Administrators' newsletter – July 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).
|
|
user_global_editcount
is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)
- An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.
- The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Edit warring on Macedonians (ethnic group)
Hello Bbb23. Editors are fighting among themselves for a new image (a map) on Macedonians (ethnic group). There is no consensus yet for it to stay, so I removed it. I believe the editors have been in Wikipedia for quite a while and are experienced users, so I am confident the edit warring will stop there, but I will feel better if an Admin keeps an eye on it just in case. Thank you very much. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 18:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Potential sockpuppet
I noticed that you recently blocked User:Editonic for sockpuppetry. Since then, an editor named Fjfgd[1] has been making very, very similar edits using much the same aggressive tone, continuing edit wars started by Editonic and acting in a nearly identical manner. I thought you'd want to be made aware of this. Anwegmann (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Advice
concerning your closure of my report [2] can you tell me where I should file it? I have looked around and thought the noticeboard was the most appropriate place to file the report but it appears I’ve been mistaken Thundercloss (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- You use the normal methods of dispute resolution. Administrators don't resolve content disputes, even protracted ones.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- did you mean wp:dr? Your link sent me to the policy on disruptive editing, not dispute resolution. Thundercloss (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Administrators noticeboard
Have correctly notified the user now. However unable to reply to you there for some reason. Thanks your help though. SjShane (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
An AFD you closed as keep was renominated by the same guy
You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli as Keep. The person who sent it to AFD then nominated the article again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli (2nd nomination). Dream Focus 18:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've deleted it and warned the user. The article is now on my watchlist. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was just stopping by to wonder about the deletion of the new AfD, because there had been an extensive discussion (that I participated in) before it was deleted. WP:VANDAL policy includes
Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism.
However, I feel like I lack sufficient experience with these types of issues to understand the basis for this action. I have previously seen an article rapidly renominated at AfD in the past that was permitted to proceed, so I am curious about how this is different. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)- The renomination was somewhere between vandalism and disruption, but in my view closer to vandalism. It was certainly not done in good faith. In the example you give the first AfD was closed as "no consensus", not as "keep".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- After the research I conducted and my discussion with the other !voter who withdrew their keep !vote (that they had also made in the first AfD), I think there is some support for a good faith basis in the renomination. If it had started snowing 'keeps' with independent RS cited to support notability, then I would wholly agree with a speedy close of the discussion. However, at this point, the participation of three editors has been deleted per WP:G3, while the further discussion had uncovered a lot of sensationalist tabloid content and evidence that there is no support for notability. Under these circumstances, I ask that you reconsider the deletion and reverse it so the discussion can continue. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- The previous AFD was open for 9 days, and all three editors that voted said Keep. Less than an hour after it was closed, it was nominated again by the same person. He should've asked to have it reopened for more time to discuss it farther. Dream Focus 21:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think the nominating editor could be warned about how to best use the process to help prevent disruption in the future. I had previously seen a rapid renomination happen, and saw a basis for deleting the article, so I participated. Beccaynr (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23, as an update, I had a discussion with the nominating editor on my Talk page where I explained the usual process for addressing disagreements with AfD outcomes. I am hoping this helps address the concerns you may have with the rapid renomination and provides additional support for restoring the AfD so discussion can continue. One of my concerns about this deletion is related to how if I nominate this article for deletion in the future, I would need to request undeletion to retrieve my good faith research and the record of the discussion, because I do not see any basis for my work to have been deleted as vandalism. I think it would be easiest if the AfD is restored now and the discussion can simply continue, and we can just return to our regular work on the encyclopedia. Thank you again for your consideration of this request. Beccaynr (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your discussion with the user does not address my concerns at all. Part of the reason for that is I don't trust a new user who has conducted themself the way they have. I am unwilling to restore the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Please note that I plan to seek review of this deletion because it seems best for the encyclopedia to have the deletion discussion continue for this sock-created article, and I will notify you when I have posted the request. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Socks everywhere. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would not be surprised if the article is also a UPE production, based on the self-promotion by the article subject (and lack of independent RS supporting notability) in the sources I found in my research. I completely agree it is not ideal for a new editor, whose first AfD sucessfully deleted an article, to not consult with you after their next AfD closed. But the thought of reviewing the sensationalist tabloid content again, and finding the source that admits she has no WP:NACTOR notability, using Google Translate for most of the sources, is just ugh. I already did the work, one of the previous !voters withdrew their support for keeping the article, and it's been deleted as vandalism when it seems clear that we were trying to protect the encyclopedia. I still do not understand why the discussion was deleted after established editors participated, but I do not want to keep bothering you about this, because it also seems clear you have made your decision and I have the option to appeal when I have the time to focus on it. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Socks everywhere. :p --Bbb23 (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. Please note that I plan to seek review of this deletion because it seems best for the encyclopedia to have the deletion discussion continue for this sock-created article, and I will notify you when I have posted the request. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your discussion with the user does not address my concerns at all. Part of the reason for that is I don't trust a new user who has conducted themself the way they have. I am unwilling to restore the AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23, as an update, I had a discussion with the nominating editor on my Talk page where I explained the usual process for addressing disagreements with AfD outcomes. I am hoping this helps address the concerns you may have with the rapid renomination and provides additional support for restoring the AfD so discussion can continue. One of my concerns about this deletion is related to how if I nominate this article for deletion in the future, I would need to request undeletion to retrieve my good faith research and the record of the discussion, because I do not see any basis for my work to have been deleted as vandalism. I think it would be easiest if the AfD is restored now and the discussion can simply continue, and we can just return to our regular work on the encyclopedia. Thank you again for your consideration of this request. Beccaynr (talk) 20:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think the nominating editor could be warned about how to best use the process to help prevent disruption in the future. I had previously seen a rapid renomination happen, and saw a basis for deleting the article, so I participated. Beccaynr (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- The previous AFD was open for 9 days, and all three editors that voted said Keep. Less than an hour after it was closed, it was nominated again by the same person. He should've asked to have it reopened for more time to discuss it farther. Dream Focus 21:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- After the research I conducted and my discussion with the other !voter who withdrew their keep !vote (that they had also made in the first AfD), I think there is some support for a good faith basis in the renomination. If it had started snowing 'keeps' with independent RS cited to support notability, then I would wholly agree with a speedy close of the discussion. However, at this point, the participation of three editors has been deleted per WP:G3, while the further discussion had uncovered a lot of sensationalist tabloid content and evidence that there is no support for notability. Under these circumstances, I ask that you reconsider the deletion and reverse it so the discussion can continue. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- The renomination was somewhere between vandalism and disruption, but in my view closer to vandalism. It was certainly not done in good faith. In the example you give the first AfD was closed as "no consensus", not as "keep".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was just stopping by to wonder about the deletion of the new AfD, because there had been an extensive discussion (that I participated in) before it was deleted. WP:VANDAL policy includes
Another sock at Talk:United States
Awolf58 again. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, blocked before I saw this post. I have the page on my watchlist.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli (2nd nomination)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli (2nd nomination). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Beccaynr (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)