Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive359

Improper usernames should be reported to

WP:AIV.(if both apply you only need one venue) I'll take care of this, though. 331dot (talk

) 10:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, This is in the public domain now. The source is dead, and I can't find a better image on the Net. So the earlier versions should be undeleted, and moved to Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the revision-deletion from the old versions. There were two uploaded versions of the poster, each of which would have to be uploaded separately to the Commons. The source for the first upload was here. The second upload was from here (dead link) so the Commons will not want it unless a source can be found. If you could do the remaining steps that would be perfect. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I found

Improper usernames should be reported to

WP:AIV.(if both apply you only need one venue) I'll take care of this, though. 331dot (talk

) 10:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, This is in the public domain now. The source is dead, and I can't find a better image on the Net. So the earlier versions should be undeleted, and moved to Commons. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the revision-deletion from the old versions. There were two uploaded versions of the poster, each of which would have to be uploaded separately to the Commons. The source for the first upload was here. The second upload was from here (dead link) so the Commons will not want it unless a source can be found. If you could do the remaining steps that would be perfect. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm just checking if this is allowed for a non admin. As they don't have the power to delete the categories:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_27#Category:Togolese_expatriates_in_Mauritania
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_27#Category:Mauritanian_expatriate_sportspeople_in_Norway.

LibStar (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Non-admin closure of CfDs is common, and the maintenance of that page relies on the efforts of experienced non-admin closers. You can read more about the process by reading Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions#Non-admin closures or by watching how it works at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working and the associated talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks LibStar (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:NACD. You could have asked them first. Usedtobecool ☎️

04:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Two motions are proposed to amend the scope of appeals considered by the Arbitration Committee at Arbitration/Requests/Motions. Community feedback is invited and welcomed. Maxim (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Motions on amending the scope of appeals considered by the Arbitration Committee

Hello,

As a global renamer I would like to inform you that a banned user of your community,

I don't think it's a problem, their userpage with the ban notice would be moved to their renamed account anyway, with the former page as a redirect, and they would remain blocked, so I don't think there's any risk of them getting an inadvertent clean start or anything deceptive like that. If you let us know if it's approved we can update our relevant logs here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This should be allowed to go through. I agree with the people at dewiki. It is one thing (among others) that caused their appeal to fail, and doing it this way should not get in the way of our policing of the ban.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 19:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand German, however I can absolutely understand why the community would have concern with CW's username showing up throughout their community and support this change Star Mississippi 00:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

For information: I have renamed them per their request, but declined their request for usurpation per opinions of other global renamers. EPIC (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I happened to see this morning that they have been renamed, and as expected their user and talk pages have been moved to the new account name with the former name as a redirect. Since their ban was a community discussion and (I think) isn't logged separately, no more action is needed here. Thanks for letting us know anyway, EPIC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Should we create and reblock the old CW account? Having it appear unblocked might be confusing for reading old discussions, if you're used to seeing the strikethrough on blocked users. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Recreating a renamed username which is not fulfilling the username policy doesnt makes sense to me, to be honest. It is only making it harder to understand that the account got renamed. TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 06:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Why? You'd still have it all redirect to the new name. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

if the account is existing, you cant redirect to another name. Technically yes, but In my opinion this wouldnt be okay. TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 06:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Of course you can. I registered

User:PMC as a doppelganger in 2005 and it has redirected to my userpage for just shy of 20 years now. ♠PMC♠ (talk)

08:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I personally thought it would be problematic, because then you get instantly redirected and can’t see the contributions of the User you clicked on. But I am not an admin here, do, what you want, if you think, it’s appropriate :D TenWhile6 (talk | SWMT) 08:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's necessary at all to recreate the former account. All references to it are now redirects to the renamed, and still blocked and banned, account. I do see what you mean about the strikethrough script but I think you shouldn't rely so much on it anyway, it doesn't strike globally locked accounts for example unless they're also blocked locally, and creating an account just to block it so that a highlighting script works feels like opening a can of unintended consequences.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits

) 12:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Concur with Ivanvector. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Mzajac

Hello, The article says: As of 2021, she was in a relationship with writer Gideon Haigh.

This isn't true. It hasn't been true for years. I know that people have tried to change it for Caroline, but Wikipedia editors keep changing it back, saying she has to "prove" that she's not in a relationship with him anymore by using "reliable sources"

That sounds like she has to become the subject of gossip before Wikipedia will change it. She shouldn't be forced to do that.

It's not on his page. It was, but he had it taken off years ago.

I see from her Instagram page, and her Facebook page, both of which are verified, that it's not true. See here: https://www.instagram.com/p/C0VZJaOBcbR/?hl=en for example.

Please help to have it taken off her page. It's bewildering to her partner, children and family that she can't seem to get it removed. If you have to include something about her personal life you can say: In 2021 she *was* in a relationship with Gideon Haigh" but isn't any longer but I don't see why everyone has to know that. Concern10987654890 (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This article has had a long history of seemingly COI editing, so much so that an entire article in the Sidney Morning Herald was written about it back in 2021 [5]. That said, I don't object to the removal of this particular passage, but I wish that the various accounts that are likely closely associated with Overington (such as Madmondrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from September last year) who are trying to remove this passage were more honest with their assocation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. However, it is indeed nonsensical that the subject should have to prove she isn't in a relationship any more, and even if it was true in 2021, it isn't any longer (per her Instagram, which is OK per SELF) so that passage which insinuates that it is still the case needs to go. I've watchlisted. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

No, Overington should not have to become the subject of gossip before Wikipedia will change it, particularly as this was in the article on the basis of what seems to be a fictionalised account of a murder written by her claimed former partner himself, which is no better than gossip. Wikipedia still seems to operate a double standard by which such content is expected for female subjects but not male ones. It would, of course, have been much easier to deal with this without the shenanigans described above.

Phil Bridger (talk

) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not gossip in any sense I would describe that term, it's pretty clearly stated in the 2021 SMH article I linked. It has also been discussed before, see Talk:Caroline_Overington#BLP edit war, but didn't seem to go anywhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, the information about her being in a relationship with Gideon Haigh was added back in 2020 by the SPA Blogstar2020 (talk · contribs) diff who in a separate edit removed a large amount of negative material relating to Overington, which like the SMH suggests to me that this was COI editing by someone close to Overington, so it's a bit ironic to both add material to an article and then complain when it isn't removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I participated on the previous discussion. As I remarked there, there are a few different issues here. One is that some of the earlier SPAs seemed to be implying the claim was never true.

But this was reported in the a fairly major newspaper in Australia. And it wasn't some sort of a gossip item about a relationship but instead a story where the claim was somewhat significant to the story. They're two people heavily involved in the media. If the claim was never true, it's hard to believe they don't know how to go about getting it corrected. Therefore, we should treat the claim as true at the time.

However, this doesn't mean we need to mention the claim in our article. If we don't mention the other details, I'm not sure it adds much to mention it.

A wider issue is even if we do mention it, how we handle claims which were true at one time, but which we are no longer the case. The point of the 'as of' is not to claim the statement is still true, but to emphasise that we only know this was the case as of that date. We have no idea of the current situation. But I'm not sure everyone understands this, although I'm also not sure if there's a wording which conveys it which isn't clunky.

Note that especially for marriages we often don't do this and instead simply say they are married to Z. We've actually had several complaints from people who are no longer married but for which there are no RS covering the divorce. The most famous of this is probably

WP:ABOUTSELF for this but personally I'm not a fan of this since we're clearly making a statement about some other person/third party (whoever they allegedly divorced from).

While it's a fairly innocuous statement, and in many countries it doesn't really say anything about the other party (in that they don't have to even agree to the divorce), if it does turn out it's a lie for whatever reason, I can understand this other party being pissed that we spread a lie about them. I don't think coaxing it as a "person A said they divorced" really makes it that much better, there's a reason we don't allow aboutself for other statements about some third party even when it's written like this.

My view is that our best solution is generally just to remove the info. In most cases, the marriage isn't that important so just remove all mention of the marriage is fine, no matter if it's in RS. But some people are insistent it's very important info. I also think some of the subjects requesting mention of their divorce might not even be satisfied with this solution.

P.S. Of course it's also fairly annoying the way that editors with a CoI are often super desperate for us to add something about them until something changes and they're no longer so desperate. The worst of these is when want an article until they get into some trouble and then no longer want one.

Nil Einne (talk

) 11:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a meta problem here in that "as of" is commonly[6] understood mean "starting from and continuing". The phrase "as at" would be better to constraint the statement to a date. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note also while the famous case of Mandel at least had some sort of social media presence IIRC and maybe even a blog and/or official website, there are also plenty of cases when the person has none. Even with identity verification, I definitely don't think we should be relying on people telling us directly to correct the info, and that's also not what aboutself is about, so in those cases even that doesn't work. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It would be good if, in addition to the other things mentioned above that the single-purpose accounts (which includes

Peter Thiel is backing up the "Enheanced Games", a sports "event" that openly encourages doping. While browsing his page, i saw this link and it suggests to edit certain Wikipedia articles to replace certain words related to doping with words and phrasing that are more in his view.

There are 26 articles involved,

https://enhanced.org/update-wikipedia/

Twixtxter (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I had to laugh at the instruction to replace "cheating" with "demonstrations of science" and "cheated" becomes "Fought for science and bodily sovereignty"...kind of over the top. Schazjmd (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The articles mentioned at the website:

• Anabolic steroid#Enhancing performance
• Athlete biological passport
• Category:Doping cases in athletics
• Cheating in sports
• Court of Arbitration for Sport
• Doping at the Olympic Games
• Doping at the World Athletics Championships
• Doping in sport
• Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids
• International Olympic Committee
• List of doping cases in athletics
• Natural bodybuilding
• Performance-enhancing substance
• Steroid use in American football
• Stimulant
• Transgender people in sports
• World Anti-Doping Agency
• Alistair Overeem
• Ben Johnson (Canadian sprinter)
• Duncan Atwood
• List of national anti-doping organizations
• List of world records in masters athletics
• Philosophy of sport
• Tim Montgomery
• United States Anti-Doping Agency
• List of strip

Presumably the last one is meant to link List of stripped Olympic medals. If anyone wants to check in on these without watchlisting, you can use the "Related changes" link at User:Firefangledfeathers/Enhanced.org watchlist. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Concerning, as one of Thiel's associates likes to say. We should be watching these articles for meatpuppetry. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The with specific articles to target has been up for months. Very little of this is new; I don't anticipate a large wave suddenly coming until we get closer to the

Enhanced games, though I do think there are some ways to track this going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)

22:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk You may well be right, but there is a bit of spike [7] atm, afaict because of the "We've got millions of dollars now!" reports. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, Enhanced Games is not on the list but can also be considered "involved". Related discussion at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_8#"Natural"_Records?. It's possible "they" decided to give up, at least for the time being. I'm off to fight for science and bodily sovereignty in poker. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Added, thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I just revdel'ed a bunch of revisions and edit summaries related to the accidental release of anonymous artist HorsegiirL's real name. You can find them in my deletion log for today. It's possible I over-reacted, but it's a

• Sounds like something to ask
  WP:OS for a second opinion, which I've done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk
  ) 12:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Looking, it will either cease to exist or not. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think that you overstepped, but I find this biography now quite troubling and a matter for the project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Neveselbert (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · fm · mms · npr · pm · pcr · rb · te)}

I would like to request a review of Neveselbert's edits as they pertain to their

I didn't take much notice of them afterward until I went to work on a recent TFD for {{Non-free use rationale}}; after I sandboxed and implemented the close as written (merging/turning Template:Non-free use rationale 2 into a redirect) Neveselbert converted the redirect back into a wrapper. When questioned on the matter (link to full thread) they proceeded to a) tell me a wrapper was "effectively the same thing", b) asked what to do about the documentation (which had yet to be updated), c) moved the second template to a subpage, d) edited the /sandbox sixty times, and yet still e) had to make 23 edits to the main template before being "done" (which was announced along with a veiled insinuation that no one else should be editing the template any more).

If I had been an uninvolved admin coming across the NFUR discussion I probably would have pulled TPER myself, but since I am involved in the situation (actually, both situations) I want to bring it here for further review. Others have also indicated instances of not-sandboxing (example, plus a half-dozen threads in their Archive 9) in the template space causing disruption. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Can I just say that I deeply regret the issues caused by my edits and the way I handled the {{

Non-free use rationale 2}} back into a wrapper, and the subsequent numerous edits, were missteps on my part. I want to clarify that I do understand the importance of proper sandboxing and ensuring stability in template edits. I apologise for not consulting with the community adequately and for the complications my actions appear to have caused. Going forward, I promise to take greater care in my editing approach, ensuring more collaboration and community input to prevent similar issues. Again, I'm sorry for any disruption caused, which was never my intention. I have no plans to edit {{Non-free use rationale}} further, which is what I actually meant as opposed to no one else should be editing the template any more, with my point being that I had reflected on my actions and understood that I had gone too far. Going back to my edits to template space from years back, I would like to note that there were no further issues raised with my behaviour in relation to that particular template after I was warned, and that subsequently I worked constructively with Pedantical on improving the template through proper testing and sandboxing. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email

) 16:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Support removal Edit warring on a template-protected page is not compatible with template editor rights. I found another example at Template:En dash range. I get that they're sorry for this, but given the pattern of other issues described here, I am not convinced. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If by not convinced you mean my apology, please understand that I'm being completely sincere. I've only ever wanted to help improve these templates, but I accept I've fallen short in my actions, which I would reverse if I had the chance. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I am involved as well, as is clear in the talk pages, so take this opinion in that light. This editor has done this three or four times now, at least. Every time, they rush through a ton of changes to the live template, making many errors along the way. When they are asked to stop, they typically do more edits and then apologize and promise to behave better in the future. Then they do it again. Without template editor rights, this editor will still be able to edit sandboxes, test case pages, and documentation without breaking live templates or causing watchlists to blow up. They can then submit edit requests. This should lead to the same outcomes, which have been legitimate template improvements, without the disruption and drama. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

When you say they typically do more edits and then apologize and promise to behave better in the future, for the most part, I have. Yes, I've stumbled along the way, which I'm not proud of, and I wish I sandboxed more and was less impulsive, but I've generally been able to take on board what others say and correct my mistakes. Full disclosure, I'm on the autism spectrum, and this is a problem I've been trying to work on through help in real life. I don't know if you're interested, Jonesey, but whichever way this goes, would you consider taking me on as a mentee? I've had a mentorship before with another user and it went rather well, and I'm greatly appreciative of all the work you do in trying to keep these templates in working order, and I think I could benefit from your guidance. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

If you lose the TE user right, which I think should be the outcome here given the admitted and evident impulse control issues, I'll be happy to guide you in editing of template sandboxes and test cases to a reasonable extent. If you keep the TE user right and commit to editing only sandboxes and test cases pages, not live templates, I will also commit to guiding you. To be clear, I am attempting to refer to the impulse control issues as neutrally as possible without placing any blame on your character, especially since the issues may be caused by forces not entirely in your control. I am sympathetic and assume good faith, but it is not good for Wikipedia to have this disruption continue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I understand. If I keep the TE user right, I am prepared to commit to editing only sandboxes and testcases, not live protected templates, unless I've discussed it with you or other editors beforehand. I'm not sure if that will sway anyone here, but I would appreciate the opportunity to demonstrate that I can still be trusted. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt that you're genuinely sorry - what I'm not convinced of is that you should retain your template editor rights, especially given Jonesey95's comment above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've agreed with Jonesey95 on a way forward if I retain these rights. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

In the event you follow that commitment, what's the point of you having template editor rights and making the edit yourself as opposed to Jonesey95 or other editors doing so? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I would still be able to respond to edit requests, for example, I think. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 00:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

In light of the repeated issues, but assuming this is the first trip to a noticeboard and given their response to it here, warn rather than pulling the perm. Levivich (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

For my part, I would lean toward removal of the userright. Someone with the TE bit who is not careful can do a lot of wreckage in a short span of time. It requires considerable judgment, and we're seeing here a history of lack of its application.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how long the webpage has been up, or whether there has been much of a response to it (I have seen one discussion), but I'll flag it up anyway: Enhanced.com, a campaign for the removal of restrictions on how athletes might seek to medically improve their performance, has a page[11] encouraging those who share their (deeply ill-advised) goals to edit pages to fit their idea of 'inclusive' language.

I'm not sure whether there have been many attempts to act on this, or what steps are necessary (A post on the talk pages for regular editors on those pages to be alert? Warnings on those pages about sanctions for those who try to do this?), so I leave that to discussion and higher authority, but I just wanted to make people aware of the campaign. Apologies if it has been raised before, or if this is not the appropriate place. Kevin McE (talk) 11:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kevin McE thanks for this but it's already flagged see the section #Possible upcoming edits encouraged by Peter Thiel above. Nthep (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I am reaching out to request an appeal for the block on James Naleski's page. My intention is to create pages for the Governor's Office Staff, including key positions such as Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, Director of Digital, Art Director, and more. While developing these pages, I understand that I may have inadvertently included promotional content. I want to clarify that listing awards is unnecessary, as they are not relevant to include.

I would be grateful to receive a stub for the page and would like to link the photos from the CT State Library. Furthermore, I would like to request stubs for the Governor's State of the State addresses' writers.

For your convenience, here is the relevant link to my request: https://cslarchives.ctstatelibrary.org/agents/people/1199 JoeK2033 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

One problem I see is a comment you have on your talk page, regarding articles on these people: "I ask that you please reconsider blocking me from this page as I am going to be interviewing them and would like to use some of the information that I gather and post. " If you are interviewing them, and wanting to publish your interview on Wikipedia, that clearly would run afoul of our policy on original research

WP:OR

. You don't seem to understand the purpose of an encyclopedia, or at least this one. We write articles that summarize articles that are already written by 2nd tier sources (newspapers, tv programs, major websites and news organizations). We also will include some material from PRIMARY SOURCES, ie: the people themselves, but only very carefully. This includes verifying birth days, political stands, etc, where it makes sense to take their word for it, but qualify that information in the article. We aren't here for original publication of interviews.

If you publish your interviews somewhere else instead, and let's say that publication meets our standard for reliable sources

WP:RS, then you still shouldn't be the one to put that information in the article, as you have a conflict of interest. Your additons aren't unbiases, you are of course going to be biased to include your own interviews, even preferring them over other reliable sources. This violates the core principle that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. If you DO get them published in a reliable source, you CAN bring them up on a talk page and allow others to add them into the article. This is acceptable, as the final editorial decision isn't yours. But you can already do this, so unblocking you from editing this one article, and allowing you to create the other articles, isn't necessary. You shouldn't be doing it. With that in mind, I would decline unblocking you from editing that article, and remind you that if you create the others where there is a strong COI and bias, it will likely lead to more blocks.Dennis Brown 2¢

05:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@JoeK2033, I'm afraid I see very little evidence that person is notable. Literally everything that comes up is a press release or interview or a crowdsourced directory listing, none of which help prove a claim to WP:Notability. Wikipedia isn't like other social media or directory sites. And the likelihood a governor's office staff or the writers of his State of the State address are notable is nil unless they're notable for something else already.

It sounds like you're trying to create articles about people who simply aren't notable. It's a waste of your time, and frankly it's a waste of other editors' time here, as someone has to deal with these creations. It's not unlikely the amount of work you are spending on trying to create articles for non-notable people is dwarfed by the amount of time others are spending dealing with this. Wikipedia volunteers' time is the project's most valuable resource, and we take it pretty seriously when someone is wasting other editors' time. Valereee (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This LTA has been socking profusely lately. Their last account (not yet blocked; see SPI) has racked up ~500 edits in little more than a week, including numerous disruptive page moves. As HistoryofIran also previously asked here, is it possible to perform a mass-rollback each time a new account is found?

Ideally I would like to be able to ask a CU who knows how to do this, since they could immediately also check the account first: this would allow the roll-back to be performed swifter, which is less disruptive. Who would be up for that? Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 15:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The LTA sure is on a run. Thanks for reporting them, Apaugasma. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a way to mass-rollback page moves, the tool I use doesn't do it. I'm also not sure how checkuser can help? Anyone with at least

pagemover should be able to untangle these. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits

) 16:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Within 4 days of account creation the newest sock starting making page moves. I'm surprised we don't have an edit filter set to log such incidences.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel like we do, but I couldn't tell you which one it is. I've been manually undoing their moves this morning but I have to run out to an appointment, so anyone else is welcome to take over. For admins: just move the title back to the original name and overwrite the redirect, they're trying to add dummy edits so that it can't be done automatically but we do not need to preserve that history. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I've spent literally months of my life (manually) reverting this particular LTA, and I guess this is just me letting the community know that I won't be doing that anymore. I was thinking that if there were a highly active CU I could approach to both run a check and perform mass-rollback on each new account I run across, that might help things a little, but I might be a bit naive about what is possible here. Anything else that can be done, like specific edit filters to catch them more swiftly, would certainly be welcome! Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this is only an announcement that on Saturday, 10^th of February, 2024, from 09:30 to 16:30 will be held an edit-a-thon by Wikimedia Community User Group Cyprus for the first time, and they are expecting a lot of new editors and many articles.

They (@AProdromou and @Magioladitis) would advise every new inexperienced editors to edit in their sandboxes, but still it may happen some new page to be published in the main namespace, so they request a patience, as they will check the articles after the event.

I hope this was the right place for this announcement. On the behalf of the organisers of this event, thanks in advance. --TRistovski-CEEhub (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems as good as place as any. English Wikipedia doesn't let newly-created users create pages in mainspace, so you shouldn't really have much to worry about. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Something strange is happening on wikipedia croissant page: two anonymous IP and an user who created his account this month started modifying the page removing Austria origin and the references. They also started an argument from a very biased POV to justify their edits 79.54.217.132 (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

For context, there was significant discussion on the article talk page involving a number of both logged-in and IP users, and quite a solid consensus emerged in favour of the page's current state. This user here has asserted at different times that either consensus has yet to be reached or that it exists in entirely in the opposite direction to justify restoring their preferred version of the article. AntiDionysius (talk) 13:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The issue on the

Capuccino article (see history). AntiDionysius (talk

) 13:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the user AntiDyonysius is one of the many suspect accounts who first changed the article BEFORE a new consensus was reached and then tried to manipulate facts for his covenience 79.54.217.132 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

This account was made in 2023 and i suspect he is a puppet account of Xiaomichael 79.54.217.132 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I have semi protected the page for a week to encourage the IP to use the Talk page discussion. While we're not at 3RR, that's not required for it to be edit warring, which it is.IP 79, if you have proof, please file

an SPI otherwise please do not make such accusations. Star Mississippi

17:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

You're right 79.54.217.132 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)