Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive346

I was blocked by admin El_C on 16 February 2022 and was unblocked by Deepfriedokra on 7 March 2022 with conditions All new article creations through AfC and vetted by AfC before main spacing. One edit per day per AfD thread. And please, avoid losing your temper/ being rude/ making personal attacks/not assuming good faith when under stress..
Following the restriction, I have created 94 articles "vetted by AfC" out of which a 32KB+ article

About my stubs/starts of

I, truly understand that the restrictions imposed on me might not be uplifted. I honor all decisions of the Admins and I am following their advice. Despite my conversations with @Deepfriedokra on their talk page, I have changed my mind to come here for consideration.

To date, I am building Wiki with mostly citations on unsourced articles. I guess my citation work helped Wiki, though I might not be correct.

But restriction for all articles "vetted by AfC" is a bit of an extra hammer for my

Hence I appeal to remove some restrictions imposed by admin @Deepfriedokra. For example,

Also creating articles through AfC, I have learned the method of AfC reviewer, which I want to apply. Further, I declare that, whatever the outcome will be here, I shall continue with it. Regards _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral I've received negative feedback from users I trust on removing the AfC requirement in particular, so I sent NT4M here.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  PS> Almost forgot. AfC reviewer is and will be a hard no. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Based on talk page messages, it looks like the last AfC rejection was in June with many accepted since then. I don't know all ^{(actually, I'm not sure I know any of the background that lead to the AfC requirement)} the background here but, assuming I'm not missing something, the AfC requirement seems to be a waste of reviewer time. PhantomTech[talk] 09:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) @PhantomTech whatever AfC draft I failed to complete, I gave up. Every draft is evident of it. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 09:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  If the issue that caused the AfC requirement was creating articles that were effectively drafts in article space then I'd at the very least support allowing NeverTry4Me to self-publish their own drafts once they feel they are ready. Again, I don't know the background, but based on talk page notifications for AfC submissions it seems NeverTry4Me is capable of creating articles that meet Wikipedia's standards and determining when those standards are met. PhantomTech[talk] 09:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  @PhantomTech If you're going to look at their talk page messages you need to check the page history. Nevertry4me keeps the messages where their drafts have been accepted and deletes the declines without archiving. They had a draft declined yesterday [1] but deleted the notice with the edit summary - clean-up, nothing important [2]. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (Non-administrator comment) IP vote? Sometimes AfC reviewers skips

  WP:NPOL which is you are talking about. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯

  10:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I checked for declines by searching edit summaries in the last 500 talk page edits, or at least that's what I thought I did. Clearly I did something wrong because not only did I miss the September 7th decline but there was also a decline in July. I have no idea what I did that caused me to miss those but I was under the impression that of the last 500 edits to the talk page, there was only one AfC decline and it was in June. Thank you for pointing this out to me. PhantomTech[talk] 10:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm hesitant to make another claim about accepted/denied AfC drafts, but it looks like the submission decline rate since July has still been low at 2-3%. There seems to be a very sudden drop off in declined drafts around the end of June/beginning of July which could mean that whatever issue was causing the declines has been resolved. That said, I'll reiterate that I don't know the background here, and also note that I've only commented about the AfC restriction so far. Assuming that there's no reason to think that article quality will significantly decline, the AfC requirement question seems to be: is it worth requiring AfC reviewers to review 50-100 draft stubs and frustrating the author to keep one that may not meet

  WP:GNG out of mainspace? PhantomTech[talk

  ] 11:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Weakly Leaning Oppose. I think that independent review of your articles is probably still a good thing and a worthwhile exercise. I don't think your English language skills are quite at the level required to be writing new articles directly in main space, e.g. the sentence About my stubs/starts of WP:NPOL and WP:GEOLAND - I had no other options left to be "an editor as WP:HERE". from your appeal doesn't make any sense. There's also been some other editing by you that raises
  WP:CIR questions in my opinion, e.g. your constant attempts at hat collecting and requesting user rights that you don't qualify for and in many cases don't even seem to understand [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11], your attempt to become an AFC reviewer while banned from creating articles [12] and your recent block for violating this topic ban by accepting your own articles at AFC. I certainly don't think you are in a position at the moment where you should be becoming an AFC reviewer. The AFD restriction definitely needs to remain since we have had recent issues with you bludgeoning discussions here even despite the topic ban [13] and likewise And please, avoid losing your temper/ being rude/ making personal attacks/not assuming good faith when under stress... is clearly still necessary given your response to your most recent block. 192.76.8.74 (talk
  ) 11:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  Is a topic ban on requesting permissions an option? Their apparent obsession with headwear is silly and a waste of time. – ².O.^Boxing 11:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm curious about this. Is NT4M emailing editors to imply they'll be blocked for being on the wrong end of an AFD decision? As for the lifting of restrictions and wanting to review AFC submissions, the declined article is evidence that NT4M needs more experience. They seem to be under the impression GNG can be ignored if NPOL is satisfied. – ².O.^Boxing 11:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding your ref, you should appreciate that I have helped the article The Sporting Age without !vote on the deletion discussion. I have added refs that helped to survive the article. Was that my fault? _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You're avoiding the question. No-one here is asking about whether you added references to the article, you are being asked if you were emailing threats to other editors to try to influence an AFD discussion. @MPGuy2824 as the recipient of the email you should probably be aware of this discussion. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Pinging MPGuy2824 for a clearer consensus. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I shall stop here for a consensus. The AFC reviewers and NPP who reviewed my accepted articles "vetted by AFC" will answer my capability. I am not going to ping any Admin, reviewers, or NPP for it. Let them decide. I shall follow the final decision. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I checked back through my mail, and that quote from the mail, is accurate, so i'm not entirely sure what else to do here. Personally, I didn't take it as a threat, but more of a friendly "take note". Side note: I monitor new Indian articles and have come across a few of NT4M's village article creations. They are quite acceptable even before the AfC reviewer touches them. Given that, I like Tamzin's suggestion below of repealing the ban, but tentatively for 6 months. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

That email is certainly troubling and inappropriate and is a good example of why I should not remove the 1 edit per day AfD restriction unilaterally. Since I'm deferring, I'll let y'all decide what to do with it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra MPGuy2824 already clarified. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose no reason shown for why he can't use AFC despite not wanting to. The backlog claims are weak. There's no reason he has to have live articles (which require cleanup anyway) right now. Unclear communication style present even in this discussion. If this is ultimately accepted, he cannot have NPP. Articles need too many eyeballs. Star Mississippi 15:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  further lack of communication skills. At User_talk:Deepfriedokra#Is_the_partial_removal_request_ok?, NT4M said I have decided to go to WP:AN. Despite your suggestion, I did so. Please pardon me for that. when what @Deepfriedokra actually said was When the admin who placed a restriction declines to remove it, the next step in the process is for the appellant to ask the Community at WP:AN I think NT4M means well, but lacks the English language communication skills to create articles without external review. It's the poor communication skills that have unfortunately led to many of their prior visits to these boards. Star Mississippi 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  (Le sigh.) I think I only said to take it here like three times, but who is counting? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Having blocked NT4M last month for violating this sanction, I don't love the idea of repealing a sanction someone violated so recently. That said, sanctions should be preventative rather than punitive, and I don't see a lot of evidence that this AfC requirement is currently necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. That's all somewhat speculative, though, so where I come down is: Support suspension of AfC requirement, with any uninvolved admin allowed to reïmpose for the next 6 months. The suspended sanction would be listed at
  WP:EDR for those 6 months. If it were not reïmposed by the end of those 6 months, it would be considered fully repealed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}
  ] (she|they|xe) 00:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) as per admin
  WP:NPOL (for which my AfC was never declined or rejected)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverTry4Me (talk • contribs
  )

It's not really clear to me what you are trying to say but if you are suggesting the use of the checkuser tool on the IP, that's not going to happen. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@NeverTry4Me This is written in such poor English it is essentially incomprehensible. I am a long term IP editor and I have never had an account. Either provide some actual evidence of sock puppetry (Which you won't find, because it doesn't exist) instead of the "this person edits as an IP so they must be a sock" nonsense, or redact your allegations of misconduct. If I have misunderstood what you are appealing it is most likely because your appeal is written in broken, mangled English with large sections making no sense. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say, NT4M. But regardless of whether I made a grammatical error, I am not the only one who has said they can't understand you. Accusing others of socking and wikilawyering is not the path out of this. Star Mississippi 20:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Given the personal attacks above, after a warning for the same in their unblock, I have blocked NT4M indefinitely. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

(FWIW, if they wind up getting unblocked, believe it or not I stand by my !vote above. The content stuff was always the least of the issues here.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for handling this. Unfortunately I think this is preventative-for their own editing ability. We aren't supposed to have cooldown blocks but this is far from the first time their frustration has gotten the best of them and I think this is the only route to this (potentially) ending well. Star Mississippi 22:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello.Some editors delete texts and refrences at this article and make a lot of pointless edits. پخش مطلب (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Georgia (country) is where you want to go to discuss content disputes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken .The user removes contents.Look at this edition. is not it Vandalism? the user has removed the sources along with a large amount of content.پخش مطلب (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

No, this is not vandalism. Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a

agreement cannot be reached. -- Deepfriedokra (talk

) 10:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone know what the obsession is with this talk page? Since 9 March the talk page has been protected 5 times and 95 revisions and edit summaries hidden. A bit much for a talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Is protecting a talk page for a 190 days a good idea. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It looks like that IPs/new accounts are posting lyrics there from all the revdels that I saw. I'd say it's justified. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

See ja:LTA:SASHO. I've given up trying to understand ja LTA obsessions. There's about 4 or 5 articles (+talk pages) of interest, which you can find by following the socks. Having previously protected some of these pages, I think it's probably unavoidable. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

As part of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, the Arbitration Committee decided to request community comments on issues related to mass nominations at Articles for Deletion in a discussion to be moderated and closed by editors appointed by the committee.

KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs), RoySmith (talk · contribs), and TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) are appointed as closers for this discussion. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks the closers for accepting their appointments and assisting the community in holding this discussion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Request for comment closers appointed

• Funk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Isebito (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• StephenCezar15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am having a problem with this article involving a certain user. Isebito is inserting his personal view into the article involving the stylistic origins section. He is using one source to support his claim jazz fusion and "black rock" (a racist, derogatory term used to undermine black music) is part of the stylistic origins of funk even though it clearly isn't. I have used multiple sources to dispute his claim yet he continues to insult me telling me that I am inserting my personal view into the article and I need to prove that his source is incorrect. He's not using the information correctly to justify his reasoning. I have more to explain here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Funk - under disputing new edits

I need someone to help me out with this situation. I'm sick and tired of arguing with this boy. StephenCezar15 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

"Boy"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I see nothing on that user's pages to indicate their age or their gender -- the gender template returns "they". Since they've been editing for 15 years, if they started editing at the ridiculously early age of 5 y.o. they would be 20 by now, so "boy" hardly seems appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. @

AGF that you come from a cultural background (such as South Asia) where referring to an adult as a "boy" is acceptable, but please know that in much of the English-speaking world it is considered quite offensive, and in particular in the United States it has strong racial connotations. Please do not refer to any editor as "boy" again. Also, please do not assume that editors are male. There are, in fact, some of us who are not. See Wikipedia:Editors' pronouns § Editor-specific practices for information on how to see an editor's gender, if they have specified one. (As BMK notes, Isebito has not.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}

] (she|they|xe) 00:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I apologize. I will not do it again. StephenCezar15 (talk) 00:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The whole world isn't America, I don't see how the use of "boy" in this conversation is problematic. Why would one assume racial connotations to begin with? This user is the one calling out the racist and derogatory terms by another user. "much of the English-speaking world", in what other English varieties is "boy" considered "quite offensive"? If anything it seems to me like "boy" is used by @StephenCezar15 to highlight a user's immaturity. Sprucecopse (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Either way boy is not a term to use to refer to A) a user who is clearly an adult based on their length of edit history and B) an editor who has never indicated their gender preference and is therefore pushing a presumption of gender on someone. Either way, it's not an acceptable term. Canterbury Tail talk 21:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• On the substance of the message, this seems like a content dispute and StephenCezar15 and Isebito should consider the options at WP:Dispute resolution, including taking the issue to the talk page of a relevant WikiProject or obtaining a third opinion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I'll try over there. StephenCezar15 (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  The key thing is to get the opinions of others and see what the consensus is. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Given the current state of User talk:Pinakpani, I think a review is in order. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In short 15 articles are currently at AfD/PROD, previous discussions excluded. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to pull it at this time - he seems to do alright with some of his movie articles, and at least one of the new AfDs has been sourced and is heading for keep. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

For example, see the original creation of Sankar Das Banerji. Seems serviceable enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed this editor's contributions in any real depth. However, for me the bar for autopatrol is higher than "alright with some of his... articles". Merely having a good sense of notability is not, in my view, enough to get autopatrol. That said I agree with you that the creation of Banrji looks fine to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

What's the script used to highlight (or otherwise indicate) that a user is an admin? Primefac (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:User_scripts/List#User_information - the top few in the list. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Primefac: I have been using User:PleaseStand/User info since a few years now. It doesnt highlight/colour-code the username though. But it shows the user groups on user, and user talk page, as well as in pop-ups. On user/talk page, it also shows age of account, total edits, and "last edit XYZ time ago". You should take a look at User:Usernamekiran/common.js, very few, but useful scripts there. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Try User:Theopolisme/Scripts/adminhighlighter.js Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks all! Primefac (talk) 08:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Before reporting, let me confess that this might not be the best place to report socks, but there is quite a heavy and disruptive "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akshay Singh Rajput Thakur" sock farm going around which is getting away with disruptive edits, creating pages from third-rate sources about battles and sieges that no decent scholar attested to.

• One of the suspected sock Suryansh Rathore was reported on 25 August 2022; (Special:MobileDiff/1106533240) although, no administraitor, check user paid attention to it.
• Please check edit history of
  Chandelas as well and editng pattern is exactly same (edit summaries, referencing, pushing for prefered version) with prior three CU confirmed socks of Akshay Singh Rajput Thakur
  .
• At last, I put up a number of substantial evidences on a talk page of RoySmith (as SPI hasn't produce anything); (take a look here on this section of RoySmith's talk page)

• There are possibly a dozen socks of this user which are roaming around, though they are getting away with it. Suryansh Rathore, Arty.mishra and Jhaprashant948 and many other identical users are roaming around as well, (Special:Contributions/Suryapratap_Chand) like this ?
• I am not editing caste related pages of late, but this is quite serious disruption now, which caught my attention yesterday.

I request any administraitor to just briefly go through my report here where I mentioned about the exact similaities even at Wikimedia Commons. Please block these accounts as the SPI is literally stale now. Thanks. ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Bonadea: for response who reported last series of socks in April-May: (Special:MobileDiff/1094036789) and (Special:MobileDiff/1092684426). ∆ P&t ♀√ (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There is definitely some kind of sockpuppetry / meatpuppetry going on, but if there isn't any, these accounts should be blocked for adding fake refs. Just wasted nearly an hour checking around 10 or so references cited by Suryansh Rathore - not one of them supports the content being cited. I only dropped a warning on the user's talk page, because I've been

WP:INVOLVED with some of the articles, but if this continues, I won't hesitate in enforcing a permanent block. utcursch | talk

07:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Utkarshraj Atmaram: I thought yesterday to message you personally on your talk page regarding this, but dropped the idea by simply cleaning up the mess, though it turned to be futile. I don't have any second thought that these all are sock accounts - see here Ashutosh pandey 999 (CU confirmed sock) uploaded a dubious image of Vidyadhara, diff claiming it as their own work and now, Arty.mishra (likely sock) uploaded same dubious image on 11 September 2022, diff

with as usual hyerboles like chakrvarti, almighty. (claiming it as their own work as well) This alone is compelling enough to prove that these are same accounts operated by one person who belongs to the original master.

• As soon as you cleaned their mess (Special:MobileDiff/1110201461), they again reverted it back (Special:MobileDiff/1110221701) (making up a map and falsely attributed it to reputed academic Satish Chandra), just like previous confirmed socks citing dubious semi-legendary sources like Parmal Raso and unreliable gazetteers, (Special:MobileDiff/1110222325) to push their pov, compare this to another CU confirmed sock - Mohammad asfaq; (Special:MobileDiff/1089398789).
• Your edits on the
  Chandela article were reverted by (Special:Contributions/Jhaprashant948) and on the Vidyadhara article by (Special:Contributions/Suryansh_Rathore
  ) ? (definately not a coincidence)

Quite clearly these all accounts are operated by the same individual who is almost confirmed (99.9%) to be sock of the original master, i.e. Akshay Singh Rajput Thakur

Best option to fix this at the minute; would be to block all these accounts and unfortunately add extended confirmed protection to all these articles, Thanks. 09:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC) ∆ P&t ♀√

I will second this request for review - I thought it was a pretty

WP:DUCK when I first filed the SPI and the comments added by others (and above) just reinforces this. The SPI hasn't had any attention in a while and this editor is very prolific, some review would be helpful as the cleanup won't be fun. Ravensfire (talk

) 14:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to further note the impending conversation hours for the UCOC revisions.

The first one of which is 1000 UTC on this Friday (16th Sept)

Would be good to see more names - currently @Gnangarra: and I will be seeing a lot of each other (not that that's a bad thing!) Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I signed up -- during the work day for me, but hopefully will be there with bells on. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Noo, Meta, my one weakness. :( El_C 18:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a very lengthy RFC about Fox News at WP:RSN that could use a panel of admins to close (it has run for the full 30+ days). While it is still getting one or two comments a day, it does seem to be winding down. It would be helpful to at least designate who the closers will be. Blueboar (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion and planning to close it. If anyone wants to help I'm willing to do a panel close as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging

WP:RFCC. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈

21:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

How many people would be on said panel? Three? Noah^Talk 00:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There is an article that is currently under discussion at AfD [14]. The article itself has been moved during the discussion. This does seem to cause some confusion besides being a no no. I am requesting that someone please move the article back to the correct title that is under discussion. The original title is Research about UFOs and related phenomena by academics which is now a redirect to Research about UFOs and related phenomena by scholars. Thanks in advance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been resolved. The article has been moved back to the correct title by User Liz. This thread can now be closed. Thanks and a tip of the hat to everybody . ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

A large number of accounts have disrupted the articles Computer network, Linux, Python (programming language), Flower, Marvel, and a few other pages, either posting nonsense or copyrighted fragments from other educational websites, in particular Britannica. After Ymblanter semi'd the first of those targets, I went back and forth on whether to block, since individually the editors were engaged in behavior I would not normally go straight to indef for. But when the disruption continued at Flower, I decided that the coördinated nature of the disruption made indefs necessary, at least in the short term while we sort out whether this was some good-faith endeavor gone wrong (like a class), or a weird raid/LTA spree.

Does anyone have any thoughts as to what's going on? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

We probably need a CU here. Either someone is having fun, or this is an undocumented class. I personally got there from Copypatrol. Ymblanter (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's a class, there's a lot of vandal-like edits sprinkled in there. A group of friends messing around seems more likely to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There was a similar incident reported a few weeks ago (archive link). I'm a bit unclear about what's going on, but it strikes me as very similar. The accounts are, at least mostly, all in the same place. It's likely there's more than one device, and there's also a load of unblocked, unused accounts. Here's a used one, and another one. There's a few things saying to me that it's just a bunch of people, but the timing is very strange, in some cases several registrations per minute, for minutes. Odd, but my guess would be that it's a hyper-busy class. You'd need a lot of people in the same place for this, assuming it isn't a bot. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Are the user agents consistent with botting? Not that one can really prove a negative in that regard, since UAs can be spoofed, but if this were botting, doesn't exactly seem like the kind of sophisticated attacker who would think to take that step. (Also, heads-up, basically all of these are gonna need RD1. Those two edits were cv of [15] and [16] respectively.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've seen bots try all sorts, but I doubt it's a bot. Some of the pattern involves registering on a mobile network (since the AC limit where everyone is has presumably been reached), which is very un-botlike. Some of the accounts were created 7 Sept, which is exactly one week ago - no coincidence perhaps. There may be the odd user with more than one account, but there's just too much variation for a bot, IMO. It's weird in several respects, but I'd still go with school. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

FWIW the IP address in the first lot was

autonomous System Numbers. I'm not sure if blocking that range or a similar one would be worthwhile. Graham87

04:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

...what this idiocy is on Depth charge and Mljet, Invasion of Yugoslavia, and no doubt more articles to come? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If I had to guess, it's one way blind communication with a

one time pad, using Wikipedia as a numbers station. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk

) 01:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Might warrant an edit filter for this? –

☖

01:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This hit my talk page earlier. Might be an LTA just kinda going around and vandalizing things. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

At least one of them was a previously-blocked proxy. ST47, maybe you're interested in looking through my log--I blocked a bunch just to keep a record. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Note this, you filter builders. So it's a sad man. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The string rejuvenate boo hooker comes up over and over. It should be easy to write an edit filter to detect that and other frequently occurring strings. Cullen328 (talk) 01:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh so it's that Gorilla asshole. What was his name again? Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

That would explain this edit to my talk page. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 01:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

And also 1 2 on my talk page as well. Dylpickle2k (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

So they also target those reverting their vandalism it seems like. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 02:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently if they see you reverting their edits or any warnings given they'll attack you for it. Dylpickle2k (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Which is what happened last time I caught them vandalizing, if they're indeed the same person. Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 02:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It could be the same person but with other IP users vandalising and doing the same things I think it might be multiple people getting involved because I don't know how one person can obtain multiple IP addresses to continue vandalising in a matter of seconds. Dylpickle2k (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

LilianaUwU, Dylpickle2k, it's not multiple people. It's one sad person with too much time on their hand and access to a bunch of different IPs through proxy servers. They have automated their vandalism. It's really pathetic. Also pathetic: my memory. I know who this is but can't come up with the name; they've been doing it for so long they could have cured cancer during that time. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I had a feeling that it was automated in some way. Is there a LTA case page for them? Liliana ^{(UwU / nya)} 18:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Drmies Do you remember how long ago that person was blocked? Is it an account that has "Gorilla" in the name as you mentioned above? Dylpickle2k (talk) 00:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of this one, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kamen rider saber, but there have been others who have vandalized ape-related articles. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Recently there was an RFC for the

As I said on my talk page, I'm extremely hesitant to discount RFC input based on the nationality of editors. In the interest of civility, I was putting that mildly. I am frankly flabbergasted that someone would propose taking into account the nationality, or any other personal trait, of an editor in good standing when assessing and weighing their input in an RFC. Should editors from the United States have their input discounted in an RFC dealing with the actions of the country? Should openly trans editors stay away from RFCs on trans issues because they're not "outside users?"

This also creates an issue where closers are expected to research every editor involved in an RFC to determine nationality or other traits that may be related to the topic under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: While I disagree with ZaniGiovanni's reason for disagreeing with the close, I gotta say I'm somewhat surprised by the brevity of the closing statement. You say that you gave more weight to the policy-based arguments of those opposing the addition of the sentence, but does not say which were those or why they were given more weight. You also mention "numerical advantage", which does give the appearance of counting votes, and without further explanation it gives the impression that it was an important factor in closing. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 21:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The number of those who support different options in an RFC is certainly an important factor in assessing consensus. My take on closing is that I'm assessing the consensus of those involved, rather than reading the positions and arguments and choosing the one I think fits best.

The arguments for including were the wording in relatively few sources to provide context, and the opposition argues that there were a number of missile strikes not addressed by those sources, other sources disagree with the assessment, and that the wording is undue in the lead due to the few sources. To overcome a significant majority those supporting inclusion would need to have a significantly stronger policy position than those opposing. That smoking gun argument does not exist in this RFC. Hopefully this clarifies a bit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just want to add some context: The sourced info about 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert wasn't just removed from the lead which the RfC was for, it was also removed from the body after the close. [17].

When I raised the issue on talk, this is what you had to say (

numerical argument

). Now the article mentions nothing about the preceding bombing, not even in the body, despite the RfC concerning only the lead section.

After that, I came to your talk page and the rest is history. Also one more thing: I hope I'm not offending anybody, but what's wrong with saying a valid

WP:RFC option should have an outside input, especially in a contentious area like AA2? ZaniGiovanni (talk

) 22:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That was my input as an uninvolved editor which holds no special authority. The onus is on the one adding the content to get consensus for it's inclusion.

What's wrong with what you're saying about nationality is that it would exclude both Palestinians and Israelis from taking part in the current RFC on Talk:Jerusalem simply because of where they were born or live. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, ScottishFinnishRadish, that's a fair take on the discussion. Concerning the rest of the OP's complaint, I guess that's been sorted out below. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Always happy to elaborate, sometimes a bit too much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me, while I'm familiar with a few of the discretionary sanctions areas, the Armenia-Azerbaijan one is not a content area I've edited in. Is checking the nationality of an editor, and then using that information to weigh some contributions lower than others standard practice in that area? Is that supported by policy or within the framework of the discretionary sanctions?

With respect to outside input, while I can see in the in the page history that the RfC was added to the History and geography, and Politics, government, and law lists, in the banner of the talk page it also lists 10 active WikiProjects. Was there any cross-notifications made to them? In any event, if editors outside of this content area and who saw the notifications did not wish to contribute, that's fine. It doesn't make the RfC any less valid.

With regards to the closure, while I agree with Isabelle that it is brief, and could be slightly longer, I don't see any indications that it is wrong because of that. It was a short RfC however, so any closure of it is going to be brief by nature. By a plain reading, i.e. without lowering the weight of contributions based on nationality, I agree that there seems to be a consensus that the statement should be excluded (option 2), and that the arguments predicated on

WP:WEIGHT do seem stronger than any argument or counter-argument made by those arguing for inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk

) 22:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: I apologize if I gave the impression the close was incorrect. I was just surprised at how short it was when I decided to check it after seeing ZanyGiovanni's complaint. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 02:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato you've nothing to apologise for! The "wrong" comment was addressed more towards Zani than anyone else. I probably could have been clearer on that part myself! Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I am absolutely floored by
  ☖
  00:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• battleground behavior exhibited in highlighting the ethnicity of people they disagree with, after a previous sanction, logged warning, and informal warning in this topic area. This is without comment on the merits of this close challenge, but rather based on the rhetoric used. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}
  ] (she|they|xe) 01:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Are we at the indefinite topic ban stage here? The opening comment is odious as hell, and ZaniGiovanni has sanction/warning history here, here and here. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 02:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I trust

  ☖

  04:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

• This is maybe a minor thing, but as egregious as highlighting ethnicity or nationality of participants of an RFC already is, IMO it's made even worse by the fact that ZaniGiovanni does not appear to be going by en.wikipedia self declared ethnicity. I had a quick look and only some of the editors involved seem to have any self declared ethnicity or nationality. While some may mention their native languages or may edit other language wikiprojects which may suggest ethnicity or nationality, it's IMO highly problematic by itself to me making assumptions of a definite ethnicity or nationality from such things. Nil Einne (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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

This editor keeps adding multiple maps to infoboxes in articles, despite being asked to stop by several editors (myself, @Magnolia677 and @Markussep). We have tried to explain that having more than one map in the infobox is excessive but he/she just keeps going. I am asking for an uninvolved admin to consider a block. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As I got no response from the request above, and the disruptive editing has continued, I have blocked Abune for a week. I invite review of this block from other editors. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

At her request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of GorillaWarfare are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks GorillaWarfare for her long service as a CheckUser, and her continuing service as an Oversighter. For the Arbitration Committee, Wugapodes (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

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

So I and @

JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Just link to the diff on their talk page where they said that, rather than copying their comment. Schazjmd (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to do this as there is no real difference. Thanks for the suggestion. I removed the the direct quotation of "I disagree" and instead of saying I copied and pasted it now reads "@Hippo43 responded to the Third Opinion on his [Permalink|talk page]. Disagreement remained and 3O did not resolve it. I'll notify if any further revision are made but I imagine that should be good? JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Also just clocked that I filed this under

WP:ANI, my apologies. I'll let admins decide if and when to correct this to avoid the least confusion. Sorry again! JamesLewisBedford01 (talk

) 21:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• You have commented 37 times on that talk page. 21 of the last 23 comments to that page are by you. Please read
  WP:BLUDGEON. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  01:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe a little too over excited, huh? I apologise. To my credit, besides the aforementioned dispute and the two first responses on the current RfC which have required multiple replies in both as we worked to fix clarity for the ones to come in; these have been diversified across the many different topics and certainly hasn't been the case that I've been trying hammer home my presence in every single contribution. I will calm it down. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  No one wants to read pages of your opinions. If you want people to take you serious and consider your perspectives, you need to learn to be concise, and learn to not respond to every comment that is contrary to your position. I tried to look at the issue on that talk page, but gave up because I didn't want to pour through dozens of long, drawn out comments to get to the locus of the dispute. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Not 100% sure if the is the best place to ask this, but I was wondering if changing to my username to a modified variant of my current username would be a waste of time for the admins and disruptive since I have

Moving and redirecting pages in userspace is done automatically as part of the rename process, so transclusions of your userboxes should continue to display just fine. I'm no expert when it comes to the global rename process though, so don't take my word as gospel, considering the sheer number of boxes you have in your userspace. WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:LEGITSOCK just to hold those subpages. — xaosflux ^Talk

17:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@WindTempos: and @Xaosflux: Alright, good to know. Thanks! Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

...please. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Can someone please move

•  Done, and "troup" corrected to "troupe". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I went and converted the old, incorrect spelling to a redirect, since some things were pointing to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Okey-doke. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have filed a 3RR report there [18]. Such reports in the Balkan topic area attract various editors with misleading comments, walls of text and exchange of accusations. Can an admin take a look at the evidence and close the report before the walls of text become even longer?

Special:Contributions/203.124.43.2 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Y Blocked. Regards SoWhy 07:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a simple candidate for the spam blacklist. Canterbury Tail talk 14:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The user keeps editing/vandalizing the following articles:

10 nm process, Alder Lake, Raptor Lake, Rocket Lake.

He has single-handedly decided that Intel 7nm node/process is not 7nm despite it having a similar density and performance characteristics as TSMC 7nm. He loves to use bloggers and other non-technical media to prove his point despite the Intel 7 nm process being on equal terms with TSMC. The process articles were written and edited by knowledgeable people yet this person thinks otherwise.

Speaking of Alder Lake and Raptor Lake articles. The lists of CPUs in the articles are concise, small, and mobile friendly. He decided to make them bigger for no reasons while adding a ton of graphical features and perks. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute, I suggest reading

WP:NOTVANDALISM. Whether LeaveMeB is right or wrong doesn't make their edits vandalism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords

° 11:09, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Warned both Artem S. Tashkinov and LeaveMeB for

consensus before implementing the changes in the article. Likewise, changes to the other articles should be discussed on their respective talk pages. — Newslinger talk

21:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Talk:7 nm process § Intel 7. — Newslinger talk 22:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

[19].