles of celebrities who had already obtained citizenship before (I mean a certain Peter Wingfield) or that Japanese voice actors had already appeared in series and drama films (for example Mao Ichimichi, Mamoru Miyano or Aoi Yūki) the fact that the occupations that you gather in Wikidata goes only first, not everything, because in the short description there it says so, but I notified you on your discussion page in Wikidata about the same theme and kept hinting that I'm only still guided by the first occupation mentioned in both articles, which was the wrong approach ad normal, she decided to behave like that in that way by treating me like an IP vandal that I am and I am not true. Xezbeth keeps reverting all my edits both here and on Wikidata itself (For example: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97) and even threatened to block all my IPs that I use because, according to her, nothing else here I vandalize by just correcting all the mess that those same IPs of unknown origin that they did during that time If I did not do anything vandalism, what I could not say is that she had to revert the last stable version most of the article that always separated the occupations of the actors and follow the example of abiding by what it said in the short description about inclusion of biographical data do not put them all together, it is uncomfortable for me also I do not understand anything about it. 179.52.200.192 (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This really belongs at ANI, but I've notified Xezbeth for the IP.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @力: That cannot be, she should see my non-vandalism current review before reversing the amount of articles that I have altered on international voice actors (including Japan) which is why I wanted to separate the two professions that I used to confuse, I mean to this and it is also in Wikidata here but it is also not vandalized because of the edit filter that was detected when it was triggered. 179.52.200.192 (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Failed login attempts

    I've just changed (and upgraded) my password after being automatically notified of 18 50+ failed login attempts over the last few hours. Just thought I'd report this lest anyone else is experiencing a similar attempt to access their admin account. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It could be someone working through one of the many hacked-password sites that list username/password pairs that have been extracted from hacked websites. Or, it could be a troll. Providing people use a good and unique password (never used anywhere else), there is no need to worry until you get millions of failed login attempts. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Not sure whether related or not, but it would probably worth to look at this discussion: Jeppiz#Your account. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 07:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, both, for those pointers. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's #Level 1 desysop of Epbr123 too. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A checkuser can determine if a particular IP is trying and failing to log into someone's account. But without knowing the IP, and only having the name of the target account it's impossible to make progress. A Mediawiki improvement might be considered that would allow the identity of the IP attacking the account to be found. The WMF might consider implementing T174388. EdJohnston (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nick Moyes: Welcome to the club. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock Puppetry accusations from User talk:Snackmurat

    Closed as requested. Snackmurat has removed the warnings, so are aware of how to report users as socks in the future. The sockpuppetry alleged by Snackmurat was found through CU evidence to be the case and the SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alivahedian. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 01:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

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

    I recently came across an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamibekami) which will easily be deleted. The nominator, Snackmurat, in the nomination accused JackJons7 of being a sockpuppetry account. I then non-template warned Snackmurat about not doing personal attacks, i.e. calling another editor a sock account without proof, with a suggestion to remove the accusation. The response from Snackmurat was "Sock puppet. Meat puppet. Member of the same troll farm. Whatever the proper term may be, I stand by my claim. These accounts and IP addresses are working in concert.". After Snackmurat's response, I dropped a level 2 no personal attack template on his talk page [27], which was removed by Snackmurat with the edit summary of "I know what I said. And don't give a damn about your toothless warning. They are sock accounts. End of story.".

    Even after a non-template request and a template warning, Snackmurat continued the accusations in edit summaries, which cannot be edited. Any chance an admin can check on Snackmurat's sock claims as well as officially warn Snackmurat for the personal attacks?

    talk) 00:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    Closing overdue AFD

    done 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Could any capable sysop be so kind as to assist in closing this AFD? It has been opened since Nov 2 & was brought to my attention by my colleague Cordless Larry who noted that this revert I made might be the reason it hasn’t been closed accordingly yet. I’d appreciate it , if any one of you all capable hands could be of help here. Celestina007 (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Mass killings under communist regimes content resolution

    At the beginning of November, a

    Heymann
    close will happen. Either the article should be kept, more or less as is, and then improved at DRN, or the article should be deleted. If it is deleted, there may be other ideas as to articles to take its place.

    I don't think that any new administrative action is needed. I don't think that any of the editors are being disruptive. In seven days, the needed administrative action will be a close or a relist. I would like to know whether my understanding is correct that the AFD takes precedence over other content resolution mechanisms. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert McClenon, I see no reason why the two processes cannot continue concurrently. If the article is deleted, then other discussions might be moot, but I think this is the fourth bite at the apple. That in itself is a bit unusual. What I truly do not understand is why this matter needs to be discussed at WP:AN. Cullen328 (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Cullen, I think RMC was very clear why he brought it here: he is seeking the input of administrators or other experienced editors on the topic I would like to know whether my understanding is correct that the AFD takes precedence over other content resolution mechanisms. --JBL (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. What I thought was unusual was that one editor asked that the AFD be suspended to allow the DRN to be completed (but the DRN may spawn one or more RFCs, and the DRN may take a few months). I am also asking for an administrator to take a quick look at the AFD to see whether, in their opinion, anyone needs to be warned. The back-and-forth exchanges are becoming
    too long, difficult to read. I wasn't asking for discussion so much as for some admin attention. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    User:ManaliJain

    Duplicate post at ANI#User:ManaliJain, which is the more appropriate venue for this kind of issue. (non-admin closure) Rummskartoffel 16:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is an issue with respect to this account user. It seems they are following

    WP: COI in the article Ankit Gupta. They are constantly inserting unreliable sources such as "the bulletin times" as these [28] & [29]
    in the subject's article. When someone is removing them saying they are unreliable, they are being adamant to have these sources in the subject's article and constantly reverting the other editors edits giving a vague and invalid reason Unconstructive and disruptive editing. Plus, they have inserted the same unreliable sources twice or thrice in the article. They're not even allowing the others to remove the extra unwanted unreliable sources and improve the article. Please check all the diffs between: [30] and [31]. Can someone please stop them from constantly causing
    WP:COI type of editing in Ankit Gupta. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.246.86.28 (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

    Likely case of block evasion

    The IP address

    ✉ 07:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Appeal for change of restrictions

    Withdrawn by OP. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is a request for an alteration to my current editing restrictions. I would like for the first part of my restrictions to be amended to "The C of E is banned from proposing DYKs on topics related to politics on the Island of Ireland and LGBTQ topics". The reason I ask is that I recognise my behaviour in the past was inflammatory and I was engaging in being provocative on some controversial topics just for my own amusement, which I now realise I was wrong about and I apologise for this. I recognise the hurt I caused editors and for that I too apologise.

    I would like to have the chance to prove I have reformed by a minor loosening of the restrictions to demonstrate the change and maturity that has come on since the restrictions were imposed. I recognise that editors might not be willing to trust me on Irish topics for the moment, but I would like the chance to be able to propose DYKs based on British legislation and Christian churches and hymns again which I am currently unable to do. I will be willing to submit to an immediate recall of restrictions in 6 months if at any point, any admin feels I have crossed the line. Thank you for your consideration. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • As I explained in the nominations, It's a historical piece of music yes with an abhorrant title but it is a revealing snippet of life in America back then. It wasn't there to be provocative. I even made sure I watered down the mentions in the article (only in the lead sentence) and proposed alt hooks without mentioning that word. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per
      WP:ROPE, I may be willing to see a voluntary mentorship option. If C of E can find a sponsor who will independently review their main page nominations for appropriateness before they are posted, then perhaps we have a path forward for loosening restrictions. To be clear, I am in no way volunteering for such a role, but some kind of "supervised release" may be a path forward here, if someone wants to take this on. --Jayron32 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
    • Oppose per Joe Roe, and the reply below that. If you don't understand what stirring the pot is, you don't need to be submitting for anything on the front page. As Jayron32 said in the previous failed appeal, they have "spent years conducting breaching experiments designed to get provocative content on the main page" and the Watermelon song is just more proof of that. Since the purpose of a sanction isn't to benefit the individual, but to restore order to the community, it is a no brainer to keep the current restriction, perhaps indefinitely, as the reply above clearly shows that breaching is either in their nature, or they lack good judgement overall. Either way, we don't need the hassles on the front page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose especially in light of the request to nominate topics on legislation. Given that one of the more deliberately-provocative nominations that led to these restrictions was about a piece of legislation, I'm not confident that even limiting it to British entries wouldn't be an out for further disruption. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Grapple X: With respect, that wasn't legislation. That was a court case. But if I am granted the opportunity to prove I have changed, that particular kind of article would still be covered under the amended restrictions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Joe and Dennis. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Joe, I would have been more likely to support had it not been for that egregious bit of nonsense which showed that nothing whatsoever had been learned (and I suggested a possible relaxation last time). Black Kite (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose per Joe & Grapple, perhaps another six months of keeping your nose clean and try again? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawn Fine, I see where this is going. I am disappointed but I see I have no choice but to withdraw my request here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    ANI archive fix

    Hi, just hoping someone could help out figure out/fix what is currently wrong on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084 that I am unable to determine myself.

    Something occurred between this edit and this edit that caused a whole bunch of mess up to be in a closed topic together, from 'Babydoll9799' to 'Christopher1968 - communication problems'

    Any help fixing this would be greatly appreciated, thanks in advance. Magitroopa (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I found an unclosed nowiki tag. Closed and the rest of the markup is good now. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I found what happened. The BabyDoll discussion had an open nowiki tag on it which went undetected by the markup software until another archived discussion was added that had nowiki tags again. This caused the markup stuff to go wonky as it appears the routine that would stall out on an unclosed tag was restarted again, causing the previously unclosed tag to cause problems. At first I thought it was an error with the bot but I now think not. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at
    WP:UAA

    The page is rapidly filling up, HBC AIV helperbot5 dutifully posted a notice, but to no avail... So... Pretty please with a cherry on top? Kleuske (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion - deleted previously via AFD

    I normally wouldn't post this here, but I tagged novaPDF and DexOS for speedy deletion as G4 over 24 hours ago. It would be helpful to know if I need to take these two articles to AfD instead. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • SL93, I don't really think the current versions are identical to the deleted ones, so I removed your tags. Fun fact--from a quick look it seems like the deleted versions were actually better than the current ones... Drmies (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1056946572"