Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:c7f:f6c8:f300:100c:3a82:d551:2245 (talk) at 17:24, 2 August 2021 (→User:RASSIOPEIA hiding paid contributions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    information Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)


    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Feb Mar Apr May Total
    CfD 0 0 0 121 121
    TfD 0 0 1 6 7
    MfD 0 0 0 2 2
    FfD 0 0 1 24 25
    RfD 0 0 0 14 14
    AfD 0 0 0 17 17

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (24 out of 11827 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh 2025-05-29 22:19 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    T-90 2025-05-29 21:52 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
    Hassan Aslih 2025-05-29 20:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter
    Template:Table alignment/tables.css 2025-05-29 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Table alignment 2025-05-29 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Draft:Kit Butler 2025-05-29 17:11 2025-06-29 17:11 move Move warring: requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/FAQ 2025-05-29 13:48 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing Ahecht
    Kim Soo-han 2025-05-29 12:57 2025-08-24 10:25 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Materialscientist
    FBG Duck 2025-05-29 02:51 2025-06-13 19:59 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer 2025-05-29 02:45 indefinite edit per RFPP, only EC editors can request this Daniel Case
    Rafah aid distribution incident 2025-05-28 20:04 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; WP:ARBPIA5 enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP QEDK
    Azercell 2025-05-28 19:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:GS/AA, although there's also enough disruption from IPs and non-XC accounts to justify protection even without the special sanctions regime Rosguill
    Template:Lang-ar 2025-05-28 15:23 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Trappist the monk
    Template:Unindented description list/styles.css 2025-05-28 10:32 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module Lectonar
    Template:Unindented description list 2025-05-28 10:32 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module Lectonar
    Claire Shipman 2025-05-28 04:41 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Dr vulpes
    Module:Time/data 2025-05-27 22:43 indefinite edit,move per User talk:Trappist the monk#Module:Time; Trappist the monk
    Module:Time 2025-05-27 22:43 indefinite edit per User talk:Trappist the monk#Module:Time; Trappist the monk
    Module:Language with name/for 2025-05-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Language with name/for 2025-05-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Cite FTP 2025-05-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2513 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Hathwa Raj 2025-05-27 15:15 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement RegentsPark
    That's Showbiz Baby 2025-05-26 21:00 2025-11-26 21:00 move Move warring Daniel Case
    2025 Indian Premier League 2025-05-26 06:08 2026-01-01 12:00 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Dr vulpes

    Appealing topic ban for Raymond3023

    Consensus to unban. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I was topic banned indefinitely per this ARE discussion. The topic ban concerned all edits and pages related to the conflict between India and Pakistan. I am appealing the topic ban since 3 years and 2 months have elapsed and I am completely confident that I can contribute constructively here.

    Since the topic ban, I have made hundreds of edits in these years, including the creation of Space industry of India which was promoted to DYK.[1] Furthermore, I haven't engaged in any behavior for which I had been sanctioned, namely battleground mentality.

    In order to avoid repeating the issue from happening again, I have learned to assume good faith as much as possible and only raise the issue when it is necessary and ensure not to violate any policies. This is mainly because enough time has passed and I am evidently more aware of the policies and expectations here.

    I am also noting that I never violated the topic ban or had any other sanction since. If the topic ban has been removed, I will still continue to contribute in such a productive manner. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wikipedia has over 6.3 million articles, of which I would hazard more than 99% have nothing to do with the conflict between India and Pakistan. Why is that an area in which you feel the need to edit? BD2412 T 05:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is one of my most favorite topic areas and I find a number of articles to be missing information. I would like to start working on geographic articles related to the area for starters. For a name, Wagah lacks details about 2014 Wagah border suicide attack and in turn, the suicide attack article has not been updated for years given it lacks any details about the convictions happened last year. One by one, I will be updating some of these and others. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That AE is really long and involves a lot of participants, so I'm not going to sift through it. The enforcing admin (GoldenRing) seems to be retired now, as well as some others in the discussion (like NeilN). @Bishonen and Vanamonde93: seem to be some active admins who might be familiar with those events. I found this declined (individual) AE appeal, and this declined (mass) ARCA. Otherwise, the appeal above reads reasonably, and it has been 3 years. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support lifting tban. 3 years is a long time and I don't see any evidence they've been disruptive during that time (they haven't edited much at all). They sound sincere. The worst that could happen is they go back to the behavior which got them tbanned in the first place but we'll figure that out pretty quick and can deal with it then. The best that could happen is we gain a productive editor in a topic area known for conflict. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. Pretty much for the same reasons mentioned by RoySmith. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - There hasn't been any complaint against this editor in 3 years other than an AE report filed months ago by a later indefinitely blocked user and it was declined as frivolous by El C.[2] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 07:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A long time since the ban was put in place and I have not seen anyone present evidence of disruption since it has been in place. They have worked on the topic of India specifically and no trouble. I say we try and see what happens. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 07:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support A long time has passed and the editor has been productive since. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I find their response to my query satisfactory, and the arguments of other supporting editors/admins persuasive. BD2412 T 23:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per above. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. I'm a bit wary but will support this. Wary, because though three years have gone by, the editor hasn't edited a whole lot in those three years [3] and much of that, abbreviated, editing appears to be cosmetic. The odds are that content relating to the interaction between India and Pakistan is their sole motivation for being on Wikipedia. But, I'll support this because a one area focus is not necessarily a bad thing and everyone deserves a second shot.--RegentsPark (comment) 21:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My view as an uninvolved editor is already summed up by RegentsPark above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As there is a clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors (and administrators) here to overturn this sanction, could an uninvolved administrator close this discussion, formally notify Raymond3023 of this outcome and update the enforcement log here please? Thanks in advance, Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 3 years and no red flags. I think he's learned his lesson. Buffs (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Lifting topic ban of Junior Jumper

    Hello everyone, I was topic banned from editing Indian poltics about 6½ months ago by Bishonen. Now, as I have completed my 6 months of the ban, as per community rules I want to appeal for the revocation of the ban. I have tried my best to abide by the rules of the ban in the last 6½ months. Thank you.--Junior Jumper (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Junior Jumper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) What is the nature of your topic ban? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Here it is-- Conditional to unblock, Junior Jumper has agreed to a topic ban from Indian politics. They may however add parliamentary diagrams to articles. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proximate cause of the topic ban seems to have been some light edit warring at Sangh Parivar, where Junior Jumper twice changed "militant group" to "youth group" in the description of an organization: [4], and 10 hours later, [5]. JJ's user talk page response to Doug Weller's original revert was definitely far from ideal. The literal "how dare you?" on his talk page, aimed at the ignorant "foreigner" clearly showed that JJ didn't really get how our neutrality policies worked in that context. I am also fully aware that this topic area has long been a contentious one.
      That said, was there more history here that's not immediately obvious? An indefinite block that rolled into a six-month-minimum topic ban feels...abrupt, for a couple of iffy article edits and an ill-considered reaction in one day. Unless there's something else, I'd support lifting the topic ban; it looks like JJ has been at least as productive since the ban was imposed as he was before. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst JJ did add an image, I didn't see that there was edit warring, incivility, white washing, tendentiousness, or POV pushing. Is there any indication of any of those things, perchance? in my Tom Ellis (actor) voice --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose lifting. The issue of agenda-driven POV-pushing editing is significant in this topic area; if it isn't nipped in the bud early, just as Bishonen and Dougweller have done here, the issues pile up over a prolonged period. I would prefer for the restrictions to remain until Junior Jumper can at least clearly demonstrate that he makes substantial edits, consistent with NPOV, in areas he is not banned from. If he cannot stay committed to the topic ban, let alone his agreement not to edit the article again about a group he admits he is a member of, I do not have faith we can rely on his assertions that he will edit in this area appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • OMG, a TenOfAllTrades sighting! El_C 20:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This is not the editor you're looking for... * waves hand * (But seriously, aside from the one article revert and subsequent ugly back-and-forth on his user talk on 29/30 December, have there been any issues with JJ's conduct?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      KOMPAKTOR DEFEATED. El_C 16:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quickly skimmed Junior Jumper's contributions since the topic ban (1 January 2021). The point of a topic ban is to provide an opportunity for an editor to show that they can make content edits that follow standard procedures, however all I can see are adjustments to images. Most of that activity appears to be within the topic of Indian politics, as agreed. Without better reason, I do not support lifting a topic ban in such a contentious area which already has enough enthusiasts. Johnuniq (talk) 05:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Abhishek0831996: I have edited the page Banwari Lal Joshi but it is not the page of Indian politician. It is the page of former IPS BL Joshi. I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.--Junior Jumper (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead sentence of Banwari Lal Joshi says: "Banwari Lal Joshi (27 March 1936 – 22 December 2017)[1] was an Indian political figure..." and right here you had to stop instead of thinking to falsify his career after violating the topic ban. He is mainly known for being a governor, and a governor in India is a political post. With this edit you have already violated your topic ban from Indian politics. What you are doing is called WP:GAMING. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • ” I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.” I think this is an absurd claim about the article that inspires very little confidence for me that this editor either understands the issue with their problematic past - and now seemingly ongoing behaviour, or shows they’re intentionally willing to bend their understanding of the rules using implausible reasons to justify their POV pushing. It’s a no from me. Mkdw talk 11:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just noting that I changed the lead sentence of Banwari Lal Joshi just now, from "political figure" to "civil servant and government official," which I think is more accurate. I wouldn't have phrased this response the way JJ phrased it, but I don't think it's an absurd claim that BLJ was not a politician. Levivich 14:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The absurd claim is the apparent claim that the topic ban does not cover the position of a governor. Whether BLJ was a politician or not is being only debated by the OP instead of accepting the topic ban violation. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • To use an analogy: Louis Susman was US ambassador to the UK but he's not a politician. Would someone who is TBANed from America Politics be prohibited from adding or changing the picture in Louis Susman's article? I don't think so, or if that's a TBAN violation, it's a pretty peripheral and minor one. Just because a person received a political appointment at the end of their career doesn't mean every part of their biography is related to politics (nor does it make them a politician). Levivich 15:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I blocked Junior Jumper for persistent tendentious editing, a block that was after discussion converted to a topic ban. They had changed the well-sourced description of Bajrang Dal as a "religious militant group" to "religious youth group" — which was hardly heinous in itself — but the edit summary was "How dare they said Bajrang Dal 'militant'. Bajrang Dal is not a terrorist group. They had sacrificed a lot for country's welfare".[6] Doug Weller reverted stating "It's described this way in its own article, this should match", and JJ reverted back without comment, the way we revert vandalism. This discussion followed on JJ's talk, and I blocked indefinitely. I see TenOfAllTrades considers my action "abrupt, for a couple of iffy article edits and an ill-considered reaction in one day"; I can only say I don't agree. Indeed it happened in one day, but IMO the edits are beyond iffy and the talkpage comments not merely ill-considered but militantly nationalist and indicative of a deep problem: "don't give me the link of BBC news. They have no credibility in our India. They are treated like bastards in our country", "How dare you to call Bajrang Dal a militant organisation? Are you Indian to decide so?", etc. I'm not going to argue about this; I encourage others to make up their own minds. I agree with Abhishek0831996 above that JJ's argument about editing Banwari Lal Joshi (Governor of Uttar Pradesh) is gaming their ban; on the other hand, the edit was nothing much, merely adding an image. A bigger problem is that JJ has edited very little during their ban; basically merely adding parliamentary diagrams and changing/adjusting images. These diagrams are useful, for sure, and are an explicit exemption from their ban. But there are no content edits that I can see. As Johnuniq says, "The point of a topic ban is to provide an opportunity for an editor to show that they can make content edits that follow standard procedures". I did not leave JJ to figure this out; I explicitly advised them to edit other areas and/or other projects, as "it's important to be able to show in an appeal that you have been editing constructively".[7] JJ's appeal above is very bald, with no attempt to show the things they were told they need to show. As the banning admin, I won't put an "oppose" on this, but I'm a bit dubious. Bishonen | tålk 08:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
    • In response to the comments asserting that JJ has edited 'very little' since his ban, JJ's editing prior to his topic ban was also predominantly uncontroversial housekeeping work of exactly the same sort as he's been doing since his topic ban. His editing has, if anything, been at a faster clip than before his ban--he's made about as many edits in the first six months of 2021 as he did in all of 2020. Admins reviewing his contributions should also note that he has a substantial number of deleted contributions related to image maintenance work; indeed, those contributions outnumber his undeleted edits this year.
      To be clear, I absolutely agree that JJ's attitude required adjustment—but I also see enough 'sweat equity' and consistent beneficial behaviour to warrant access to some WP:ROPE. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • TOAT's argument that JJ has been editing productively is reasonable. I also understand why JJ might have though Joshi was (just barely) outside their ban, but I'm not impressed with I think you have no knowledge about the difference between politicians and IPS officers.. On balance, I'm for giving them enough ROPE, but JJ, adjusting your attitude includes knowing when to edit yourself. You could have just left that sentence out of your reply. You could have written instead "PS officers are not politicians." Instead, in your own ban appeal at AN, you impugned the competence of someone opposing the appeal. Do you see how that's counterproductive? —valereee (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Valereee: I am not impinging him. I am only clearing his facts with regards. The fact is that the "police officers are not politicians even if they are appointed as governors". They should be considered as politicians if they join any political party. We can take the example of K Annamalai for it. He joined BJP in August 2020 thats why he is a politician. But BL Joshi never joined any political party so he was a police officer only in his entire life. This prove that I haven't violated the conditions of topic ban. And I apologize for rude words in the previous comment. I will try to balance my language from next time.--Junior Jumper (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Who said that Banwari Lal Joshi was a politician? They only said that you violated your topic ban by editing the subject's page. There are many subjects strongly associated with Indian politics such as Umar Khalid, Ravish Kumar, Arnab Goswami, Mohan Bhagwat but these individuals haven't joined a political party. Your claim that a subject has nothing to do with Indian politics if they never "joined any political party" won't convince anybody because it is simply wrong. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Raymond3023: They have clearly said that I have violated the policy by editing the page. It clearly implies that they are saying that I have edited a politician's page because this is the only thing that I can do to break my unblock policy. It is clear from his view that they are confused regarding the difference difference between an IPS officer and a politician. So, please critically think about their comments and my replies. --Junior Jumper (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) I'd support per WP:ROPE. I don't think Bish's block+unblock-with-TBAN was abrupt. The comments on the "one bad day" were really bad; a block was justified, and unblocking with a TBAN condition was, IMO, the right way to move forward. That said, it was just one bad day. Their editing during the TBAN has been productive from what I can tell, and it was the same type of editing as before the TBAN (images). I don't agree with requiring an editor who edits images to do some other kind of editing (like writing prose) in order to have a TBAN lifted. We don't want editors editing outside of their areas of comfort/expertise/interest just to get a TBAN lifted, nor is it a fair requirement; after all, it's not about jumping through hoops, it's about the community being reasonably assured that an editor can edit without needing a sanction to prevent disruption. If an editor mostly adjusts images before the TBAN, then it's fine if that's what they do during their TBAN. In fact, if an editor normally makes image edits, non-image-edits don't really help us determine how they would behave during their normal editing. (The reverse is true, too: if an editor mostly edits prose, having them upload images during a TBAN doesn't tell us how they'll behave when returning to "normal" editing.) The BLJ image is arguably a TBAN violation ("broadly construed" after all) but a pretty minor/peripheral/harmless one. Six months of productive editing is long enough; let's give them a second chance (bearing in mind that a third chance may not happen if there is a second bad day like the "one bad day" sixmonths ago). Levivich 15:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, everybody see which type of language Abhishek0831996 is using. Don't put words in the mouth of others., is this the way to talk somebody? Many of you are saying that I have used rude language. Now what would you say to Abhishek0831996? Can't he speak politely to me?--Junior Jumper (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    JJ, I agree with EI C. Opposition is an expected part of a ban appeal. There's nothing uncivil about telling someone not to misstate something someone else has said, if you think that's what they've done. I understand this is a stressful process for you, but your best bet is to simply not engage with opposers except to correct actual factual errors or describe how you've tried to address their concerns. Criticizing their input won't help you. —valereee (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You have said "Do you understand that you violated your topic ban just 5 days ago i.e. your one edit before this appeal?" in your first comment. --Junior Jumper (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    JJ, while I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, this response suggests that you are not prepared to engage constructively in this area at this time. Arguing that "politicians" are somehow not within the topic of "politics" is...unsupportable. I oppose this request at this time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Junior Jumper your topic ban concerns Indian politics. The edit you made on Banwari Lal Joshi, breached your topic ban because that subject is significantly related to Indian politics. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Abhishek0831996: Then why were you saying that Don't put words in the mouth of others. Your continued failure to understand that you were topic banned from "Indian politics" not "Indian politicians" shows that you are not getting it.?--17:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junior Jumper (talk • contribs)
      @Junior Jumper: maybe this is partly a problem of English language ability, but I think you're letting your apparent disagreement with Abhishek0831996 harm your ability to contribute productively on your appeal and thereby harm your chances. You are banned from Indian politics. This means you are banned from articles on any Indian politicians. But you are also banned from articles and parts of articles which deal with Indian politics even if the subject is not an Indian politician. Therefore you cannot claim that if a subject is not an Indian politician, your editing was clearly fine. Which seems to be what you tried to say here "It clearly implies that they are saying that I have edited a politician's page because this is the only thing that I can do to break my unblock policy. It is clear from his view that they are confused regarding the difference difference between an IPS officer and a politician." Note I make no comment on whether your edits to Banwari Lal Joshi violated your topic ban as I did not evaluate the edits myself, simply your defence that the person was not a politician and therefore your edits are fine is questionable and it was entirely reasonable for User:Abhishek0831996 to point this out. To give an example from the US with a nod to User:Levivich's comment above, I think anyone with a post 1992 US politics topic ban needs to be very careful and frankly just not touch the articles of James Comey and Brett Kavanaugh even though neither are politicians. Frankly even Stormy Daniels would be a minefield. Note that if you did not understand a ban from Indian politics would cover pretty much any edit to the article of an Indian politician as well as edits to article that weren't directly about politics but were related to Indian politics in some way, this is why people are opposing lifting your topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose lifting topic ban at this point. Users requesting topic bans be lifted should be doing their utmost to show that they can interact with people they disagree with collaboratively; instead, JJ's approach in this very thread has been hostile, even combative. I agree with others that an article about an Indian state governor is clearly within the scope of the ban. Our article on politics defines it as the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. - civil servants, government officials and state governors all fall within the scope of a ban from politics, even if they are not themselves politicians who seek elected office. I would suggest declining this appeal, with a statement reiterating the scope of their ban; I suggest that JJ work on editing collaboratively in completely different areas, and appeal again in not less than six months. Girth Summit (blether) 11:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Is Using the UPE Template against policy?

    I was going to start an RFC when I remembered that AN is just as effective or rather, an alternative to an RFC I do have a question and for the sake of transparency I do have an active case please see here. I have a question I do need you all to assist me with and would be eternally grateful if I can get a definitive reply from you all who have bestowed great trust on me of which I do not take for granted.

    • My question is, is it against policy to leave a UPE tag on an article? I was advised off wiki by a functionary and sysop that when I leave a UPE warning I should also initiate a dialogue with the editor in question and explain to them why i think they are engaging in UPE, but an editor by the name of Kaizenify in that thread told me it wasn’t proper and this got me confused as the {{Upe}} is quite self explanatory. The OP classified me leaving a UPE template as making false allegations and I really do not see how leaving a UPE template is a “false accusation” . I have come here for clarifications because if indeed it’s against policy to UPE template an article effective immediately i wouldn't do that but if not I would like a feedback from you all on what you think. Celestina007 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The template exists for a reason. There was a proposal to delete this template, but it failed. While it is technically not mandatory to start a dialogue with the editor(s) in question, I'd certainly consider it a best practice. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Orangemike, Mike, thank you for your response, I have placed UPE templates on dubious looking articles, which more often than not ended up as actually being UPE indeed but in the aforementioned thread it’s used as “evidence” against me, largely the narrative there is that me tagging articles as UPE is “making false UPE allegations” against editors even when the UPE template is precisely worded and straightforward. Celestina007 (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - @Celestina007:, leaving a UPE template without a strong evidence of UPE by the editor is a false accusation. Promotional tone of articles are not enough evidence of UPE. WP:COI and WP:UPE are two different things. Apparently you seem to be assuming that users who have COI are UPE.

    If a user writes about their university professor or about their uncle who is a lawmaker, that person would be violating our policy on WP:COI regardless of the tone of the article (promotional or not). In most cases, there is no way we are going to proof their connection with the subject unless there are off-wiki evidences. Tagging the page with the WP:COI template without evidences that connects them together is inappropriate and against policy let alone tagging with UPE. If there are offline evidences, you could advice the user to refrain from making further edits on the page. If they continue, you could give them a final warning and this could be followed by a WP:NOTHERE block if they continue. If the user is the sole contributor to that page and engaging in sockpuppetry after the block, the page may now be tagged with the WP:COI template. Police do not kill a suspect before taking them before judges. It's a crime. For WP:UPE, not all editors who have WP:COI are undisclosed paid editors and tagging them as such is inappropriate and may be considered harassment. Before you use that template on articles, you do have to be sure that they have been paid for their edits on the article. The evidences must be strong and significant such as access to the financial or transaction statements. It's almost impossible to proof that a user is UPE and that's why the tag should rarely be used. When you tag an article written by an established editor or new editor as UPE, you are directly or indirectly accusing them of undisclosed paid editing. In this case, you must have a significant evidence to proof that they have been paid or likely to have been paid based on the evidence you have gathered (not just the article promotional tone). The evidence must go beyond the article's promotional tone. Allegation or accusation of UPE is a very serious one at least here on the English Wikipedia and a strong evidence must be presented to back up your claim. The {{UPE}} template says "Add this tag to articles for which there appears to be a significant contribution by an undisclosed paid editor. " This is the condition under which the tag should be used. From that clause, it means that you must have established that the user is an "undisclosed paid editor". That's almost impossible to establish without off-wiki evidences. So, the tag should rarely be used. Kaizenify (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kaizenify, umm calm down, I’m trying to establish a fact. In any case I think the template is worded precisely. Celestina007 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kaizenify not quite, did you read the documentation? You are literally saying the inverse of what the template states. Celestina007 (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The tag does not say the contribution is actually proven to be from a UPE. The tag says it is "for articles where there appears to be a significant contibution be a UPE." "appears to be" is a fairly loose criterion. Perhaps there could be a separate tag for " articles where there definitely has been a significant contibution by a proven UPE." In more usual terms, I think "appears to be" is not even equivalent to "preponderance of the evidence" but an even lower standard, perhaps "reasonable suspicion". It's not an accusation, but an alert to the reader. (FWIW, since I do specialize the university professors, most articles with coi are indeed UPE by the labs or university's PR staff, which is certainly UPE; there are indeed some by enthusiastic students, but it is generally possible to tell them apart; this in;t the place to give the distinguishing signs, but I can expand on this elsewhere. The more troublesome cases is when someone honestly writes and article, but copies the style of promotional editors, thinking that this is what we want--some have in fact said exactly that when challenged. That's the reason for using the very weaj wowwrding "appears to be". We cannot necessarily determine someone's motives, but we can see what they write. DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In regard to situations where there there has been definite paid editing, we have Template:Paid contributions. - Bilby (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG says what is sometimes easily forgotten, perhaps: "It's not an accusation, but an alert to the reader." And I agree with his analysis of who writes up professor's articles, though I will add that in my experiences it's frequently the PR people who write up the administrators, rather than the professors. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Drmies and DGG: my comments here are probably better held at Talk:BLP or VPP or something but since it came up here I'll mention this. The complaint/s which lead to this seem to be mostly related to unfairness against the editors involved I think. Frankly I'm not so concerned about them since anyone who can work out who was involved would hopefully be able to understand that the template is an alert not an accusation. But I've had concerns about this from a BLP standpoint for a while which I was reminded of recently due to this BLPN query. While I should have made this clearer in my response, (I was thinking someone else might respond), I do have great sympathy for the subject there. While they didn't comment why they wanted the tags removed, it's easy to imagine they feel the tags reflects poorly on them whenever people see the article.

    Whatever we may intend by and understand of the templates, the reader may see things differently. While I've seen people argue even generic cleanup tags are harmful, IMO this is likely a minor thing since realistically I can't imagine many readers think that negatively of a subject just because the article has generic cleanup tags. Other than perhaps assuming it's unimportant because no one bothered to fix it. However COI and paid editing tags are different since I wouldn't be surprised if readers do interpret them as reflecting poorly on the subject thinking they themselves wrote an article or worse they paid someone to do it for them, effectively a tag of shame.

    In reality, I expected, and your experiences seems to affirm, that there's a fair chance many of the subjects had little to do with what lead to the tags, they may not have even been aware of the attempt to make an article on them. I suspect it isn't just in academia either, I wouldn't be surprised if similar stuff happens even for CEOs and the like. Even where the person is technically in charge of the people involved, it still seems a bit harsh to blame them for it without knowing a lot more about what went on. (And so while I think it's a terrible attitude from a BLP standpoint, if any editor does feel "serves them right" for having something seen as a tag of shame on the article for years, an important reminder you might be punishing someone who may have little to do with it.)

    But on the flipside, these articles will often be a problem that needs to be checked and until we do so, we probably should alert readers of the fact. And as a volunteer projection I think it's understandable there are often few takers to cleanup an article which only exists because someone did something they shouldn't have. So I don't support removing these without someone bothering to check who feels confident in removing them, rather than just removing them because they've been there a long time as I believe someone advocated when this came up in a prior discussion).

    I suspect deletion is also likely to be controversial, especially since some of these may have had a fair amount of editing from others before the COI as detected. I wonder if the best solution may be to draftify any BLP which has had the tags for maybe 1 year or more. Perhaps this will end up being a back door to deletion if 10 years down the track, someone complains that we have an ever expanding list of drafts from likely paid editors which no one is getting to, but it might still be better than leaving these as is IMO given the potential harm to BLPs from having these tags for many years. (The case which reminded me of it has had them for 3 years and 9 months.)

    Nil Einne (talk) 08:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Obviously not, since we use it all the time. The recent, lengthy TfD discussion affirmed that {{UPE}} is useful, has broad community consensus behind it, and that it functions as a maintenance tag. In other words, it exists primarily to indicate a problem with an article, not with the conduct of its contributors. As such I can't see any reason why you should feel obligated to discuss it with the paid editor. The anonymous functionary sounds like they're making policy up as they go along. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no point in draftifying if there is nobody around who is likely to improve the article. Usual practice is not to draftify if the user is no longer around, especially if it's more than a year old. It inevitably leads to deletion without discussion unless someone like me decides to improve it a little at the 6 month mark and put it back in mainspace, but whoever draftified it could save a good deal of work for the reviewers if they did it themselves. It's just as bad as deleting it automatically, except it has an even higher overhead. Having coi does not mean an article is necessarily improper. At the very least anyone who intends to draftify or delete an article needs to consider whether the coi tag is even justified, and then whether the effect of it on the article is significant. The only exception the community has ever accepted is completely unsourced BLP--and even they get adequate special exposure a tProd, much more than individual drafts get. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I Chose AN as opposed to RFC as both are effective. I understand perfectly how the {{UPE}} works, The documentation is worded fairly, and very precise and in no way translates nor necessarily means that the article creator is actually engaged in UPE infact the tag is so fairly worded that it requires a discussion and I believe if the editor replies with a “No i don’t/did not receive nor intend to receive financial rewards” should suffice enough for the editor who put the tag there to remove it and if unsatisfied by the response take the article and the relevant diffs to COIN or if there’s a long-standing pattern of possible UPE from the same editor, the ANI should be the place to visit. I know it isn’t against policy, neither does it translate to “unfounded accusations” especially if the rationale for putting it there is plausible. Celestina007 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    My page creation attempts are blocked against a title எண்ணியம்

    Wrong wiki. Daniel (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The title I created is general, not pointing to any person. It is a topic on materialism. Materialism is a philosophy. Promote free thinking and freedom of expression. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvvisweswraran (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is the English Wikipedia. Give it an English title. And try creating the page in your sandbox or in draft space first. Main space page creation attempts such as yours look like vandalism. Create it in a safer space and preferably submit it for review via WP:AFC. Be aware that if you are trying to "promote" anything, your article will be deleted anyway. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hvvisweswraran: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We do not promote anything. And Wikipedia is not a place to freely express oneself. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible the editor is describing what they think materialism is rather than saying they want to promote that philosophy? We do already have an article at Materialism. —valereee (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no deleted contribs from this editor and do not find a deleted page by that title. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If your query relates to an edit on the Tamil Wikipedia then you need to ask there. This is the English Wikipedia, which has no more power over other language editions than they do over us. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Help needed with work on a local file pointing to commons

    The instructions are:-

    Possible SPA?

    Hi, I was taking a look at the contributions for Chimichangazzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and have noticed that it is possibly a single-purpose account. I am not assuming bad faith, but almost every one of their edits have been reverted, a lot of their edits have been WP:POINTY and they may be not here to bulid an encyclopedia. I am not involved in a dispute with this editor or anything like this, and while they are not vandalizing pages or have posted anything for a week or so, I think there is a possibility that this account may be a disruption-only account. If that is the case, then it is possible that it gets blocked indefinitely.

    It is possible that they are still relatively new and are not well-versed in Wikipedia's core policies, but I think it is worth taking a look. Aasim (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A bit stale and I indeed noticed apparent WP:RGW/WP:NOTHERE behavior. They had one block for it, then resumed but stopped just short of being blocked again. Maybe can be left a last chance... —PaleoNeonate – 16:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I just reverted an egregiously defective addition with the edit summary "Reverted good faith edits by Chimichangazzz (talk): Unreliable sources and contrary to editorial instructions. Even with RS, you MUST get a consensus for such an addition. Use the talk page.". AllSides and Townhall are not RS. -- Valjean (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    They are back and at the same same old behavior. Numerous attempts at discussion have failed. The temporary block has failed as they only edit every few weeks. I have blocked the account indefinitely with the reason: Disruptive editing, edit warring and POV pushing, refusing to accept consensus against edits. Seems to be a politically motived single purpose account.
    I would have considered a DS topic ban from American politics, however this is the only area that they edit.
    If another admin can get be confident that they are going to work better within the community they may unblock without further discussion with me. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering a complete disregard for consensus, apparent NOTHERE concerns and the renewed edit warring, this was probably the best option. If it was a technical issue, the last block would theoretically have catched their attention... —PaleoNeonate – 16:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeke Essiestudy ban appeal

    Zeke Essiestudy (talk · contribs) has been unblocked by Drmies. Welcome back and happy editing, Zeke. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Ezekiel53746 (talk · contribs) is appealing their three strikes community ban, seeking permission to continue editing from their most recent (and most productive) account: Zeke_Essiestudy (talk · contribs). The text of the appeal is copied here by request:

    So for those that remember I used to cause a lot of disruption during 2009-2014, which I addressed here. I don't want to be that kind of a person anymore, I haven't wanted to for a long time, hence why I wanted to start afresh with Zeke Essiestudy. And, I was genuinely enjoying my time on that account. Being actually productive... Far more than I would've enjoyed keeping vandalizing or disrupting Wikipedia. Unfortunately, after I confessed to the Administrator's noticeboard out of guilt, that account was immediately hardblocked. Now it's almost been three years since I last edited this place. I still want to come back, I don't want to be known as a "disruptive sockmaster" forever. I do not intend to continue any of the childish behavior that got me blocked so many times, I'm too old for that.
    I will say, I'd prefer to keep editing as Zeke Essiestudy, but if I can only be unblocked on this account, that's fine. Ezekiel! Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'. 23:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Zeke's global lock was already successfully appealed per this 2019 request, and the checkuser tool shows no evidence of any recent sockpuppetry. Zeke has provided details of their previous accounts on their talk page.

    Also, the 2018 confession referred to above can be found here, and is worth reading as part of this appeal. – bradv🍁 13:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock - Despite the fact that they were (to be perfectly blunt) an inordinate pest between 2009-2014; the 2018 statement and unblock request demonstrate a maturity, insight, and reflection which is pretty unique. I'd support an unblock of whichever account they'd prefer (with an obvious single-account restriction) and I wish them the best of luck. As a sidenote, it's pretty amazing what happens once the frontal lobes develop a bit... and if nothing else; re-blocks are cheap. --Jack Frost (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblock, as a large amount of time has passed and this user appears to have matured. If this isn't enough of a wait to appeal, I don't know what is.Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I support allowing whichever account Zeke wants to be unblocked to be unblocked, with a one account restriction. Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping TonyBallioni since he made the block.[8] Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a rather harsh way to describe a confession. – bradv🍁 17:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    He does seem to have grown up — literally, if his statements about his initial age are to be believed. DS (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Request for administrator attention for article Aliza Kelly

    I'm nominating the request for deletion page for the article Aliza Kelly for Administration attention WP:RAA and/or a conduct dispute WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE based on the grounds of Civility WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Users nearlyevil665 and User:Phil_Bridger may not be acting in good faith or objectivity due to WP:IDL; discourse and behavior may be steered by their personal bias--which would require a neutral third party in this discussion to ever reach consensus. Attempts for mediation and/or a conduct dispute are to try to reach a consensus vote to avoid WP:Harrassment and Wikihounding for all parties involved in this discussion. Heycambry (talk)

    Please note that Heycambry is paid by Aliza Kelly to edit Wikipedia. A review of WP:Articles for deletion/Aliza Kelly shows numerous single-purpose accounts have participated in the discussion. IMO, it is not outside the scope of reasonability that the two named users were baited into incivility by the barrage of SPAs. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi everyone. I can certainly only speak for myself but I'm confident that a quick review of the AfD will show that I have kept my cool and never resorted to anything that could be even remotely construed WP:IDL. I even spent a considerable amount of time on a source assessment table (for 23 articles mind you) to provide more clarity into the nomination but that seemed to only add fire into an apparent barrage of SPAs. nearlyevil665 15:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Heycambry: The only thing Phil Bridger seems to have done is to leave a brief !vote to delete, then get mildly annoyed when someone made a false accusation. There seem to be a lot of replies from nearlyevil665 which is not necessarily a good sign but I didn't look at the comments. Especially since User:Magdalamar seems to be worse in terms of how much space they're taking in the AFD but for some reason you didn't bring them up. Nil Einne (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, Heycambry while you may technically comply with the TOU with the disclosure on your userpage, you really should disclosure here when you make a complaint that it relates to your paid edits. By bringing this here you're asking for the views of uninvolved parties who are likely to be unaware. Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) @Heycambry: Could you show specific diffs of Phil Bridger's and nearlyevil's behaviour that you'd consider uncivil? I've read all of their replies and they seemed fine. If anything, it's some of the other participants who seem to be uncivil, including casting aspersions about nearlyevil. Isabelle 🔔 16:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As soon as I can go grab my phone to log in with my primary account, that AfD is going to get semi'd. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I got your back. Took care of it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is outrageous. Heycambry is a paid editor engaged in an overt promotional campaign in support of an upcoming pseudoscience book written by an author of the type that Jimmy Wales famously called the lunatic charlatans. Where did all these new SPAs come from? It seems very likely that they were recruited by Heycambry, which is unacceptable behavior. Experienced editors need to check out this AfD. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe they were directly recruited by Heycambry in some way, maybe there's some kind of twit tweet to the effect of "look at Wikipedia trying to suppress The Truth(tm)!", maybe they're all the same person, maybe it really is just coincidence and a bunch of people just happened to discover this and just happened to create accounts. There are lots of possible explanations, and we'll probably never know which one it is. I will say this: Heycambry, I can't say for certain whether you are in any way related to all of these new accounts showing up at the AfD. If you are, however, it would be a violation of multiple rules and you should stop doing whatever is causing those editors to show up. In particular, asking people to show up to an AfD to vote in a particular direction is textbook meatpuppetry, a rule which applies to everyone. Further, if you (as a paid editor) asked someone to make edits on behalf of you to further your paid editing, that is evasion of scrutiny and undisclosed paid editing (since they are making edits on behalf of a paid editor without acknowledging the relationship). SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 17:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    changes to Oversight team

    In accordance with the Committee's standing procedure on functionary inactivity, the Oversight permissions of ST47 (talk · contribs) are removed. The Committee extends its appreciation for ST47's service as an Oversighter.

    Katietalk 19:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § changes to Oversight team

    Spam from Edmunds (company)

    So, User:Unathletic24 just copped to being a COI editor for Edmunds--their edits clearly show what's going on, and what their MO is: inserting some brief and trivial comment about trim levels or speakers in some car model, like in this edit. They made dozens. User:Mr.choppers, who had reverted a few of those earlier, found another user doing the same thing, and I blocked User talk:Bolivianpretzels simply for spamming. Now, they all use the same citation format (CU cannot confirm they're the same person), which might well be the citation produced by some Refbot, including this, "Ford Fiesta Prices, Reviews, and Pictures {{!}} Edmunds". A quick search revealed that this kind of thing is all over the place: check it out. I cannot help but think that there's dozen of editors/accounts inserting the same shit in up to a hundred of car articles.

    These are not valid citations. Edmunds is not an acceptable secondary source, and even if it could verify some wheel size or shiny ornament, the citations are just totally spammy. I bring this here as a kind of "for the record", and "for your attention", and because I'm a bit saddened. I guess there's no automated way to get rid of these links, but I do believe we should get rid of them. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In the interest of fairness, the "(car) prices, reviews, and pictures" format is probably just the title of the page they're linking to, autofilled by the doohickey where you plug in a link and it fills out as much of {{cite web}} as it can from the cited page's metadata. I've added a LinkSummary above and queued a COIBot run to see who's adding it - I'm not familiar with Edmunds, so it could well be that a lot of good-faith editors are adding it. If there's a few accounts pushing it, well, we know how to deal with that. And if it's almost exclusively being added by spammers, that's what the spam blacklist is for. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    COIBot didn't really want to give me a report (no surprise, it's got 10k+ additions tracked among the various wikis), so I threw a quick database dump here of who's added edmunds.com more than 20 times. I think this confirms our suspicions - Cluebot NG is behind everything! Really, though, it's not the best metric - reverting someone blanking a page that contained an edmunds link, for example, would count as an "addition" here. Also, these stats are crosswiki, because it's late here and I can't remember how to narrow this search by language. Anyway, we've got a couple spammers in here, but I think the overwhelming majority of additions are good-faith (or at least as good-faith as things get in the world of cars on Wikipedia). I will add that I'm dead certain Jhester24 (added above) and Unathletic24 are the same person, but no overlap in edits, so no sockpuppetry here. I do not believe either of them is the same person as Bolivianpretzels. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks--I appreciate it. User:Daniel.Cardenas, you warned Jhester24 earlier; that account has gone dormant but I'll block it as a spam-only account anyway. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra and @Versageek, what do you think about putting this website into User:XLinkBot, to discourage its addition? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Appealing topic ban for Akakakalal

    This new user continue distribute edit on this page Anjana Chaudhari , Vandalism edit [[9]],[[10]],[【https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1034776668]] Same many times edit on this page. Please action this Vandalism user. Hind ji (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not vandalism, that's a content dispute where you are both edit warring. I can not verify the claim you support, that they are Jat, but I can verify their claim, that they are Kurmi[11] (the Anjana Patel are the same as the Anjana Chaudhary, it seems[12]). That doesn't mean that they are % right and you are wrong, but it does mean that they aren't vandalizing. Fram (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And you must notify the other editor of this discussion, as indicated in the large coloured box at the top here. Fram (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, I think you (Hind ji) needs to slow down and learn how to edit here instead of rushing forward with many problematic edits. Your user talk page has quite a few warnings already, your articles or redirects get deleted, and in the past days I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keken clan and I have just had to undo a copy paste move from the correct Kalbi to the unsupported Kalbi Samaj. And then there's Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hind ji from today. You just seem to be trying all kinds of stuff, never mind if it is appropriate or correct, to get your way, and treat opposing edits as vandalism, even when they definitely aren't vandalism and many of your edits seem incorrect. Fram (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I question how the heading "Appealing topic ban for Akakakalal" is relevant to the issue that concerns an ongoing edit war. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess they are requesting a topic ban, but English isn't their first language. Fram (talk) 12:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't this be better suited for ANI then? ( And it probably could use a change of heading)Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps. What this most needs is some admin or other editor with a decent knowledge of Indian society structure to take a look at the article, and to talk to both editors about edit warring, vandalism, tagging, sourcing, ... Hind ji tagging the article as a BLP[13] after the start of this discussion isn't very promising, but perhaps a firm though patient helping hand may turn them into a productive, collaborative editor before it's too late. Fram (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can some uninvolved admin please take a look at this? After the above problems, Hind ji requested Rollback rights (2 times in a row, twice rejected, and then again at User talk:MusikAnimal#rollback rights: apparently they still believe that they are fighting vandalism instead of simply edit warring over content or reverting IPs for no good reason[14]), and then also requested file mover rights[15] by copying the complete text of the request right above them, thereby making all kinds of false claims about there file edits and experience. It was also rightly rejected for that reason, but taken all together (with the above issues and others), I wonder whether they should be left to edit as if nothing happened. Fram (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please close this requested move

    Resolved, in the future please use WP:ANRFC. — xaosflux Talk 15:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I relisted it on 21 July but nobody joined the discussion. So please summarize and close it. Wario-Man talk 07:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Blacknclick Paid work

    Both accounts blocked. Daniel (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Blacknclick has recently created a paid article, Rocket Science (production company) without disclosing that they are getting paid. Job was posted on Upwork.

    Upwork Job Link: Wiki Page Creation - Rocket Science

    Please review all of their work and let them know this is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks. 86.140.156.94 (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, review User:Mydreamsparrow who reviewed this article immediately. Seems a WP:MEATPUPPET case. 82.23.80.67 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both accounts indeffed as socks, see here. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 09:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Delete without AFD

    Article undeleted and subsequently nominated at AfD. Daniel (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I created an article named Monthly Al Kawsar. It was deleted without any AFD discussion.I think, It was wrong. Please review this. - Owais Talk 14:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, there are a few legitimate reasons for deletion on sight, known as criteria for speedy deletion. This page was deleted as spam, which is one of these criteria (G11). 93.172.226.66 (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, I know. But it was not a spam. I created 180 articles on bn wiki and 16 on en. - Owais Talk 15:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first place for you to ask would be of the deleting administrator, at User talk:Materialscientist. — xaosflux Talk 15:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, I have undeleted the article so that another admin would have a look. Maybe not G11, but A7 (notability) would be a better reason. Materialscientist (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A printed magazine would not be subject to A7. 93.172.226.66 (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    #WPWP #WPWPARK

    There's a whole bunch of editors--well, there was--adding images with this hashtag, which is a context run on Meta, I think, for monetary prizes. Rschen7754, you know more about this then I do. So I was watching a couple of editor with very similar names making edits with the same edit summary, and my curiosity was peeked. To cut a long story short, there were dozens of accounts from the same IPs (and IP ranges), many with similar user names. On top of that, the many talk pages I saw were loaded with comments and questions by other editors (I know Ashleyyoursmile) blocked one of those accounts, can't remember which), indicating just how problematic a number of those edits were; for some editors, all had been reverted. Very few of the editors whose edits were problematic responded; most of the accounts were simply abandoned. I have not rolled back everything I ran into, but I did for some of the editors.

    So I don't know exactly what is going on, nor am I convinced that all the accounts I blocked are the same person. But I do know that these really unexplained, not always carefully vetted, and bot-like edits are disruptive, that there are at least a few fishy editors at play, and that the narrow ranges that I investigated were just absolutely suspicious. Oh, I'll note also that there may be, or may have been, two or three SPIs filed and/or socking suspicions uttered. Usually those also are responded to by the editor simply ceasing all activity--another telling quality. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There's more at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Users adding images to articles at a high rate of speed if you haven't seen it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But won't someone think of the user engagement?! How will we increase the total number of editors if we're not paying people to add unvetted images to articles?! It certainly won't end up in sock or meat farms adding images to get the maximum payout. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is interesting. I've thought that these all were independent people just looking to make a game out of Wikimedia - but maybe some of them are part of a sockfarm. --Rschen7754 18:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a way to get money online there will be people exploring it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    GorillaWarfare, I hadn't, thanks (OK I just did--should have looked there first, but it confirms my suspicion about the quality of many of the edits, and the bot-like nature in which at least a couple of the accounts operated. Thanks again.). I looked on AN, and on a bunch of editor talk pages. Y'all, note that I am not happy about any of this, including my own reverts: a few have already been rolled back, and I am perfectly OK with that--if established editors find any of those edits to be good, please undo me. User:Rschen7754, all the ones I blocked came from ranges that I found after checking just one editor, and neither that editor nor any of the others, indicated something about a drive, or an edit-a-thon, or anything like that. Nor did I look over the entire Meta page, BTW, and maybe I should have--but if you look in my block log, you also see similar user names, and you will find editors who were critiqued and just walked away. So really I don't doubt that there is at least one editor who is responsible for a bunch of the accounts. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For those interested, we have a filter tracking (and as of yesterday, tagging) at 1073. Having lived through this last year, I'll say that this is a terribly thought-out competition that does more harm than good, but that's the fault of the organizers. It is not sock/meatpuppetry (unless one of them gets blocked for CIR issues and makes a new account, of course). GeneralNotability (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How feasible would it be to modify this filter/probably have another one to emit a warning message to all users trying to save an edit with an edit summary containing one of the hashtags and x< number of edits which reminds them that images need to be appropriate and link them to relevant guidelines? It won't stop the dedicated "image grinders" or somebody who doesn't care, but it might help correct some good faith mistakes. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 19:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite trivial, but I doubt these folks are going to slow down to read the directions. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I still have User:Berrely/Photos if a EF notice is needed. – BerrelyP • T∕C 08:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It's something to do with this: [16] Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Drmies: could the shared IP ranges be a shared educational institution or something? As for socking to exploit the chance of money, wouldn't that be a rather self-defeating move on their part? I mean, the whole aim of the contest is to become the account with the most image additions; it wouldn't really make sense to split that activity between multiple sock accounts, all competing against each other, would it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, that is entirely possible, and yes, I understand your argument--it is one of the things that I am struggling with. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (trying to use proper indentation in spite of those who have messed it up) Why has nobody replied to my post at the related ANI discussion? It gets to the nub of this issue, as opposed to the circumlocution that everyone else seems to using. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably because we have no jurisdiction here over a user at Commons, even if they are banned here?-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But we have jurisdiction over edits that are made on English Wikipedia, which is what this is about. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll post here want I just posted at the AN/I discussion. I sincerely and rationally think that we should ban the contest. IMO rapid addition of images is just a horrible thing waiting to happen. Adding an image should involve an accuracy check, a rationale check, a licensing check, and a layout check. We're just going to get a bunch of images with bad licensing added to articles from this. With the whole focus being rate of speed, contestant's aren't going to check the image licensing. And we can't assume everything on Commons is okay (I nominate stuff for deletion on commons that I run into in articles here several times a month, because there's tons of bad licensing there). And we shouldn't be encouraging people to cram as many images into articles as possible - it causes layout and sometimes accessibility issues (see MOS:SANDWICH, among other things). We're just going to wind up with a bunch of articles crammed to the gills with images with often-shitty licensing because of this, and that's frankly disruptive. At a minimum, we need to make it clear that this contest should not be adding images to FAs - the FA criteria include image layout, licensing, and relevance checks, and a contest about speed editing images to articles is going to cause issues with the FA criteria. Hog Farm Talk 19:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC) This whole thing is a shitshow waiting to happen. The fact that this causes disruption every damn time it happens means that something needs to be done. Hog Farm Talk 19:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree we need to scrap it. Me and other editors have had to repeatedly remove an incorrect image added to the Lewis O'Brien (footballer) article by multiple editors as part of this nonsense. GiantSnowman 19:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully agree. The worst thing you can do on Wikipedia is waste someone else's time with carelessness, and that's exactly what these people are doing. Owing to the high rate of speed and the history of issues, we can't AGF that every image added by a WPWP editor is suitable, so we have to check each one for accuracy or risk letting problematic images sit in articles forever. This is a huge timesink and an unfair burden to dump on regular enwiki editors. The fact that some good images get added doesn't remotely make up for the rest of the time-wasting. At the very least they should be throttled somehow if at all possible. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Premeditated Chaos: To reduce the rate at which these edits are being done you couldn't we just use the edit filter? It should be fairly trivial to set up a rate limit to limit each contestant to a fixed number of image additions per day. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would assume it's possible since it's something people mentioned at the ANI, but I have no idea how it's done from a technical perspective. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole thing feels like a WP:NOTGAME issue to me. I'm all for contests to spur improvements to the encyclopedia, but in this case, it's built almost entirely on speed of editing and quantity. And when you focus on quantity, quality goes out the window here. Carefully adding images is good. Adding images as fast as possible does not contribute to building an encyclopedia. Hog Farm Talk 02:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard agree. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, there have been complaints about the WikiCup for years, but adding images is a lot easier to do, and do poorly. --Rschen7754 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that the WikiCup is different in that it a) doesn't involve cash prizes as far as I can tell and b) participants are generally regular editors who are familiar with our norms. WikiCup also doesn't really incentivize high-speed editing in the same way - it's hard to churn out FA/GAs at a rate of more than one per minute, unless maybe you're Epicgenius :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I totally concur with Hog Farm and PMC. I blocked Godson18 a few days ago for rapidly adding images which were already present in various articles with incomprehensible edit summaries, and around 150 additions in an hour. They refused to discuss their problematic edits and dived back to the same behaviour after the expiry of their previous block. Everyday, the filter log picks up several of the "#WPWP #WPWPARK" edits and most of the time these editors add images to articles just for the sake of adding an image, and are not improvements. Given the rapid rate of such additions, I don't think it's possible to check each and every of these and it's becoming very disruptive at this point. --Ashleyyoursmile (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Besides problematic images identified (wrong image focus, bad captions, etc.) I can see this bordering on issues related to article conformity and infoboxes, which after the result of a few ArbCom cases, we know is not something we want. There are reasons some articles may forgo a leading image, and this contest doesn't seem to respect that, instead just encouraging volumes of editors without checking. --Masem (t) 19:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the accounts I blocked responded, and on User talk:CaliBen, where I asked them for an explanation, they provided some. However, their somewhat incomplete answers also pose more questions: there is no clarity on what organization is involved here, for instance. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Drmies, image disruption aside, this does seem like a reasonable explanation. We know that WPWPARK is a Tanzanian group - specifically m:Wikimedians_of_Arusha_User_Group. Count the laptops in the pics. The hashtag was recorded here. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, we've had a hashtag-in-edit-summary search tool this whole time!? GeneralNotability (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    zzuuzz, I unblocked CaliBen and will be happy to reconsider others--and I don't mind if others undo blocks I placed. That's not to say that I don't think there was no abuse at all, and in general it seems to me that this iteration in this place (under these ranges) was done with the best interest of the project in mind. I'd love to have more editors aboard, especially from those backgrounds, but I don't think this was a great idea. (And I'll add that Wikipedia's coverage of, for instance, the Global South will only improve if edits are made on the Global South, particularly by editors from the Global South, but there's a few studies out there that suggest that those editors precisely do not contribute so much to that part of the project--that's all by the by, of course.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is kinda just the same as last year. Editors unhappy about the problem, some discussion about remedies, discussion fades out and we go right back to the same problems next year. Personally I think it's clear some action is necessary. I'd have preferred to see more discussion on a) the problem rate; b) the remedies I proposed at ANI, but it does seem like a consensus is forming anyway, if not necessarily the one I want. There's also only a finite number of solutions, I think, and I believe we've raised them all. Hence:

    Remedies (poll)

    There is consensus to implement measure 2.1 (edit filter with cautionary message) and measure 2.2 (edit filter to throttle contributions) at this time. If these measures don't work (which I suppose should be determined in another discussion), there is consensus to implement measure 3 (banning the contest) as a last resort. There is little or no discussion about what the parameters of measure 2.2 should be, so I recommend going with the values suggested in the proposal. There was little discussion of measure 2.3 (certain topics prohibited), so we don't know which topics it's supposed to apply to, which means we can't implement it at this time. Sandstein 08:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    1. Do nothing / wait and see. The campaign organisers have said organisers will patrol the edit filter log and help with cleanup.
    2. Authorise the use of the edit filter to take appropriate actions to decrease the proportion or volume of disruptive edits. This may include things like:
      1. Passive messages. Use an edit filter to show a message welcoming contest participants to this project, giving guidance on effective images, reminding them to take it slow and focus on quality, and reiterating the consequences of disruption.
      2. Throttle contributions to help enforce quality over quantity, such as by setting a maximum number of entries per day and/or minimum delay between edits. (eg no more than 25 #WPWP entries per day, and no more than one every 5 minutes).
      3. Prohibit the contest on certain types of articles (I believe the error rate on taxa is much higher than the error rate on BLPs, for example).
    3. Ban the contest on the English Wikipedia. The filter will be set to disallow "#WPWP" edits.

    ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support either 2 or 3, with a slight preference for 2. It is clear something must be done, but I'd prefer trying to use filters to mitigate it before resorting to an all out ban, however if necessary I'll also support that. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 09:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2 as first choice, 3 as second, particularly if 2 doesn't sufficiently reduce disruption. I would particularly support 2.2, that is throttling contributions to something like 10 per day per user. firefly ( t · c ) 10:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, then 3 Something needs to be done, and if 2 doesn't work, then we can do the "nuclear option" of banning the contest.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, then 3 if that doesn't work. Per my comments here and the ANI. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The diff you linked in remedy #1 has been suppressed.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, seems to be collateral damage, will replace it with a permalink to the section. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, then 3. It's untenable to do nothing (although the general newbie revert rate is 27% and I believe the rate of problematic contest edits is far lower than that, the volume of contest edits overwhelms our volunteer capacity for review). I would prefer to exhaust all our possible options before moving towards banning, as this contest (when it works) does improve articles, and is a good way to recruit editors from global communities underrepresented in our editor pool. So long as we can get the number of disruptive edits under control this is fine, and we can't say that option 2 won't achieve that goal unless we actually try it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, in particular strong support for 2.1 and 2.2. I have seen good contributions in the contest, but the rate is too fast for us to absorb it gracefully and allow newcomers to calmly learn to improve. Some users could learn if they were throttled and got explanations in their talk pages, but when they have a high bad edit rate and high speed, it gets to the point that a temporary block is desirable to prevent disruption. So we shouldn't let them get to the point where a block is the most sane solution. MarioGom (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 3 for any future contests, Support 2 for the contest that's currently running, particularly 2.2. This is the second year this contest has been run, and the second year it's made a mess that our volunteers have had to clean up. The edit filter currently has 57,000 hits, it's ridiculous to suggest that the contest organisers are going to be able to review the filter logs and clean up any substandard edits. Until the organisers put in some kind of process to ensure that edits are universally of good quality I think we should ban future contests. It wouldn't even need to be a major change to the rules: something like "For every image you add you get 1 point, for every image addition that is removed by a non-contestant editor you lose 10 points" would probably be sufficient. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The 'negative points system' seems like a good idea to me. @Deborahjay: thoughts? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      The "negative points" option can certainly be developed for inclusion in the campaign operations, as it emphasizes following the rules and maintaining the integrity of the WP project. The WPWP FAQ and Rules already has a statement that inappropriate edits will be "disqualified" from a user's score. This requires review by the Organizing Team supervising the 58(!) participating communities. Now at the exact midpoint of the campaign, the main organizer and I are starting a review of the metrics for new users to direct any necessary support. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Deborahjay and ProcrastinatingReader: Another option (that would be a lot more work but would probably be better) would be to implement some kind of review or rating system, where say 5-10% of the edits by each contributor are reviewed and given a score which results in points. It doesn't need to be a featured picture level review, but some simple questions like "Is the image actually of the right person/species/thing?", "is the image of reasonable quality (resolution/crop/focus/brightness)?" and "has the image been added to the right place in the article?" would be sensible to look at. It's obvious at a glance that an edit like Special:Diff/968295203 doesn't improve the article. Fundamentally though I think the contest needs to shift away from "add as many images as fast as possible" to "add images that improve articles". If we wanted to bulk add "foo.png" to the article on "foo" or add every image from wikidata to the top of its connected article any of our bot operators could set up a script to do that trivially. What we want is for editors to be putting some editorial thought into their additions. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      We on the WPWP team can focus on a basic 0:1 evaluation: the existing rule for a valid edit is to add one appropriate image (with caption and edit summary stating more than #WPWP) to a page that didn't have one. The guidance team's task now (starting 1 August 2021, the midpoint) is to locate editors making unacceptable edits, contacting them with specifics, and taking action per their response. This is the quickest intervention to tackle problems raised here while maintaining and improving participation. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I'm still wondering how we will deal with licensing issues. Very few (not me, for sure) are licensing experts, and we for sure can't expect newer editors to be familiar with it much. But there's a lot of badly licensed stuff on Commons, including quite a bit that isn't free. With standard image additions, the amount of crappy licensing added in manageable, but if we're encouraging newer editors to mass-add images when they likely won't know the ins and outs of licensing, we could wind up with a very large quantity of questionable images. Is there going to be any way to prevent this? Hog Farm Talk 15:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think this contest is so much about adding content to Commons as adding unused, existent, Commons content to Wikipedia articles. The licencing of those images is a Commons issue, not en-WP but if you find questionable licences then those can be raised on Commons. Nthep (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2, then 3, a mess made in good faith is still a mess. Editor time is valuable, and it wastes it when editors have to check the quality of a picture added one-by-one. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2 for this contest, (2.2 may be best), and 3 for next year's'. I don't believe the coordinators of the contest will really truly be able to check everything due to the scope, so that doesn't seem like something we can rely on (isn't one of the organizers of this banned from images on enwiki). I just don't think the whole concept of this (let's add stuff as fast as we can!) is a good collaborative idea. If we had non-contest users adding images this fast, there would be trouble. So why an outside contest should be treated any differently, I don't know. A contest focused on improving articles at a reasonable rate to encourage quantity improves the encyclopedia. Something like this that focuses on doing things as fast as possible without even paying that close of attention is turning the encyclopedia into a game. Hog Farm Talk 13:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for 2.1 and 2.2. This is a very thoughtful poll. While WPWP is a huge channel to recruit new users and engage them to help with a very vital part of the reader experience, we need to devise means to see harm is not done rather than lock off a new wave of enthusiastic Wikipedians. My teenage brother has had more cause to hop on Wikipedia because of the images. He has become better at his academics and has grown interests in General Knowledge and Chinese Culture. RIGHT HERE. This is pretty much like every petty mistake that new editors (of whom we were once part of) commit. Organizers have committed to addressing this with the new editors. Let's give them a chance.Danidamiobi (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1 as first choice, then 2.1 and 2.3 by second choice, and if required 2.2. 2.3 to be applied in particular on FA articles. Anthere (talk)
    • Fine with 1 but see my addition below.
      Support 2.1 because communication is good.
      Meh about 2.2 because while a high throttling number shouldn't actually pose that much of an obstacle and would limit the damage done by someone who is both prolific and doing it poorly, I'm not quite sold that the problems are bad enough such that what really matters is that we must be able to review them all right away.
      Oppose 2.3 unless it can be accomplished by technical intervention - that is, if we're relying on instructions added in the middle of a contest, that seems like a bad idea. If it's possible to do this via technical means, then I don't mind supporting this where people have found clear evidence of lots of users adding images problematically (but not for hypotheticals about what might be hard to add a picture to).
      Strong oppose 3 at this stage as panic with (as far as I've seen) woefully insufficient data backing it up.
      Option 4 (new option): Request that organizers publish an evaluation of this contest sometime after its completion. The evaluation should be based on data to provide a clear picture of both successes and challenges/failures. I don't think we can expect a 100% thorough report, since AFAIK the organizers are volunteers, but some form of sampling seems doable. We can then use that to suggest changes or otherwise make decisions about next year's contest, should it run again.
      Finally, I do just want to add that I think this contest is a very good thing, and want to thank the organizers for volunteering their time to run it. I think we on the English Wikipedia are very aware of our need for more volunteers and the limitations of our community's time. That gives rise to a vigilance that can be very important to maintaining the integrity of our articles, but it also can lead us to panic or react harshly to the very activities that try to bring in new users (whether new active editors or, as in this case, people coming to make small and mostly positive edits in large numbers). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I mostly wanted to focus this section on technical local interventions we can implement, rather than just suggestions for the organisers. While I think there are things the organisers can do (I suggested training elsewhere, and the IP suggested 'negative points', and you've suggested a report in your option 4, all of which are good ideas IMO) I don't think these are 'interventions', ie they're pretty much option 1 ('do nothing for now'). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      +1 Agree with this, nothing to add. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mostly per Rhodendrites including 4, but I would add a 5 that covers all contests, we should have English Wikipedia Users identified and named perhaps in a Cent notice, who can take responsibility, and action, and who we can immediately go and talk to. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2.1 and 2.2 3 is always an option but I would support something less drastic first. --Rschen7754 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2.1 and 2.2. There is great possibility in decreasing the mistakes and becoming better if we give it a chance. It was through #WPWP last year that a newbie improved several articles with photos and got converted to a Wikimedian faithful. And he did all these with little or no mistakes. AFAIK, there were others alike who did more good than harm during the contest. This is the good side of this contest. It's not bad in it's entirety. We just need to remember it's the second year of the project, with more learning than previous year to do better in the future. This is characteristic of every project and this is no different. We just need to give the organizers and everyone willing to step in a chance. Ptinphusmia (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Anything that improves Wikipedia is good, but giving it a chance should involve the organizers of this contest learning from mistakes when it has been run before. Is there any evidence that they have learnt anything at all from last year? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the past we've published the contest using the WD4WP tool that loads images using the P18 item from Wikidata. I kept a link to it from last contest and have been using it this year. It seems not to have been mentioned this year, but it works well identifying pages missing images (entirely dependent upon the uploader using the P18 variable correctly); some of my uploads using it have been reverted simply because the image wasn't what the tool said it was. All in all, it's rather helpful with this type of contest. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Oaktree b:: please note that if the "image wasn't what the tool said it was", it is still your own responsibility to check. Don't use that tool blindly. It's full of false positives. It is also your own responsibility to avoid edit-warring, which is what happens when you blindly reinsert images recommended by the tool , when other editors have tried the same previously but have been reverted. This has happened in a lot of cases. Please check not just the image and the article, but also the article's recent edit history, to avoid these cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 3 preferable to 2, then 4 (Rhododendrites's suggestion) regardless. I'm looking at today's edit filter hits and I see some people adding images at rates near 1/minute. There is no way sufficient thought is going into these edits, which makes this more "disruptive" than "useful." Further, I suspect the time needed to vet these additions is greater than the time people are spending making them, which makes this a net loss of editor time. Unless the contest organizers come up with a very convincing plan for mitigating the disruption next year, I say pull the plug, and I am all for throttling or disallowing the current wave. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2.1 and 2.2 slow pace with focus on quality rather than quantity. I believe that this will address the long standing issues raised. Best, —Nnadigoodluck███ 06:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2.1 and 2.2With sound control in place, I see a steady learning curve among the young participants.---Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 3 I've had to remove one misleading photo this morning and my heart sank looking at the editing history of the contributor. Hundreds and hundreds of contributions of photos to articles with no understanding of the subjects, made within minutes of each other. It will take me weeks to go through their edits. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1, 2.1 and 2.3 The problem here is that some new editors who aren't familiar with editing here are being disruptive. There are several other experienced editors contributing (and some new editors contributing constructively) to this campaign. We can't shut down an entire campaign because a handful of new editors are being disruptive. Let's try option 1, 2.1 and 2.2 first before a draconic move of banning this campaign. Kaizenify (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging from edits on my watchlist, I support 3. I believe there was an article where an irrelevant image was added three times (a metro station in Lausanne, the image did not show the station).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 2.1 and 2.2 and if that fails then 3's the next best solution, Personally I think the entire thing should be banned right here right now but I know that wont happen. Someone at ANI reckoned the majority of edits were good ..... I still beg to differ on that but hey ho. –Davey2010Talk 19:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support 1 as first choice, then 2.1 then 2.2 WPWP has a positif impact in general on Wikipedia and I'm sure with some control measures and with the increase of the learning level among new participants, everything will be fine. IMHO option 3 is a drastic and an easy decision that we should avoid. --Yamen (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2.1 and/or 2.2. I would just like to state for the record that I am unhappy about the entire contest for the following reasons: (1) its emphasis on quantity over quality; (2) the fact that it encourages a large number of very rapid, low-effort edits, as opposed to a smaller number of carefully thought-out edits; (3) the monetary (or equivalent) prizes, which unavoidably means that at least some participants will be in just for the money. -- 2001:16B8:1E5F:8500:9C7A:B8F:F6A:1B6F (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Muhammad Mahdi Karim and Mydreamsparrow

    Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammad Mahdi Karim for context. They were both blocked by TheresNoTime, and have each requested unblock, with the following from Muhammad:

    I know User:Mydreamsparrow (Augustus Binu), a fellow photographer from my college days in India. We were studying and living in the same college and I introduced him to Wikipedia, showing him how to edit articles, create user pages and particularly introduced him to contribute to Wikipedia:Featured Pictures as a way of improving his photography since it had done so to me. During this time, we even took a picture of the Vidhana Soudha together and I have labelled it as such on Wiki since 2012. w:File:Vidhana_Soudha_2012.jpg.

    Additionally, a simple check of the EXIF data of the pictures taken by Mydreamsparrow and me will show the differences in Camera used.

    I am not aware who the other users linked in the accusation are or if they have any relation with Mydreamsparrow. If ip logs can assist to prove my innocence, you may see that since 2015, most of my edits will have been from Tanzania where I am now based.

    I'm not sure about Wikipedia's procedure for blocking accused sockpuppets but it would have been good to at least have a chance to defend myself before getting blocked and my userpage getting blanked, having been a valuable contributing member for so many years. Really saddened and disappointed at this. Muhammad(talk) 10:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

    From DreamSparrow:

    OMG! I am surprised to see that my account is blocked for Sockpuppetry. As explained by Muhammad Mahdi Karim, we knew each other and he encouraged me to contribute to Wikipedia and I have contributed as much as I could by way of images and articles. You can check the entire contributions, all are either of politicians or connected to Judiciary of India as I am a lawyer by profession. Only deleted articles are of my budding time.

    It is true that, I have motivated many to contribute to Wikipedia in the same way I was motivated. User:Blacknclick is my friend and User:Orator1989 my colleague. They are few of the contributors I have motivated to contributed to Wikipedia. Last few days User:Blacknclick was with me and that time again he started editing Wikipedia. Even he has created some article and asked me to review it and I reviewed it naturally. I never know whether any monetary benefits involved in it. As far as User:Orator1989, he is always in my office and we use common wifi for browsing. Even I have no idea about the benefits, if any, or kinds of edits he made.

    Moreover, both of them are no way related or known to Muhammad Mahdi Karim as he is in Tanzania and we all are here in Kerala, India.

    In addition, you can have a look at my contributions, all are genuine and neutral and I always stick on that because I am contributing to Wikipedia for last few years and of course I am by experience refined by myself about the contributions and policies of Wikipedia. If at all any related edits I made with the above mentioned users, it just natural and only a support to a fellow Wikipedian and no intentional malefieds involved in it. I am not a fan of paid contributions or vandalism. I always try to improve my contribution standards. Recently, if you verify, most of my contributions are related to Indian Judiciary.

    As explained above, I may not be punished for the reason I have never dreamt of. And I will make my internet connection private and stop using the same by any other for avoiding any such situations in future.

    I request your kind-self to be an active Wikipedian by unblocking me thereby allow me to contribute to Wikipedia many more valuable contributions. I will be much more cautious in future.DreamSparrow Chat 16:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

    I have not interacted with them much on Wikipedia, but based on what I've seen on Commons it doesn't seem like they are the same person. @TheresNoTime: Could you please comment on whether the checkuser evidence is consistent with what they are saying? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @King of Hearts: Hi, I had someone point me to this thread - I've didn't receive a ping to either of the above mentions. I'm taking a look at this again, but this probably could have been handled on my talk page? - TheresNoTime 😺 16:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The checkuser evidence is consistent with the above unblock requests. Without going into detail, the internet service provider of one of these users also offers VPN services which in the context of the SPI would have suggested evasion. I would not oppose an unblock of either/both of these accounts if the unblocking administrator is convinced that behaviourally there is no link (or that the link is sufficiently explained). - TheresNoTime 😺 16:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I filed the SPI based off of concerning conduct/overlap and possible UPE socking. Given the explanation by the users and the comment from TheresNoTime, I'm not opposed to an unblock for socking (not that that really means anything), but it's essential that any and all UPE concerns previously highlighted should be thoroughly investigated at COIN. Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 18:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks King of Hearts for your quick action. Some one will still need to delete all the defamatory categories created such as Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Muhammad Mahdi Karim and all the sockpuppet messages left with my name on the deleted accounts. Additionally I'd request a serious review of this block, how it was allowed to pass so quickly without even asking for any feedback from me given that I have not had any accusation of disruption leveled at me during all my time here. --Muhammad(talk) 07:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Muhammad Mahdi Karim: As stated above, the filed SPI (and the concerns raised there) were valid from the information available at the time. I hope you can realise that the situation described above is rare. We also know that CheckUser data is only as useful as the context in which is was retrieved - its fairly easy to make technical data look "good" and "bad", and its only when applying the behavioural aspect of an investigation that we can make a judgement. In this case, I believe the "perfect storm" of circumstance lead to potentially false conclusions being made, and I can only apologise for the inconvenience. We're not perfect, and we're always trying to balance between preventing disruption and ensuring everyone has a chance to contribute. I hope this experience has not too negatively impacted your opinion or desire to continue editing. A formal review of this block would probably be best served by emailing the Arbitration Committee, though this can often take a while. If you would like, I can request a second opinion review from another CheckUser? In the meantime, if there is anything specifically you would like to discuss, or if there is anything I can do to help, please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or email me - TheresNoTime 😺 09:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @TheresNoTime: You seem to have missed the part where User:Muhammad Mahdi Karim said "Some one will still need to delete all the defamatory categories created ... and all the sockpuppet messages left with my name...". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Pigsonthewing: Thank you for the ping. The category appears to have been recreated after I deleted it - TheresNoTime 😺 16:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Probably because it still had two members, because there were two user pages with templates (which I removed) asserting that they were his socks?. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Muhammad Mahdi Karim – I had a much longer response drafted, but TNT basically got it spot on. My apologies for the inconvenience and block log, and I hope you resume editing. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or via email. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 17:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    SPI about to go stale

    Resolved

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shaddai Wright is about to go stale in less than two days. Please investigate before that happens. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexis Jazz, I've endorsed a CU check, watch that space. Girth Summit (blether) 11:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Zzuuzz deserves a bonus check. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd sign off on that. Double pay this month! !ɘM γɿɘυϘ⅃ϘƧ 14:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys are just too generous. I'm going to donate 50% of my bonus to some charity which will get more images randomly added to Wikipedia. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You should go ahead and donate 1000% of your bonus to them, in exchange for them offering a special prize for not adding any images to the English Wikipedia.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Siddharth University

    There is a long history of copyright violations at the Siddharth University article with text being copied from the university website, possibly by students or university employees. It recently came off a one-year stretch of semi-protection and three weeks later, more of the same. I have revision deleted the edits and semi-protected the page indefinitely; if anybody thinks indefinite protection is too much (I rarely semi an article for copyright violations), feel free to adjust the length. If there is a Commons admin lurking, perhaps they will take a look at these two images[17][18], which may have been downloaded from the website. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Zebronics Draft unblock request

    Hello Admin, I request to unblock Draft:Zebronics so that I can show that this is a potential page. If you think, I am right then you can unblock Zebronics later but atleast a trial should be given. Alllyy (talk) 08:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The community has discussed this matter and decided it should be deleted and not recreated: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Zebronics. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also note that all 3 users who created this article in the past are blocked. 2 of them as sockpuppets of User:Infozeb. Are you in anyway connected with these users who created it in the past? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 09:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    HighInBC Looking at the company's website and Google news stories, it might actually (now) be notable ... Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objection if another admin feel differently about this than me. Things change after all. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 21:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have unprotected Draft:Zebronics (but not the mainspace article). If the draft turns into a piece of advertising it simply won't be moved to mainspace. Black Kite (talk) 09:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Want to know

    In page of Nurul Islam Jihadi, there is a voice of him in the info-box. Which I think was not appropriate thing to remain in wikipedia. Am I correct? Again the Waaz (voice) is not in public domain (no prove was there) What is the policy of this type of voice remaining? Ruhan (talk) 09:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ruhan:, the lecture is uploaded by someone who has most likely recorded it himself, so it doesn't need any PD license. Owais Al Qarni mentions it to be his "own work". ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    since it belongs to him; how he uploads it, is up to him. So, I don't think there's any problem. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheAafi: It is not his recording and I am quite sure because in Bangladesh islamic scholars generally gives speech before an ammount of people. that is called Waaz. And this waazs are generally being distributed by some media company which obviously contain copyright. ThankfullyRuhan (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur "Waaz" being an Urdu term that means a speech. But, lectures of such people are commonly attended by anyone, and I'd believe @Owais Al Qarni: having attended the lecture and recorded the audio. I've pinged the uploader, let's wait for his response. ─ The Aafī (talk) 11:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, this should definitely be treated as copyrighted. Recording someone's performance (whether it is a speech, a concert, ...) does not give you to the copyright to that speech or the right to publicly release it. This is, until evidence of the contrary appears, a bootleg recording and should be deleted. Fram (talk) 08:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk · contribs)

    I just edited history of the Germany national football team to delete the 2016 Olympic title section because it was for U23, but this user undone my edit without reason, he deleted my discussion. Go great Germany (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sure that this is Japanese555's sockpuppet, and, for sure, discussing with a troll is a waste of time.
    UnnamedUser 13:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the information is correct, why undo it? This is the national team, not U23, Wikipedia brings objective facts, not polemics and distortions!!! Go great Germany (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So I finally got it right, you're ruining it. Go great Germany (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Go great Germany have you ever used any other accounts here and are any of those accounts currently blocked? HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to spoil the surprise - TheresNoTime 😺 13:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighInBC: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phạm Văn Rạng/Archive. UnnamedUser 13:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not surprised. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 21:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shovan

    Could someone who has been at AfD more recently than I please speedy keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shovan. The article was hijacked. I have reverted to prehijacking and blocked hijacker. I don't want to mess up the AfD wth my ham-handedness. Thanks --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Deepfriedokra, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Davey2010. My esssential tremors were pretty bad after I saw that. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries Deepfriedokra, I bet, I've come across article hijacking in the past and lets just say you were much more calmer and politer than I was!, That was going back years tho .... didn't think it happened today tbh but guess it still does, –Davey2010Talk 20:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    New image correcting error in two previous mathematical images

    Not fixing this myself because I almost never upload images, and I'm not sure what the correct procedure here is. Anyway, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hexacomb.gif, originally uploaded in 2008, is supposed to be an image of all 82 free hexahexes (here, "free" means hexahexes are only considered to be different hexahexes if they cannot be transformed to be the same even after being freely rotated and reflected). The original image was converted in 2011 from GIF to SVG at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hexacomb.svg. However, those two images have an error in them that went uncaught for a decade until recently, a new user, User:CJCTW, noticed the error: to quote from his edit summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polyhex_%28mathematics%29&diff=1021729215&oldid=1020400306, "the hexahex on third row, third in from the right, and the hexahex on the fourth row, eighth in from the left, were duplicates".

    CJCTW uploaded a corrected/fixed version of the image, but instead of uploading over the previous images as an edit, he uploaded at a separate filename, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hexacomb-update.svg. First, I want to applaud CJCTW for spotting the mistake and making a corrected image. However, the way the correction was uploaded (uploading as a separate image instead of as an edit to the previous images) seems bad, since people might continue to mistakenly link to and embed the two original wrong/mistaken images in articles. Is there any way to merge the histories of these image pages? Alternatively, if history merger, which seems to me the best solution, is not possible, can the two original wrong/mistaken images be deleted, so that the two original wrong/mistaken images won't continue to be used, or at the very least can some sort of indicator be added to the two original wrong/mistaken images that they have an error?

    —Lowellian (reply) 04:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You should replace all uses of the original images with updated ones and then nominate them for deletion on Commons. Ruslik_Zero 11:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged the GIF for deletion for an unrelated reason (unused low-quality GIF with available high-quality SVG). Hist-merge is certainly an option by request at commons:Commons:History merging and splitting if you prefer that approach rather than updating the links to point to the new filename and filing a commons:Commons:Deletion requests. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    After discussion with some other commons folks, I did a histmerge. DMacks (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    IP's concerns about Global sysop Wikibayer

    Someone had written in Maxima Group a paragraph about annual internships of Maxima LT in Lithuania. It is not promotional in any ways and is fully informational and supported by two reliable sources. Yet, global sysop Wikibayer continues his useless tirade of malicious reverts regarding commercial topics and topics related to singer Frank Mortenson (and apparently doesn't care to read sources at all). He also spreads conspiracy theories on English Wiki, but that will be another topic, as I have no time to talk about it there and now. Dear administrators who seriously work on Wikipedia, please tell this individual from Bavaria to thoroughly read the sources and stop his malicious actions. If he continues, I hope someone will request a ban for him. --83.187.109.195 (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Info: this is a crosswiki abuse see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Birdsflyinghigh123/Archive & User:Meters/Frank Mortenson LTA WikiBayer (talk) 09:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care about your links. You are focused on a single purpose to remove all info regarding Frank Mortenson from all Wikipedias, even when it's supported by reliable secondary sources. Fails Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --83.187.109.195 (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, is there anyone to read the sources before reverting my edits? To note, if you attempt to black all range of 83.187......, it means you block half of Vilnius district from editing Wikipedia. --83.187.109.195 (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that Tele2 Lithuania's market share? Besides blocking the specific IP above, a partial block could be enacted on the range in regards to the specific articles most affected.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 10:29, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is and blocking the whole region from editing Wikipedia (even if, as you say, in regards to the specific articles most affected) is equal to censorship. I ask you once more, care to read the sources before reverting my reverts. Adding or removing any content with no attention to secondary sources is a bad-faith activity. --83.187.109.195 (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Range blocks don't help much, the ranges are too big.
    This abuse filter is better. Can a sysop import this filter. WikiBayer (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am thoroughly waiting when this abuse filter will be enacted. Finally, the news headlines will make a sensation: "Famous singers were banned to be mentioned in any part of Wikipedia because of personal feelings of Bavarian global sysop". --83.187.109.195 (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Article semi-protected for 3 days. The IPs are from (so far) 3 separate /16 ranges, so range-blocking isn't feasible. Favonian (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you explain what's the point of this semi-protection? There was a whole paragraph of information about Maxima internships with two fully reliable sources, then some infamous wiki-vandals came reverting it because of their personal feelings, so, what's the point? --83.187.109.195 (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    trade mark icon in the title?

    I just popped on new page feed to have a look and the very first one Islamic Educational Institute Kandoora™ has a trade mark tag in the title. Are you even allowed that on wikipedia? Govvy (talk) 10:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    k, cheers, was the first time I've ever seen that happen, so caught me off guard. Govvy (talk) 10:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy, MOS:TM discusses this sort of thing, for future reference. Girth Summit (blether) 10:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: You know there are so many help/sub pages on wikipedia I doubt there is one person that knows them all! Govvy (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, of course, for fully paid-up members of The Cabal™. We ensure that all such pages are always in the precise form that furthers our own nefarious interests. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil, we all agreed at our last meeting, there is no cabal. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 11:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Because we agreed there was a kabal. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 11:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Govvy, I sure as hell don't know them all. My first step is usually to try typing WP:THING then MOS:THING into the search window - it works more often than you might expect. (Funnily enough, I just discovered that WP:THING exists. Who knew?) Girth Summit (blether) 12:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Phil Bridger:, did you just include yourself in a (we). Saying you're part of a Cabal? And HighInBC was in the last cabal meeting? Has fiction broken into reality again..?? Govvy (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Govvy: did you miss the punctuation mark in "of The Cabal™." ? As Phil wrote two separate sentences, the "we" in the second sentence need not refer to whatever body is mentioned in the first. HighInBC's "we" need not be the same as Phil's "we", and regardless Phil does not refer to the cabal. Be attentive, punctuation marks may significantly alter the meaning of statements.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eostrix: You're an English professor I take it! Govvy (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

    Guideline and policy news

    • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

    Technical news

    • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User:RASSIOPEIA hiding paid contributions

    Hi. It is good that they (User:RASSIOPEIA) are disclosing the paid edits, but seems like most of their edits are paid and they are not disclosing all of their paid contributions. Sometimes we have to confirm from them if they are doing paid edits, see here.

    They have done 11 projects on Upwork, but have only disclosed 6 projects on their profile. For transparency, they should link their Upwork profile on their user page along with their real name as per Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. 182.182.24.179 (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Might this be WP:OUTing, as the linked upwork page allegedly shows RASSIOPEIA's real name? I am not aware of any paid editing guidelines requiring a user to disclose their real name. Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I am surprised that this account was allowed. Isn't it just mocking (who was then) User:CASSIOPEIA, who works NPP and would have handled much spam and UPE? Waiting two years to edit suggests sleeper. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [This] suggest you're likely right.92.5.2.97 (talk) 11:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, not sure if UAA would be appropriate, though, since Cassiopeia has since changed their name to not be all caps, so the names are not that confusing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! Cassiopeia, does this user ring any bells? Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have seen so many Upwork editors who are not using their real names as Wikipedia user names. (elided) but his Wikipedia account is (elided). How am I violating any guideline please tell me? RASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I liked Cassiopeia username and user page that's I tried to create user page like his. I didn't know this is appropriate or a violation, I apologize if I unknowingly violate anything. Please guide me on how can I fix it? RASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    182.182.24.179 this IP address is from my country and I'm 100% sure he is paid editor who is trying to get me banned. I would recommend please check his IP seems like a sockpuppet and he is hiding his real Wikipedia account! How a newbie can know about Wikipedia paid edits? RASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there have been issues with RASSIOPEIA not disclosing paid contributions upfront until asked directly about them. This has happened at least with Wondershare Recoverit Data Recovery in March (UPE warning / disclosure), Eric Deters in April (UPE warning / disclosure), One Disease in July (UPE warning / disclosure), and Draft:Sagami Rubber Industries most recently (UPE warning / disclosure). It's really concerning that they continue to have to be prodded by others about whether they're being paid for edits (with the answer invariably being yes). DanCherek (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting an additional instance of what appears to be undisclosed paid editing by RASSIOPEIA at Draft:Christian Nwachukwu — their upload of File:Christian_Nwachukwu_photo.jpg specifies Christian Nwachukwu sent me this file via email. DanCherek (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RASSIOPEIA I have removed the places where you connected an external account to a wikipedia account. Please do not do that, it is WP:OUTING, which is one of the more serious violations of our policies. Continued attempts at outing will inevitably lead to you being blocked. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The user for which RASSIOPEIA did so already linked the accounts on their user page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bbarmadillo
    If there is any outing here, it is on the part of 182.182.24.179, who connected RASSIOPEIA's upwork account to their Wikipedia account before RASSIOPEIA linked them on their userpage. Jackattack1597 (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello Jackattack1597, I'm sorry for WP: OUTING, I didn't know about this. I will not make any mistake from now on. I apologize for my mistakes. And was not aware of connecting my Upwork profile with my Wikipedia account. Please guide me how can I fix my mistakes and my intention was never to break any Wikipedia policy. RASSIOPEIA (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @DanCherek I apologize for not disclosing that paid edits Draft:Christian Nwachukwu. I forgot to disclose about this one otherwise I have disclosed all paid edits and from now on I will not make any single paid edits without disclosing. Please give me a chance :( RASSIOPEIA (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please guide me how can I fix my mistakes. RASSIOPEIA (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgot? What about these (Ivan Petricevic, Verisurf Logo) which you received by emails from their respective subjects and haven't disclosed? I have reservations about Draft:Payza too. 2A02:C7F:F6C8:F300:100C:3A82:D551:2245 (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon further digging, I found Draft:Hipla Technologies, a spam article they created and never disclosed and there is one in-progress job for online magazine they are doing, see this, but haven't disclosed. Maybe it is Draft:Lake_and_McHenry_County_Scanner. 2A02:C7F:F6C8:F300:100C:3A82:D551:2245 (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @RASSIOPEIA: the problem is you seem to keep forgetting to disclose, as evidenced by the plenty of examples from DanCherek where you only disclosed after someone warned you. Is there even one case when you disclosed your status before you were warned/someone asked? If you're going to claim you always planned to disclose, but after you finished your editing spree that's not good enough. You need to disclose before you edit. So effectively you've already been given a lot of chances and lots of guidance. Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Article name

    Hello. Please change the name of the article "Pol Sangi" to "Stone Bridge (Tabriz)". See similar examples "here".--Trkgs (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the proper location for your request. Please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves for requesting a move to a new title, but first review Wikipedia:Article titles. Are there any reliable sources that call the structure "Stone Bridge" in English? Please also note that Stone Bridge includes links to several articles in the See also section with titles that have not been translated into English. - Donald Albury 14:01, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jordan Henderson

    Does this link [19] need striking out of the history? Govvy (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     Done GiantSnowman 15:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1036780941"