Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard |
---|
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Open tasks
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 5 | 63 | 0 | 68 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 12 |
FfD | 0 | 2 | 11 | 0 | 13 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 92 | 0 | 92 |
- 2 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 125 sockpuppet investigations
- 52 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 5 Fully-protected edit requests
- 2 Candidates for history merging
- 13 requests for RD1 redaction
- 121 elapsed requested moves
- 14 requested closures
- 98 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 26 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Unban request from Lavalizard101
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Lavalizard101 has requested (UTRS appeal #42527) that I place the following request so they can be unbanned, as per WP:UNBAN. They were checkuser-blocked by Bbb23 on 2018-07-08 and their extensive block evasion is documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapitavenator/Archive.
I am requesting an unban of my account. I was banned for repeated sockpuppetry under 3X in October 2020 after being blocked for sockpuppetry back in 2018. All accounts I have ever used in order of usage are: Lavalizard101 (this one); prior to block and the cause of the block: 323van (was used back in January 2017 and blocked for vandalism and never connected with me owned up about it when originally requesting unblock); van323dal (was used back in February 2017 and blocked for vandalism and never connected with me owned up about it when originally requesting unblock); aarlai (used back in September 2017 for POV pushing agian never connected and I owned up to it when originally requesting unblock); Waterwhale12 (used from February to April 2018 then abandoned a month prior to its block); TruthINJC and TruthINJC2 (both used for vandalism in May 2018); Iceiguana (used in July 2018 for gaming autoconfirmed then creating a one-off hoax article-this was the account that drew attention for being a possible sock of Lapitavenator and where I was found out); after the orginal block for block evasion: TKnifton (used from September 2019 an arbcom request was denied to May 2020 as an attempted quiet return before being blocked); Tjklj11 (used as a second quiet return attemp in October 2020 after a second arbcom request went [at the time] unanswered for a month [note i recieved a respond in december-3 months after i was told it was being considered]) I have shown that I can be a productive member of the Wikipedia editing community via my editing history of Lavalizard101 prior to the sockpuppetry and to an extent, the editing history of TKnifton (only rule broken being Block Evasion). Since the ban was placed I have been sporadically editing Wikispecies in a similar vein to how my main editing focus here is. If unbanned I would: create and expand articles in palaeontology, replace taxboxes with automatic taxoboxes to make it easier for updating higher classification, expand and update categories on palaeontology articles, etc. and would also go back to recent change patrolling for antivandalism work, commenting on unblock requests if acceptable.
I noted there was a high likelihood their appeal would be rejected, possibly under WP:SNOW, and were they sure they wished this specific request copied over. The response was:
yes but with the added comment that apart from the block evasion the edits were productive with the sockpuppet account
Follow-up comments:
I'd like to respond to the comment about the Sockpuppet number: I am not Lapitavenator, My account Iceiguana13 was originally thought to be a sock of Lapitavenator's but was correctly identified as not being them but being me instead. The tags weren't corrected until I appealed in January 2019 which caused and will possibly continue to cause confusion. Also the User talk:Tknifton is not littered with warnings I got a few warnings and a couple of comments but most of it is from the antivandalism work and recent changes patrolling that I was doing. Also When I say I was editing productively as TKnifton I meant based purely on the edits themselves I agree that behaviourly I was disruptive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose unblocking, add a prohibition on further requests for at least one year from today or from the most recent instance of block evasion, whichever comes later. I count 38 sockpuppet accounts strewn between Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lapitavenator, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lapitavenator, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lavalizard101, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Lavalizard101, I see multiple years of disruptive editing, and the clincher is the claim that they were contributing productively with Tjklj11 and Tknifton while evading their block; User talk:Tknifton in particular is littered with warnings, not to mention their attempt to mislead us about being a blocked editor. --Yamla (talk) 12:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional Support The last edits by were 6 months ago? If they have managed to stay away for 6 months then I'm OK with giving them another chance. Presumably with a one account restriction. ϢereSpielChequers 12:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional Support per WSC. ROPE is a thing, as perhaps is maturity. ——Serial 13:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional support per WSC and Serial. I don't generally picture myself casting unban support !votes for someone who literally used the username "vandal", but the Wikispecies contribs are productive (see species:Special:Contributions/Lavalizard101 if you don't feel like going and checking yourself) and the vandalism/hoaxing occurred during the then-LTA's adolescence. The hoax attempt does give me serious qualms, and I'd want a close eye kept, but I'm willing to extend some rope to a productive contributor on another project. Vaticidalprophet 13:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- As an addendum, I would strongly suggest that if Lavalizard101 is unblocked, he not focus on RCP and instead focus on content. We very much do not need another overzealous false-positive-shooting RCP patroller, which he seems to have a history of being, while his Wikispecies contributions make it clear his content edits can be good. Vaticidalprophet 13:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose I find a few things in this appeal concerning. Lavalizard101 appears to be blaming Arbcom for their repeated block evasion, which they incorrectly label as "quiet returns". The also seem to be nonchalant about their repeated flaunting of Wikipedia policy when they state "...the editing history of TKnifton (only rule broken being Block Evasion)". I don't see any real understanding of the extent of their breach of community trust as a result of such extensive socking (and subsequent denials and appeals). This appeal, to my eyes, admits some of the socking but also essentially downplays it as necessary due to Arbcom not responding in the time frame that was acceptable to Lavalizard101. I'm also not keen with their stated intent to return to vandalism fighting, especially the "commenting on unblock requests" bit. If the appeal is granted, I certainly hope that's not a direction they take. I see potential for a future successful appeal, but I don't believe we're there quite yet. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 17:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- CheckUser blocks already take so long to be reviewed that they are often declined just because they are waiting so long. Peter James (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support per WP:SO and WP:ROPE. If there is any behavioral issues, their record will follow them around anyways, and I expect a quick block will follow. It's clear they understand that further shenanigans won't be tolerated. I'm unworried about the lack of proper deference the opposes above note. We don't need people to be deferent, we need people to stop breaking rules and become productive editors. I think this user has the potential to do so. If I'm wrong, blocks are cheap. --Jayron32 17:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up comments from Lavalizard101 on his talk that he requested be copied here, and my own response given there:
(copy this for others to see) @Vaticidalprophet and Ponyo: re: LTA and admits to some of the socking (made respectively). I am not an LTA and I have admitted to all of the socking that I did. Again I am not Lapitavenator the SPI found me (rightfully) unrelated to them as can be seen in its archive. Lavalizard101 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I used the term "then-LTA" neutrally to refer to the fact you had a prior history of vandalism and hoaxing across multiple accounts. You are to the best of my ability to tell not currently an LTA, and there is history of once-LTAs reforming. Vaticidalprophet 18:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet 18:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- The connection between the accounts was confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lapitavenator/Archive#08 July 2018 but was found to be unrelated to Lapitavenator. Also the talk page for Tknifton is not "littered with warnings", at first there is a complaint about bad reverts, the first speedy deletion is about copyright (citing a source but not attributing it as a source of text) but the other deletion notifications are a redirect left by a page move from the main namespace and two empty categories - these are not indications of disruptive editing. Peter James (talk) 18:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Addendum: Lavalizard has also agreed to focus on content rather than RCP. Vaticidalprophet 18:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support We should give Lava some rope and AGF. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- We should give all editors rope and AGF. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support - an indefinite block is not a permanent block. Editors who show commitment to change behaviour should be given the chance to show that they mean it. Mjroots (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support - As others have said, give him some rope. Ultimately if he ends up being disruptive again, he'll be blocked again. Just looking back at his userpage history and blocks on other accounts, he was a teenager when a lot of the disruption happened. Something I'd strongly suggest is that if he intends to work on anti-vandalism, he should go through the WP:CVUA. – Frood (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: The discussion seems to have reached a natural conclusion, and consensus is to unblock. We need the checkuser in question to at least give their blessing before doing so. I note that Bbb23 is semi-retired, but has been active at least as recently as yesterday. Hopefully we can get some feedback from them on this. --Jayron32 14:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural comment - rules require a checkuser to evaluate it, that's on the socking side. Bbb23 can't do that, but does still need to be done (normally it's done fairly early in an AN discussion). In a regular unblock, the blocking admin's POV has to be sought, however that is not a necessary obligation in an AN discussion (it's to stop wheelwarring). Nosebagbear (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, can someone ping a checkuser to follow up and unblock as needed? I'm not being dragged to ArbCom for doing this wrong, but community consensus seems to be that an unblock is in order. --Jayron32 16:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- You need a CU to give permission to unblock, which is normally done by checking to make sure there is no recent socking. I wouldn't be surprised if this hasn't already been done, but I no longer have the ability to check whether anyone has checked. This might help: Checkuser needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- As a checkuser, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. @Jpgordon: and @ST47: in case they see something I don't (I haven't had the tools all that long), but I'm pretty confident in my statement here. I also concur the consensus is to unblock. --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I concur, there is no evidence of block evasion within the 90 day timeframe of checkuser. I personally would not unblock this user, but I'm prejudiced, I suppose, by their past behavior, and see no particular reason for our volunteers to waste more time monitoring them. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- As a checkuser, I see no evidence of recent block evasion. @Jpgordon: and @ST47: in case they see something I don't (I haven't had the tools all that long), but I'm pretty confident in my statement here. I also concur the consensus is to unblock. --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- You need a CU to give permission to unblock, which is normally done by checking to make sure there is no recent socking. I wouldn't be surprised if this hasn't already been done, but I no longer have the ability to check whether anyone has checked. This might help: Checkuser needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, can someone ping a checkuser to follow up and unblock as needed? I'm not being dragged to ArbCom for doing this wrong, but community consensus seems to be that an unblock is in order. --Jayron32 16:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not sure. My respected cohorts Yamla, Ponyo, and Jpgordon make a strong case against unblocking. I have not looked at the technical evidence, and trust their analysis (which seems to indicate that there has not been any obvious socking within the last 90 days) entirely. A lot of the argument supporting an unblock here leans heavily on AGF / ROPE - and is made by editors that I strongly respect. Is this worth the time that the community may have to invest here? Are there solid examples of the type of edit that the blocked editor intends to make, if unblocked, available? SQLQuery me! 05:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Are there solid examples of the type of edit that the blocked editor intends to make, if unblocked, available?
I posted his Wikispecies contribs, which aren't directly translatable to Wikipedia ones, but do seem to demonstrate a willingness to work productively in his fields of interest. Vaticidalprophet 14:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Support as others said above, per SO and ROPE. Levivich harass/hound 13:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would go ahead and close this as it seems to have run its course, but am heavily leery of touching it despite the comments above by CUs due to the fact that it is a CU block; I guess I am just looking for further confirmation I won't get my mop snapped enacting this. (Looking at Template:Checkuserblock-account, it appears being able to link to a diff here would inoculate against such a fate.) @Yamla and ST47: et al do us admins have your CU blessing to undo the CU block in this instance and in accordance with the consensus here? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- You have my CU blessing to undo the CU block in this instance if you believe that is the consensus of this discussion. I want to be very clear, I firmly believe this statement innoculates you against getting your mop revoked for doing so. Multiple CU's have noted there's no evidence of recent block evasion and that's what you need to know in order to lift a CU block. --Yamla (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Yamla. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- You have my CU blessing to undo the CU block in this instance if you believe that is the consensus of this discussion. I want to be very clear, I firmly believe this statement innoculates you against getting your mop revoked for doing so. Multiple CU's have noted there's no evidence of recent block evasion and that's what you need to know in order to lift a CU block. --Yamla (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Review of indefinitely move-protected articles
It used to be somewhat routine to add indefinite move=sysop to vandalized articles, especially prior to the edit filter. This has caused issues with some workflows.
There are around 2500 over 9000! articles like this (quarry:query/54423; quarry:query/54424), however some have been subject to BLP violations and others are typical vandalism targets.
For those where removing move protection entirely is not indicated, is it acceptable to use extended confirmed move-protection here, as an interim step to allowing experienced non-administrators to move these pages as needed? –xenotalk 23:33, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- Xeno, seems like an acceptable solution. Just noting that is too bad there is no protection level for human-vetted experienced editors other than template editor and sysop. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I would bet most could be moved to EC without issue, and an experienced admin could likely sift through it pretty fast, as most of the ones that need to stay "Sysop move only" are BLPs. I'm guessing is a quazi poll, so I would support doing so as long as a little filtering took place. Btw, I don't remember ever doing indef move protection, I'm surprised we have that many. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've unprotected a few; my hesitation dropping the sensitive ones down to ECP is that neither WP:MOVP nor WP:ECPGUIDE mention ECP's use on the move side. And I don't see much use of it outside arbitration enforcement here. –xenotalk 02:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- While going through things at WP:URFA/2020 and WP:FAR, I've noticed a lot of old featured articles (some now former featured articles) were pre-emptively move protected years ago. For instance, Chew Valley was sysop move-protected in 2008, despite having nothing in the move log. I thought about bringing something up about this awhile back, but never did. While I don't see any reason for some of these, like Chew Valley, to be moved w/o discussion, I don't see any value in sticking around old preemptive protection. Hog Farm Talk 02:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Pre-emptive move protection was largely aimed at prolific move vandals of the time. See also Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Archive 5#RfC: Time to dispense with WP:NOPRO? et al.. Uncle G (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- While going through things at WP:URFA/2020 and WP:FAR, I've noticed a lot of old featured articles (some now former featured articles) were pre-emptively move protected years ago. For instance, Chew Valley was sysop move-protected in 2008, despite having nothing in the move log. I thought about bringing something up about this awhile back, but never did. While I don't see any reason for some of these, like Chew Valley, to be moved w/o discussion, I don't see any value in sticking around old preemptive protection. Hog Farm Talk 02:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've unprotected a few; my hesitation dropping the sensitive ones down to ECP is that neither WP:MOVP nor WP:ECPGUIDE mention ECP's use on the move side. And I don't see much use of it outside arbitration enforcement here. –xenotalk 02:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Is that list complete? Consider 1994 San Marino Grand Prix, indef sysop protected for
Move-protecting all featured articles. Requests for (re)-semi-protection should be brought to WP:RFPP. using TW
but doesn't seem to appear on either Quarry (unless I'm missing something)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)- Hmm Cryptic has mentioned some limitations of the queries at Wikipedia:Request a query#Indefinite move-protections placed long ago on articles. –xenotalk 02:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is now. I was accidentally excluding pages that weren't edit-protected at all along with ones that were edit-protected sysop. Thank you for the sanity check. —Cryptic 02:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! The numbers sound about right now. I imagine many of those edit-protected sysop are also a problem (many are probably overprotected redirects), but one step at a time I guess. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- It is better to review indefinite sysop-only edit protected pages too. I spend a lot of time cleaning up Special:LintErrors and regularly come across overprotected ancient pages. Last month I had posted a request in this noticeboard that led to unprotection of about 1,400 full protected pages in the project namespace. I have not looked much into full protected pages in other namespaces, but a cursory check of user namespace shows many wrong and obsolete protections. For example User:Kingboyk/monobook.js being under full protection is useless since it can be edited only by Interface Admins. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'd not be opposed to a procedural review of every single indefinite protection site-wide (especially those from before ~2013). I recognise that it'd take quite some time, but I'd hazard a guess that at least half of our indefinitely protected articles (whether it be semi or higher) don't actually need it. I've been randomly checking in on indefinitely semi-protected redirects and at a cursory glance, only a few truly need any form of protection (Homosexual, Fart, Guns, GNAA etc). Further, most of these indefinitely protected redirects are there because MediaWiki duplicates protection when a page is moved. Anarchyte (talk • work) 06:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- (#discussion re: fully-protected articles moved below)
- Is there a wikipage with all of these? If not I can download the quarry as wikitext and paste it in userspace. I've found having a table useful for keeping track of the hist-merge backlog so it might be a useful asynchronous coordination tool. I'll probably poke around later today (UTC) and modify some protections if need be. — Wug·a·po·des 07:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wugapodes: After unprotecting the set in my sandbox, I'll re-run the quaerry and post a more collaboratable-list. –xenotalk 13:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I changed User:Xeno/sandbox to a table so that it's sortable and added a field for whether the link has been checked. In the edit summary at Special:Permalink/1020589579 I included the regular expressions for converting the list entries to wikitable entries if that's useful. — Wug·a·po·des 22:47, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wugapodes: After unprotecting the set in my sandbox, I'll re-run the quaerry and post a more collaboratable-list. –xenotalk 13:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
(continued) lifting full move-protections on articles that were placed long ago
- There is currently a discussion/proposal at the village pump regarding significant changes to the protection scheme for page moves. Shouldn't this review wait until that discussion concludes? Changing the role of protection could make this review moot, or change its focus completely. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 12:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- As I understand it, that proposal is partially a result these long-lasting protections that are perhaps no longer needed (or never were). –xenotalk 12:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- To be very clear as proposer, it is only partially so, i.e. there are many cases where more recent protections are problematic. I also think there may be a lack of understanding amongst parties in the conversation that the majority of RMs are closed by non-admins. Vaticidalprophet 14:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- As I understand it, that proposal is partially a result these long-lasting protections that are perhaps no longer needed (or never were). –xenotalk 12:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- In general, for pages that are only move protected, where the move protection is sysop only, where the protection is over 10 years old - I'm all for reducing these to semi page protection. Over the last 10 years we've had a lot of antivandalism improvements, including with the edit filter. — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just to clarify for the less technical: when you say semi, you meant the move-protection implicitly afforded by the state of unprotection. –xenotalk 14:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Xeno: I was suggesting doing it explicitly, but indeed that is superfluous as (move) permission is not currently present below autoconfirmed, so yes: just resetting the move-protection level back to '(all users)' (i.e. removing the protection entirely). Perhaps publish the list for a week or so, let any admin that wants to remove a page (either because they downgraded the production, or because they feel it should stand on a specific page) do so first. — xaosflux Talk 14:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just to clarify for the less technical: when you say semi, you meant the move-protection implicitly afforded by the state of unprotection. –xenotalk 14:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- 2005-2008; 2009-2010; 2010; 2010-2011; 2012-2013; 2013-2015; 2016-2017; 2017-2018; 2018-2019 2019-2020; 2020; 2020-now, unmarked. –xenotalk 16:58, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- I’ve unprotected all the unmarked oddities: where the protection was so old it was lost to the log, except for two (without prejudice). –xenotalk 01:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Remove recent history of Scholastica (school)
I'm collapsing this due to the content. Fences&Windows 11:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion of revdel
|
---|
Please remove recent history on Scholastica (school) edited by an unknown IP and a registered user. They have Bengali slangs and offensive words. — Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 04:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@আফতাবুজ্জামান: Would you like to comment here? Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
|
Sino-Vietnamese conflicts (1979–1991)
14.231.163.204 warned more than 3 times. It's rose gold! (T?) 05:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I did make explanation but received no reply. See talk page 14.231.163.204 (talk) 05:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RoseGold1250: A lot of bad edits occur that need to be reverted, but please take more care with a revert like diff which restored "with the advantage belongs to China" in the first change. That's obviously bad text which is typical of a recent change by someone without much knowledge of English and possibly a similar disregard of sources. 14.231.163.204 (talk · contribs) should have used more edit summaries but they did start with a strong claim, namely "bad citations, info not found within sources" (diff). Particulary if you are going to report someone at a noticeboard you should investigate the details. Did you notice 14.231.163.204's two replies to your first warning at their talk (diff + diff)? Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I replied, I know this IP does not like "Chinese victory" because he is absolutely a Vietnamese. Solider789 (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Nakoda
This user have been created account Hellofriend202 it's was vandalism User_talk:2405:204:858b:395d::2299:b0. It's rose gold! (T?) 06:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- The article is Nakoda and the user is Hellofriend202 (talk · contribs). I haven't checked this but FYI, reports like this should be at WP:ANI as it's an "incident". However, even if the user's edits are inappropriate, it is premature to report a user with four article edits and whose account is less than an hour old. Ask them to seek assistance at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Demote Pallerti
Pallerti is a corrupt administrator on the hungarian wikipedia who undoes a TRUE edit on Lando Norris' page. I would like to have them be demoted. --77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
NOTE: they also undid adding Another Round to Thomas Vinterberg's page before it won an oscar.
So corrupt, even Trump would raise his hat in front of them. User: Pallerti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- We cannot help you with issues on the Hungarian Wikipedia, which is a separate project with its own editors and policies. You will need to use whatever process they have to address your grievance. 331dot (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
They also blocked me for "insulting a block"? --77.234.75.75 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Question regarding an ANI report
This report on ANI has become rather complex and from what I've observed many similar cases tend to go unattended and eventually archived without any comment from sysops. I think at this point, it might be better suited for WP:AE, would it be possible to move it there? I initiated the report and the one being reported is aware of DS sanctions on IPA topics. If not, I would request some sysop(s) to attempt to resolve it, since I fear it would most likely worsen issues in the future. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- To be at WP:AE, it needs to be related to an Arbitration case and decision authorizing discretionary sanctions. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan is the closest thing but it isn't a perfect fit. You can always file and see, but the reality is, there are way more eyes at ANI than at AE (or even AN). The eyes at AE tend to be more experienced at Arbitration cases, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- If the report languishes for longer, I would encourage moving to AE, and requesting discretionary sanctions under ARBIPA. ANI isn't well-suited to long-term tendentious editing. I will leave a comment at ANI in any case, as I cannot take admin action with respect to this user. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Caillou Pettis article creation
Greetings administrators,
Is there any way a page could be created for film critic Caillou Pettis? He is a multi-media writer covering film, music, television and video games and his work spans across multiple high-profile publications such as Exclaim!, Gigwise, Beats Per Minute, Film Threat, and Flickering Myth. He is also a critic on Rotten Tomatoes.
There's a couple of news articles talking about his directorial efforts as well. I noticed the page was on lock for creation, hence the request. The last time the page was attempted to be created was in 2018. In three years, his work has spanned across plenty more well-known websites and his music reviews are also featured on Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic?. If people such as Bilge Ebiri and Alonso Duralde can have articles made with less references, then he should be able to have a page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- The story starts with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caillou Pettis in 2016, and there have been repeated attempts to create a new article since then. If the person is now truly notable, then I suggest writing a policy compliant draft article and then asking one of the administrators involved with this matter to accept the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the speedy reply, Cullen. I have attempted to write up a draft article and later, to submit it for approval, but even a Draft article for Pettis is locked to administrators only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Coverage on the web looks underwhelming. If I were the reviewing admin, I would deny such a request. DrKay (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, DrKay. What kind of articles/coverage on the web would clarify for a film critic having an article? As stated above, for example, Alonso Duralde only has three references and none of them seem to meet the guidelines. Just curious what articles meet guidelines. Thanks! - ElliesPoetry — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliesPoetry (talk • contribs) 17:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- There is guidance at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Essentially, there should be multiple secondary and third-party reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd encourage any CU who happens upon this to take a look at the history of his hundreds of socks (which are also globally locked.) TAXIDICAE💰 17:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- CheckUser declined. All of the SPIs related to Caillou Pettis are stale by at least three years. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ivanvector There's a ton of IP data in the SPI itself, which was more my point. There's also been some more recent ones that were locked without enwiki blocks but I'll have to dig for them. TAXIDICAE💰 17:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- There's lots of IP data there that's useless for CU, because we can't publicly connect IPs to accounts. We have no choice but to treat the IPs that others have listed in the various SPIs as purely speculative. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ivanvector There's a ton of IP data in the SPI itself, which was more my point. There's also been some more recent ones that were locked without enwiki blocks but I'll have to dig for them. TAXIDICAE💰 17:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Personally, I feel that a YouTuber with less than 5,000 subscribers who hasn't posted anything in two years is very unlikely to meet the general notability guideline. However, if someone with the ability to bypass the title blacklist wants to entertain the request, they can create Draft:Caillou Pettis as a blank page and then ElliesPoetry can edit over it. I'm familiar with FilmLover2016 and I'm electing not to do so; I would suggest that anyone who is considering it preview their deleted contributions first. @ElliesPoetry: if you are being paid for your edits, you are required to disclose who is paying you. Please see WP:PAYDISCLOSE. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Ivanvector - If the general consensus is that the subject does not yet meet the guidelines, I won't bother creating a draft page. Also, I am not being paid to edit any pages here, everything I do is just for fun and to provide the general public with information on various subjects. Thanks! - ElliesPoetry — Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- Account sock blocked by a CU. Doesn't seem to be a CU-based block to me however. JavaHurricane 10:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Ujjwal 20
Ujjwal 20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Ujjwal 20 appears to have gamed the system with repeated useless edits to obtain Extended confirmed. EC should probably be revoked until they have actually earned it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Their response to this discussion doesn't demonstrate a strong need to edit Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Their early editing history is also questionable, and they continue to have a weird obsession with non-constructive edits to Breast and in general a 80%+ reverted rate on substantive edits. Commons contribs are mostly copyvios. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Furthermore, in spite of a final warning not to do so, they created yet another user page for another editor. Not a very constructive one either. Favonian (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- EC revoked for WP:GAMING. Once they have made 500 new non-trivial edits they may apply at WP:PERM. — xaosflux Talk 17:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's it! Their actions since this discussion was started and their EC status was revoked have confirmed that they are WP:NOTHERE. Consequently, I have blocked them indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ujjwal 20. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Moselyn Larkin, ballerina, obituary
You have the wrong date of death. It should read April 25, 2021 not 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bb10:2e20:7d41:1aa7:ac72:68dc (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not according to this obit. Do you mean another person with the same name? MarnetteD|Talk 04:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Vandalism by biased user "buidhe" on Turkish War of Independence
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User "buidhe" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buidhe) is constantly trying to modify and edit "Turkish War of Independence" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turkish_War_of_Independence) by putting "ethnic cleansing" into the page aggressively. Looking at this person's historical edits; he is a biased armenian and it can be confirmed by looking at his top edits - his highest edits are on "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide_denial".
This person should not be allowed to free roam and modify articles such as Turkish War of Independence just because he thinks otherwise. He is trying to create discussion points and claiming consensus being made with no scientific proof provided.
I urge you to take action for this person's activities on Wikipedia. We love Wikipedia because it contains trusted information, not information provided by biased people.
Thank you for your time on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WeSeekYou (talk • contribs) 06:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- LOL I'm not Armenian. As for the Turkish war of independence article, many sources are cited and we achieved consensus for the wording on the talk page. It's interesting how this SPA puts Armenian Genocide denial in scare quotes. Says everything about their POV. (t · c) buidhe 06:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- WeSeekYou, you are single-purpose account with no edits other than making this request. This leads me to conclude that you are somebody who is trying to evade scrutiny for their actions with other accounts. In addition, this is a disruptive request, because it accuses somebody of wrongdoing with no evidence (and without the required notification); see WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. A brief look at the edits by Buidhe indicates no problems of the sort you speak of. I am therefore blocking your account and taking no further action in response to this request. Sandstein 06:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I reverted edits by the SPA to UAA and ANEW on the same topic ([4], [5]). I suggest this is closed and the SPA blocked for personal attacks and presumed use of multiple accounts.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- In Ekşi Sözlük, a Turkish forum, the article TWoI has been accused of containing anti-Turkish propaganda. And the user Buidhe has been specially targeted with her name given. So, there is a serious WP:Meatpuppetry going on.[6]--Visnelma (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liberetaecus. There is definitely meat puppetry and probably some socks by the same hand.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
KatayHan
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Legal threat[7]--Visnelma (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Turkish War of Independence
In Ekşi Sözlük, a Turkish forum, this article has been accused of "containing anti-Turkish propaganda" and this is likely to cause lots of vandalism. Just warning in advance.--Visnelma (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Kashmorwiki's sockpuppet block
At 01:00 UTC on 4 May 2021, Kashmorwiki, a pending changes reviewer and rollbacker with just under 10,000 edits was blocked for sockpuppetry. Kashmorwiki had many questions. I started to answer them. You can see all of this on the last section of User talk:Kashmorwiki. I'm here on the noticeboard to request that Kashmorwiki's block be reviewed. It was over a year ago that this happened, and Kashmorwiki cited that as one of his reasons for unblock. I would like to know what Wikipedia's administrators think of this block and the discussion surrounding it. Chicdat (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Kashmorwiki said this: The term sock will surely get me into trouble. Because 99.9 percent socks are for abusing here. But my case is not like that. I hope the community will understand it.
Chicdat (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Since when do we entertain third party unblock requests here, especially considering their current request is still unreviewed? Grogudicae👽 12:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- My main question is whether Kashmorwiki is actually 3Xed – because my read of policy is that they are not. 3X requires that someone engages in CU-confirmed sockpuppetry on 2 occasions after an original indefinite block; Sulshanamoodhi was only indeffed after they were caught socking for the second time – the first block was for a week. I would not consider that eligible for a 3X ban, and at the very very least there is ambiguity here; the authoritative statement
Lastly, since you have used more than three accounts, you are considered banned per WP:3X. One administrator is not enough to lift your ban. You can only get unblocked by a community consensus at WP:AN. Do you understand?
strikes me as too much, too quickly, especially because 3X ban calls are usually made by blocking admins, CUs or SPI clerks. --Blablubbs|talk 13:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)- Blablubbs, Chicdat, they are not 3X'd - 3X is for two occasions after an indef, not two accounts, and as a rule I only consider Confirmed CU findings to count toward 3X. Chicdat, I understand you want to help, but I think your assistance in this unblock discussion is doing more harm than good. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Until recently, I believe, Chicdat was banned from editing admin areas, which they seem to have forgotten too quickly. And giving blocked editors advice that is wholly, indubitably wrong—as they did regarding WP:3X—is worse than an out-of-place {{nac}}. They should either voluntary reinstate the ban themselves, or have it reinstated for them. ——Serial 13:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at that link, I have three thoughts, two serious and one not:
- That's pretty hard to read/understand the context of, considering it doesn't actually link to anything and so the only ones I know anything about are the ones I happen to have read.
- It does look like a formal ban should be placed, and that there's confusion regarding the fact Chicdat was never formally banned from anything.
- Is WP:Iritalk an admin area?
- Vaticidalprophet 02:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at that link, I have three thoughts, two serious and one not:
- Until recently, I believe, Chicdat was banned from editing admin areas, which they seem to have forgotten too quickly. And giving blocked editors advice that is wholly, indubitably wrong—as they did regarding WP:3X—is worse than an out-of-place {{nac}}. They should either voluntary reinstate the ban themselves, or have it reinstated for them. ——Serial 13:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Blablubbs, Chicdat, they are not 3X'd - 3X is for two occasions after an indef, not two accounts, and as a rule I only consider Confirmed CU findings to count toward 3X. Chicdat, I understand you want to help, but I think your assistance in this unblock discussion is doing more harm than good. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 13:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
FWIW I've always found Kashmorwiki to be a productive editor and would support an unblock. GiantSnowman 13:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have increasingly thought current enforcement of sockpuppetry is strange and leads to absurd outcomes. Some of WP:SOCK is logically inconsistent with its apparent goals. It seems like Chicdat is just trying to get more awareness to the unblock request from non-patrolling admins rather than crafting their own third party appeal. Given how sockpuppet unblock appeals usually go (ie often procedural declines or 'unanswered for too long' declines) this is probably not a bad idea. Off the top of my head I recall: a user being blocked after it was discovered they were evading for 5 years a six-year-old block; a user who was competently and significantly helping with the migration to Module:Adjacent stations, but it was later discovered they were evading an old CIR block so they were re-blocked; a user who went through multiple WP:PERM processes and was editing well, then confided in an admin that they were previously blocked on a different account and so ended up getting blocked; a user who offered to create an offwiki tool to find spam and apparently violated PROJSOCK by using a privacy alt disclosed to a CU (apparently with no editing overlap). Some of these were unblocked, others received no response (I tried to chase up on a couple to no avail). It's very difficult to say any of these blocks are actually preventing disruption or helped the project in any way. Several actively harm it and cannot possibly be said to be in compliance with WP:PREVENTATIVE, specifically:
For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.
. Haven't looked too strongly at the merits of this request however, and am not familiar with the editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC) - I just happened to notice this in my watchlist. Given that I was processing the SPI case, and Mz7 ran the CU, it might have been nice for somebody to have pinged us both. Given the extensive socking history here, I'm not inclined to have much AGF left. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Where is the SPI link please? It would be helpful if a chronology of the socks (proven and alleged) could be set out. I assumed that there had been socking previously but nothing untoward for a year, is that not correct? GiantSnowman 15:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ask and ye shall receive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Grazie. So from a quick read there were socks in May and June 2020 but nothing after that? GiantSnowman 15:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Shahoodu edited in December 2020. Further, they're also evading a global lock. Grogudicae👽 15:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Grazie. So from a quick read there were socks in May and June 2020 but nothing after that? GiantSnowman 15:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ask and ye shall receive: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sulshanamoodhi. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Where is the SPI link please? It would be helpful if a chronology of the socks (proven and alleged) could be set out. I assumed that there had been socking previously but nothing untoward for a year, is that not correct? GiantSnowman 15:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- If RoySmith says they aren't inclined to AGF anymore, then they probably have a cogent reason for stating that, I didn’t meticulously look into the backstory nor the SPI case(s) as they appeared a tad bit too ambiguous/cumbersome and tbh Chicdat's participation in this case only muddied everything for me as opposed to clarifying/simplifying.
- But FWIW, i have crossed path with Kashmorwiki and I believe that so far they have contributed positively and have shown interest in learning the ropes, as regards to building an encyclopedia, or at least that was my impression of them or what was deliberately being sold to me. Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- The relevant context for this case is that Kashmorwiki previously edited as recently as December 2020 under the account Shahoodu (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log) · investigate), which is currently globally locked due to sockpuppetry issues on two projects: English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons. In fact, Kashmorwiki's activity overlaps with Shahoodu—before the Shahoodu account was blocked in December, the two accounts edited simultaneously on many of the same articles and talk pages. In their unblock request, Kashmorwiki has since acknowledged that they are indeed Shahoodu. I'm still reading through all of the discussion that has since taken place, but I would say this is the primary basis for my block. Mz7 (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- The fact they have admitted that this account is the sock of a globally blocked editor is alone enough to justify to me a denial of this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- This comment exactly confirms why no unblock needs to be granted. I hope Mz7 and RoySmith will note this comment too. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- The fact they have admitted that this account is the sock of a globally blocked editor is alone enough to justify to me a denial of this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think this editor should remain blocked, and, in general I support WP:G5 deletions, as I said here, but I do not think that its a good idea to tag for speedy deletion reliably sourced, neutral articles about subjects who clearly pass WP:NPOL just because they were created by this editor, as happened yesterday. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've blocked around 1500 socks in the past (I was a clerk there for a time), and most of the time, there were disruptive. It seems a lot of folks think Kashmorwiki isn't. I think we need to consider a standard offer here. Mz7, the CU that blocked him, had enough faith that they authorized the block to be viewed as a standard block (on K's talk page), so it is up to us here. I would suggest a short piece of rope, including being limited to ONE account. A lot of eyes are going to be on K, so if they start drawing outside the lines, we will know pretty quick. I've always believed, for good reason, that if you don't work to rehab these kinds of situations, you just create more socks, ones with no reason to stay within the rules, so it just makes sense to work with people who are admitting their past behavior. As an ex clerk, and someone with a technical background, I know for certain that it is impossible to stop someone socking if they really want to. They could have but haven't since the block. Better to bring them into the fold with some reasonable limits. It's not even about what is "fair", it is about what is best for Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fully agree with the idea of a SO. GiantSnowman 10:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the idea of rehabilitation, otherwise you just create someone who doesn't care about following any of the rules. But I don't understand the point of SO in these cases, esp if they haven't misused multiple accounts in the preceding ~6 months. What are they proving: abstinence / that they're not addicted and can take a 6 month wikibreak? In one of the cases I mentioned above, you've got a user block evading for 5 years on a single static IP given a 6 month SO block, and told afterwards maybe they'll be able to "meaningfully contribute". Like actually what is the point? (Maybe WP:PUNISHMENT?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's important to take into account that they were using multiple accounts while also editing as Kashmorwiki, violating WP:ILLEGIT outside of the block evasion (full EIA here). Shahoodu edited until December 30 – not because the account was abandoned, but because it was discovered and blocked, and a second sock kept editing until February, so there is more to this than just block evasion out of a desire to contribute constructively, as they did in fact use multiple accounts in the last 6 months. While I do appreciate Kashmorwiki's constructive contributions, this does make me inclined to believe that they did not take a lesson that should have been learnt after their first, very short block for socking to heart. I don't think they should remain blocked forever (no strong opinion on when the right time to unblock is from my side), but I disagree with the implication that this was draconian enforcement of our socking policies. --Blablubbs|talk 13:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- To be clear I don't think this was out of policy and have no reason to think this is draconian (in part because I've only skimmed the details), but I'm making the general point that sock policy is often enforced in a draconian way and I think the SO suggestion following block evasion in such contexts (like the example I gave with the IP) doesn't entirely make sense and some cases seem like enforcing policy for the sake of enforcing policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I think it's important to take into account that they were using multiple accounts while also editing as Kashmorwiki, violating WP:ILLEGIT outside of the block evasion (full EIA here). Shahoodu edited until December 30 – not because the account was abandoned, but because it was discovered and blocked, and a second sock kept editing until February, so there is more to this than just block evasion out of a desire to contribute constructively, as they did in fact use multiple accounts in the last 6 months. While I do appreciate Kashmorwiki's constructive contributions, this does make me inclined to believe that they did not take a lesson that should have been learnt after their first, very short block for socking to heart. I don't think they should remain blocked forever (no strong opinion on when the right time to unblock is from my side), but I disagree with the implication that this was draconian enforcement of our socking policies. --Blablubbs|talk 13:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Chicdat (talk · contribs) is currently blanket restoring a number of Kashmorwiki's recent edits and contesting deletions on their behalf [8][9][10][11]. Absent of an independent reason for each edit, which seems to be lacking this feels like WP:PROXYING? Chicdat, are you checking the various edits yourself? CMD (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- None of them have anything to do with the ban in this question. Please see User talk:Kashmorwiki#Blocked as a sockpuppet for more information. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 13:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Chicdat, you do yourself no favours by putting in edit summaries "Kashmorwiki is a good-faith editor". That is exactly the position that does not have consensus here. If you wish to check out the sources of any article nominated for speedy deletion under WP:G5 and take responsibility for their creation yourself then you can do so (as I did for some articles yesterday), but leave an edit summary saying that that is what you are doing, and without any contentious statements. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Chicdat, I have looked at the user talk page as suggested, and Kashmorwiki explicitly brought up the G5 actions before your edits, so your edits seem to be a clear violation of WP:PROXYING. Per Phil Bridger, you should self-revert. CMD (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- None of them have anything to do with the ban in this question. Please see User talk:Kashmorwiki#Blocked as a sockpuppet for more information. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 13:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
If an article looks good and sources are correct, why on earth would you want to G5 those articles? That seems somewhat aggressive. Govvy (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Because not doing so would create a giant loophole - just keep creating socks and making good content until someone figures out you're another sock. I also noticed Chicdat restoring Kashmorwiki's edits and I strongly disagree with that, hopefully they will self-revert. SportingFlyer T·C 14:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer I was under the impression that Chicdat was still under a voluntary ban from administrative and non-content areas. What happened to that? YODADICAE👽 14:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Who has verified that the articles are correct? According to the SPI, previous sockpuppets did not follow appropriate guidelines and carried out some vandalism. G5 means we don't have to waste time with sockpuppet creations, who are often blocked for content-related reasons. CMD (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Someone (didn't pay much attention to who) was also apparently blanket-reverting a bunch of AfD relists Kashmorwiki made, which annoyed me when it was one I'd made the AfD for, because it resulted in it appearing in a screwed-up/confusing way on the daily list. The AfD in question shouldn't have been relisted in the first place, strictly speaking, but I don't behoove people forgetting WP:NOQUORUM or feel a particular rush to get an article deleted in a week rather than two, and in lieu of that it's a bit annoying to see the daily lists get screwed up. As for Chicdat restoring edits, perhaps we could re-read WP:PROXYING:
Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.
It's perfectly acceptable, per policy, for Chicdat to of his own accord and for his own reasons restore and take responsibility for Kashmorwiki's work on the encyclopedia. There is perhaps an argument to be made, considering the backstory here, that Chicdat doesn't know what he's signing up for on that front, but "do you really want to take responsibility for those edits?" is a different argument to "you can't take responsibility for those edits". Vaticidalprophet 16:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)- This. As an SPI regular, I have no problem using G5/rollback on sock edits, but if someone contests them, I am generally happy to restore the deleted material/revert the rollbacks/etc. on the understanding that the contesting editor is taking at least a small measure of responsibility for the reverted material, at a minimum "I've read their editsand think it's okay" (though I am generally reluctant to do this for socks that we've identified as paid editors/editing firms). Whether Chicdat actually has looked into the edits that much or is just blanket reverting/contesting, I couldn't tell you. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict) There's a right and a wrong way of taking responsibility for a blocked/banned user's edits. I venture to suggest that I was following the right way here and in a bunch of similar edits that I performed yesterday with no communication with Kashmorwiki (at least I have received no complaints), but that saying in edit summaries "Kashmorwiki is a good-faith editor" is the wrong way. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- As you have partially bolded, policy requires that the edits are good "and they have independent reasons for making such edits". I even specifically asked Chicdat above if they were checking the edits themselves above, and they replied only that the edits don't "have anything to do with the ban in this question". That is not taking responsibility for the edits in question. CMD (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Per my conversation with Mz7 here and their detailed analysis here, I’m not even sure SO be considered. Abusing multiple accounts is one thing, doubling down by using multiple accounts to interact with your self is gaming the system to a whole new level which I find extremely reprehensible and an archetypical example of NOTHERE. Celestina007 (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - I haven't looked at the edits in question and am not about to, as I think the editors here will be able able to tell better if the edits were good or not. It seems that they don't really understand what Wikipedia is and think that it is some sort of game. In fact, I would argue that they initially thought that Cyclone Owen was a picture/article, that they thought would be put straight on the fridge/made into a GA/FA. could show off by putting on the firdge That is partially why the so-called ban from administrative areas was introduced, except it wasn't a ban but more of a suggestion from @Jasper Deng: as they were getting into a lot of unintentional trouble.Jason Rees (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I understand your point about Chicdat's early behavior, but I would argue that he has mostly improved it, and this is just a small mistake that should not be penalized just yet. ( It appears that he mainly just misinterpreted the result of an RFC to allow third party appeals in exceptional circumstances and thought it applied here, but the misstaken 3X advice is concerning. )Note that Chicdat did finally get Cyclone Owen promoted recently, showing their growth with help from a mentor. I think that the right choice here would be to keep the unofficial ban in place for now, but with an official warning that any more missteps in administrative areas would result in a formal indefinite topic ban without further warning, as they do seem willing to improve. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Jackattack1597: I would like to point out that Owen only got promoted to GA because MarioJump83 significantly improved and expanded it. Otherwise, it would still be in poor condition. NoahTalk 00:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I understand your point about Chicdat's early behavior, but I would argue that he has mostly improved it, and this is just a small mistake that should not be penalized just yet. ( It appears that he mainly just misinterpreted the result of an RFC to allow third party appeals in exceptional circumstances and thought it applied here, but the misstaken 3X advice is concerning. )Note that Chicdat did finally get Cyclone Owen promoted recently, showing their growth with help from a mentor. I think that the right choice here would be to keep the unofficial ban in place for now, but with an official warning that any more missteps in administrative areas would result in a formal indefinite topic ban without further warning, as they do seem willing to improve. Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Can an admin block Salamaashu (talk · contribs)? They're obviously someone's sock who just registered and immediately involved themselves with this case. It seems like someone doing a poor job of trying to joe job Kashmorwiki. DanCherek (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
As a note
I have voluntarily banned myself from several admin areas, see my talk page. I have voluntarily banned myself from several admin areas, see my talk page. Chicdat (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
emergency filter/notification
A Twitter user who blogged about the controversy surrounding Turkish War of Independence has instructed their thousands of followers to submit UAA (inexplicable, really) reports about Buidhe. Since I don't think UAA can be protected, can someone throw together a quick filter to stop the disruption? Normally I wouldn't ask in such a public place but it needs quick attention. I have some other ideas for filters to prevent further disruption if an EFM wants to email me. Grogudicae👽 13:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- but we should encourage these reports, the disruption caused by, ah, Gaelic yellowness is immeasurable! ——Serial 13:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is about on par with the WP:CALIPH disruption so we may need a bit of a drastic, but temporary filter for the next day. Grogudicae👽 13:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- My sources tell me that a filter is under way. Are any other pages affected? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Zzuuzz there is discussion on that forum I linked that is changing so I would make it broad enough that it could conceivably include ANI/AN, etc... Martin Urbanec has crafted a filter if someone wants to implement it here. Grogudicae👽 13:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- The UAA filings are not at the filter level really. There have been a total of four such reports so far, and they have all been reverted within five minutes of being posted. I don't think any admin would block Buidhe over any of these reports, they are completely misguided and misfiled at UAA and should be easy to reject out of hand. The article and talk have been protect. Buidhe's page was protected. I would suggest protecting User talk:FDW777 and User talk:Visnelma possibly as well, as they have been targeted as well though in a secondary fashion to Buidhe.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's in the works and based on the number of helpees in irc-help, OTRS tickets and rants on the talk page at this time, I suspect it will continue and it's better to get ahead of it. Grogudicae👽 13:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is this something that can be covered by an edit notice? Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Mjroots, no. If this is anything like the Caliphate incident, the people posting are all transmit and no receive - nothing we say will change anything, it's all because of our bias, yadda yadda yadda. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Is this something that can be covered by an edit notice? Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's in the works and based on the number of helpees in irc-help, OTRS tickets and rants on the talk page at this time, I suspect it will continue and it's better to get ahead of it. Grogudicae👽 13:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- The UAA filings are not at the filter level really. There have been a total of four such reports so far, and they have all been reverted within five minutes of being posted. I don't think any admin would block Buidhe over any of these reports, they are completely misguided and misfiled at UAA and should be easy to reject out of hand. The article and talk have been protect. Buidhe's page was protected. I would suggest protecting User talk:FDW777 and User talk:Visnelma possibly as well, as they have been targeted as well though in a secondary fashion to Buidhe.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Zzuuzz there is discussion on that forum I linked that is changing so I would make it broad enough that it could conceivably include ANI/AN, etc... Martin Urbanec has crafted a filter if someone wants to implement it here. Grogudicae👽 13:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- My sources tell me that a filter is under way. Are any other pages affected? -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is about on par with the WP:CALIPH disruption so we may need a bit of a drastic, but temporary filter for the next day. Grogudicae👽 13:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I have recieved legal threats
Hi I am sorry if this is the wrong place to write this but I have recieved several legal threats today due to my edits on Turkish War of Independence. How should I handle the situation? Is it possible that they can locate me? Thank you for your advices in advance.--Visnelma (talk) 22:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Did you receive these threats on Wiki? RickinBaltimore (talk)Questiuo — Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore: Yes, I did.[12]--Visnelma (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- (ec) No one here can give you legal advice, but laws in Turkey do not extend past their borders. In terms of being found it's probably not very likely. 331dot (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- And on a technical level, the Turkish government can't trace the IPs of any edits that don't interact with servers they have jurisdiction over (unless they're resorting to hacking foreign ISPs or the WMF). So unless you've previously linked yourself to an IP (in which case go thataway!), they'd have to subpoena the WMF for your IP, which would, to put it mildly, be a whole thing. Per foundation:Privacy policy:
if we believe that a particular request for disclosure of a user's information is legally invalid or an abuse of the legal system and the affected user does not intend to oppose the disclosure themselves, we will try our best to fight it. We are committed to notifying you via email at least ten (10) calendar days, when possible, before we disclose your Personal Information in response to a legal demand. However, we may only provide notice if we are not legally restrained from contacting you, there is no credible threat to life or limb that is created or increased by disclosing the request, and you have provided us with an email address.
-- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 04:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- And on a technical level, the Turkish government can't trace the IPs of any edits that don't interact with servers they have jurisdiction over (unless they're resorting to hacking foreign ISPs or the WMF). So unless you've previously linked yourself to an IP (in which case go thataway!), they'd have to subpoena the WMF for your IP, which would, to put it mildly, be a whole thing. Per foundation:Privacy policy:
- FYI pings do not work unless you sign the same post in which you ping. 331dot (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore:--Visnelma (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I've blocked the user who made that edit. 331dot (talk) 22:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see the user was blocked and I concur a very good block. If you see this in the future, it's best to report it and the user will be blocked for their actions. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that message be revdel'd? It doesn't strike me as appropriate to leave something like that unredacted. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Visnelma you are not alone in being targeted by that faction. There are a couple threads above this one about the same problems. Added to that I received an obnoxious email as have others. People who do that can have their email capabilities removed by admins. I know that this fact doesn't make things any less unpleasant for you I just wanted you to know that there are people here that can understand what you are dealing with and they will help when they can. MarnetteD|Talk 04:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I also concur that it is a good block and was about to do it myself if 331dot hadn't already. Visnelma if they start misusing email to contact you, let us know so that we can put a stop to it. If this does happen, I would advise against responding to any contact attempts they make via email as they do not have your email address and only get it if you reply (or email them first). MarnetteD if there are any new ones abusing email to report, please do so so that a stop can be put to it. We don't tolerate abuse. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Visnelma you are not alone in being targeted by that faction. There are a couple threads above this one about the same problems. Added to that I received an obnoxious email as have others. People who do that can have their email capabilities removed by admins. I know that this fact doesn't make things any less unpleasant for you I just wanted you to know that there are people here that can understand what you are dealing with and they will help when they can. MarnetteD|Talk 04:26, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that message be revdel'd? It doesn't strike me as appropriate to leave something like that unredacted. Guettarda (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Guettarda: I agree. I've revdel'd it per WP:DEL#REASON #14 as WP:NOT mentions not making legal threats in WP:BATTLE (this would also be arguably covered appropriately by WP:IAR in either case as it is against the project's goals). Pinging Visnelma for fyi. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks to everyone for their answers. I will take your advices into account.--Visnelma (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
You must stop your inferiority psychology and Anti Turkish sentiment. Bdmaf512 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bdmaf512 Are you interested in contributing to this encyclopedia, or just passing through to complain? 331dot (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
331dot Just passing through to complain. Bdmaf512 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Complained, passed through, gone. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- While the above "passer-by" was blocked by FPaS per "not here", I wonder whether it should be logged that it's a likely sock of the other blocked user. And whether the original WP:NLT-blocked user's contributions to ANI should likewise be revdel'd. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bdmaf512 is 12345wsa, and there's a fair chance that they're both Tarik289. I'll request global locks for all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention that I brought folks up to speed about this at the Foundation level (prompt response), as well. So now there's also a T&S case log number for this in their records. El_C 12:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: I am glad to hear that. Thank you for doing that. @NinjaRobotPirate: ty. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: What about Badi_Bani? --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Badi Bani is Bayramoviç, who is unrelated to the Tarik socks. Different country. These socks remind me of a site-banned edit warrior in the same geographical area, but there isn't enough evidence to connect them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you. I've updated Badi Bani's block to match (TPA and email yank) and logged at SPI pro forma. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate:, can you please look at the named accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liberetaecus (where Bani Bani, Bayramoviç, 12345wsa, ... were already listed prior to your finding)? There are several other accounts there with similar behaviors, that CU will possibly allow to match. Some of the accounts are older (they are all low edit, but some of them edited before the dispute flared up and others edited after the talk page became AC protected which barred newly created accounts), this may reveal more information. I suspect there are two-three different sock masters there (which CU may allow to separate, it is hard based on disruption only - based on your grouping above I'd think Trkn98 is also 12345wsa (possibly Tarik289)) + some meat puppets.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 01:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Badi Bani is Bayramoviç, who is unrelated to the Tarik socks. Different country. These socks remind me of a site-banned edit warrior in the same geographical area, but there isn't enough evidence to connect them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: What about Badi_Bani? --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: I am glad to hear that. Thank you for doing that. @NinjaRobotPirate: ty. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention that I brought folks up to speed about this at the Foundation level (prompt response), as well. So now there's also a T&S case log number for this in their records. El_C 12:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bdmaf512 is 12345wsa, and there's a fair chance that they're both Tarik289. I'll request global locks for all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
- While the above "passer-by" was blocked by FPaS per "not here", I wonder whether it should be logged that it's a likely sock of the other blocked user. And whether the original WP:NLT-blocked user's contributions to ANI should likewise be revdel'd. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate board for this (and if it isn't, please summarily close this/move this to another board), though I don't really know where else to post this considering that likely applies to a number of pages and it contains information on off-wiki brigading that is being planned by a the subreddit /r/genzedong on articles pertaining to the Uyghur genocide and the Chinese Communist Party.
- As far as I can tell, the brigading has been ongoing since a little over 5 months ago when a redditor by the username of /u/FuckedByRailcars, who describes themself as an
Undercover commie wikipedian here
noted that they had an extended-confirmed account. The user called upon others to join themto defend the motherland
and noted that they knew that doing so would be in violation of wikipedia policies. - The discussions of making edits to wikipedia on the subreddit have accelerated in recent weeks. One month ago, a post was made that encouraged individuals to sign-up and edit random wikipedia articles in order to gain edits (and privileges) on the site, with the eventual goal of coordinating a campaign to remove what the OP and their fellow brigadiers deem "anti-Chinese bias". The editor also encouraged individuals to reach out to them in order to facilitate this stated goal (which seems to be improper off-wiki communication).
- Discussions on the subreddit have alleged that Horse Eye's Back, myself, and oranjelo100 are CIA shills. Other comments in the thread note from members of the subreddit have stated that
we've made a decade long mistake with wikipedia. we should have targeted admin roles there. now we're fucked and trying to catch from behind
andLet’s start editing it 👍
. - More recently, the subreddit has discussed
trying to infiltrate wikipedia
and redditors appear to have responded with interest. One redditor stated that the wouldhave a discord server and kick ass project name for a psy op that can be this influential
.
I'm a good bit concerned about what this means regarding the potential for tenditious editing in the topic area, which is obviously an issue of international political controversy. I also would not be surprised, owing to the timing of the posts on the subreddit, if the subreddit has been the source of brigading IP that have engaged in personal attacks against me and other editors. The subreddit also appears to be actively monitoring edits in the area (tagging Chipmunkdavis since they are also targeted in this post), and appears to think that there's a CIA conspiracy to make the page the way it is. I'm not exactly sure how to proceed, though I'm generally concerned regarding the potential for this sort of coordinated brigading to move articles away from compliance with WP:NPOV in line with tendentious goals. I'm especially concerned regarding the comments that appear to want to target admin roles and specific articles, and I wanted to post this here to see if any admins have suggestions for a way forward in light of the evidence of coordinated brigading. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the notification, I'd forgotten about those pages. I'm not really involved in this area, my edits in the above images part of a larger clean-up, but the pages in question could definitely use a lot more eyes. This off-wiki canvassing possibly relates to the accounts that popped up at Radio Free Asia last month (previous ANI discussion). CMD (talk) 07:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Chipmunkdavis: I think you’re mostly involved in this through sockpuppet work, Ineedtostopforgetting is one of the main POV pushers in that space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Considering the allegations against User:Oranjelo100 in the subreddit, which Mikehawk10 mentions, it's a little worrying that Oranjelo has recently been indeffed per this ANI thread. They have responded, but without using the unblock template. (We know templates are alarming.) I have now put their comment into a template so it'll be considered. Perhaps somebody would like to review it ASAP, or possibly unblock them for the purpose of replying here? Pinging Drmies, the blocking admin. Bishonen | tålk 09:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC).
- That is actually a little worrying, I hadn’t thought much of it at the time (probably because Oranjelo can be a bit annoying) but a few of the editors who wanted to deep six them I hadn’t seen around those parts before and I felt that the proposal was just odd given the zero block history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be taken a look at, although the participants in the community review look mostly like long-term active editors to me.Regarding the proposal, it was an admin who had suggested the CBAN route to me in such situations because of the long tenure and type of issues. — MarkH21talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Not trying to cast shade on you or other editors who voted for a CBAN, there was a clear case for it. I just wish an admin had blocked them at least once over the years, I never got the feeling that they realized they were over the line. As Dmries said with no defense they dug their own grave and the many people Oranjelo100 pissed off can definitely explain why so many people chimed in against them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be taken a look at, although the participants in the community review look mostly like long-term active editors to me.Regarding the proposal, it was an admin who had suggested the CBAN route to me in such situations because of the long tenure and type of issues. — MarkH21talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: Unfortunately, WP:CBANs are a bit harder to overcome than a normal block. Needs community approval at its own discussion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I can't help Oranje100; they dug their own grave. That discussion was open for eight days, and many of the "aye" votes are from longterm users--it was hardly a reddit-inflected sock fest. Having said that, obviously this is a matter of grave concern, but the Oranje100 ban is another matter. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- That is actually a little worrying, I hadn’t thought much of it at the time (probably because Oranjelo can be a bit annoying) but a few of the editors who wanted to deep six them I hadn’t seen around those parts before and I felt that the proposal was just odd given the zero block history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- This isn’t a new thing... Its been going on for a while and has tainted a number of discussions (particularly around whether or not mainland Chinese sources are WP:RS), [13]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- This is pretty concerning, and may explain the several new editors that appeared almost weekly at Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 6 and Talk:Uyghur genocide/Archive 7 for example.Are there appropriate remedies for this beside increased admin attention? General sanctions? In this area, I think that currently there is just WP:AFLG. — MarkH21talk 16:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, nothing has gone to arbitration on this more broadly thus far. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- @MarkH21: Actually, the more I look at this, the more I think that this ANI thread should be reopened. There was considerable support for a WP:CBAN owing to WP:NOTHERE, and this sort of stuff might make those who were on the fence tip towards supporting some sort of sanction. Is there a way to request administrative review of the thread regarding whether there was a consensus on the issue?
- My alternative idea would be to make a proposal that imposes a semi-protection on all articles/templates related to Uyghurs and/or Xinjiang, broadly construed, though I don't know what the right venue would be to propose that. If we're getting organized brigading and clear efforts to coordinate POVPUSHing, it might be the most narrowly tailored approach for now, though the members of the self-described
psy op
seems to be sophisticated enough to understand that they can edit other articles to get around this limit pretty quickly. I know that this is something typically done by ARBCOM, but I don't see any immediate reason why the community couldn't decide to impose it (via consensus) without going to arbitration. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)- I worry about restricting access or trying to identify “infiltrators” or whatever those guys want to be... We have to be careful to avoid a red scare or dissuading good faith wikipedia editors who are socialists or communists from participating in the topic area by giving the idea that they are unwelcome. Semi-protection might be an option, but as you said there are ways around that and I don’t think thats new editors/IPS who would be restricted from editing are causing major issues at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I also don't think we have evidence to connect specific editors to particular users of /r/GenZedong (as of yet), and I'm not sure that doing so would be in line with wikipedia policies anyway. My worry is more that they are... continuously monitoring (archive) the discussion on the topic and also my talk page (archive). My point regarding protection is more that a semi-protection doesn't really impose a burden on legitimate editors (on these topics), while it puts up a barrier to IP vandalism that we've seen (both on talk pages and in articles). Additionally, I think that the ANI complain should probably have been given a close rather than turned into an archive, and I am wondering if an admin could review it.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- My first guess would be that someone is simply monitoring your contributions, hence for example the activity on the Chen Weihua article you created just over a week ago. While I don't have a link to hand right now, I remember there has previously been discussion about discretionary sanctions for China/Hong Kong/Taiwan related articles, with there being no agreement that there has been enough disruption to implement such measures. (I haven't seen that much IP vandalism, but again I don't actually edit much in this area.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- I also don't think we have evidence to connect specific editors to particular users of /r/GenZedong (as of yet), and I'm not sure that doing so would be in line with wikipedia policies anyway. My worry is more that they are... continuously monitoring (archive) the discussion on the topic and also my talk page (archive). My point regarding protection is more that a semi-protection doesn't really impose a burden on legitimate editors (on these topics), while it puts up a barrier to IP vandalism that we've seen (both on talk pages and in articles). Additionally, I think that the ANI complain should probably have been given a close rather than turned into an archive, and I am wondering if an admin could review it.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I worry about restricting access or trying to identify “infiltrators” or whatever those guys want to be... We have to be careful to avoid a red scare or dissuading good faith wikipedia editors who are socialists or communists from participating in the topic area by giving the idea that they are unwelcome. Semi-protection might be an option, but as you said there are ways around that and I don’t think thats new editors/IPS who would be restricted from editing are causing major issues at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Does wikipedia want references
Checkout the article Erwin Helmchen. I added corrected stats with reference and they were deleted by the user Jiho3013. That's incredible if you need more contributions. Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 User talk:Γεώργιος Τερζής 2 10:40 6 Μay 2021 (UTC)
- Γεώργιος, User:Jiho3013 is another editor just like you. It seems that there is disagreement about the content of this article so the place to discuss it is Talk:Erwin Helmchen. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Topic ban appeal part deux
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am really confused by how administrative processes on Wikipedia work... I opened this appeal but it has been archived without any conclusion: [14]
I feel really bad that this is resulting in such a huge time loss for the community. I thought one uninvolved admin would decide on the case and we would be done with it one way or the other. Instead I am thrown into a never ending discussion regarding every edit I ever did (even those before the topic ban!) with editors wasting time on old useless discussions from years ago. Many of the editors are the same ones involved in my previous ban and grave new accusations are being brought against me with little or no proof. In this court of public opinion no rules exist to ensure fairness. Accusations can be levied freely without any proof or repercussion. Decisions are being made in haste based on hearsay and without proper context. Defending myself is impossible and might result in self incrimination due to due to my topic ban and accusations of WP:BLUDGEONing the process.
Are there no rules for handling those appeals? Is there a policy that specifies who decides if a ban is reversed? Based on what do they decide?
It seems no real process is in place. No rules exist to ensure fairness and it feels like the goalposts of the appeal are constantly moving and it will be impossible for me to ever clear my name and get a second chance. If I will always be judged on the past how can one learn and do better?
This whole experience has been extremely painful and distressing. I've always believed in Wikipedia and I want to contribute to building the best encyclopaedia of human knowledge. But every time I try to fix this situation that has been plaguing me since 2020 things become worse and I feel attacked from all sides. It seems there is just no way of getting out of those noticeboards alive.
This will be the last message I will post on this thread one way or another. I hope I will at least receive a clarification of the process and a final "sentence" for my appeal rather than another silent closure.
If not: so be it. This is my limit. The system doesn't work. I give up.
I love Wikipedia and really hope the community will find a way to fix those processes and become a less toxic and more welcoming environment soon. It can certainly do better than this.
p.s. yes, I don't believe in science. I believe in magic and fairy tales. I can't tell what a reliable source is and lack the competence required to edit. I am clearly paid to promote companies from another continent and to spread disinformation, hoaxes and conspiracy theories. This is why I can't be trusted to write about the important and delicate topic of UFOs, but should stick to editing less critical pages such as those regarding COVID-19 and people's health. I guess it's a good thing I also don't believe in logic...
-- {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 14:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd say no conclusion means no change. Not that it was headed in your favour anyway, but I suspect your response to Cullen328 sunk your chances. Guettarda (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Gtoffoletto, you were blocked indefinitely in July 2020 for harassing Bishonen about this ban, were you not? And unblocked a month later? And now you come here with snark about the problems that led to your ban? That seems... injudicious. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- While that discussion wasn't closed there is clearly no consensus in it to lift the ban. I suggest you move on and edit in some area that doesn't relate to UFOs. A long track record of good contributions in other areas would be persuasive in another appeal. Repeated posting here about the topic ban is likely to have the opposite effect. Hut 8.5 19:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- Listen to this advice. I, along with many other editors, have managed to edit for well over a decade without (as far as I can remember) ever editing about UFOs. They only constitute a minuscule proportion of our content. What is so difficult about avoiding that subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I guess this is not an appeal, so we're not !voting on whether it should be accepted, but let me put in my 2c that the PS in the original message constitutes a good argument that the topic ban is doing its job of preventing disruption, and that removing it would be a bad idea. --JBL (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Raegan Revord
Probably time for this to be create-protected. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've salted the page for now. I'm pretty confident that it'll be removed at some point, but for the moment leaving as is. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)