Wikipedia or Wikicommons issue – request for help after error during file upload was not/carelessly/incorrectly addressed
WORD SALAD
This appears to be an issue at Commons. It may not have been "properly resolved at Wikicommons", but the issue must be resolved at Commons. The rest is a rant. If you want help, ask for help regarding en.wiki and don't cast aspersions on those you regard as "deletionists". - The BushrangerOne ping only22:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello. This post might technically eventually be about an issue over at Wikicommons, but please don't brush it off on those grounds, as that issue was not properly resolved at Wikicommons, and there is another MUCH BIGGER issue attached, and also, maybe more eyeballs and duly authorised hands over here will be able to help where that didn't happen over there:
I'm looking at Mattel Aquarius#Character set. This content was merged in January 2021 from Mattel Aquarius character set, where the initial work took place. In even trying to nail down and getting to explaining the mistake, I ran into a HUGE issue, one I have run into before, including when browsing the history of the UTF-8 character set (table). I realise some people (maybe not you, but some people) might be inclined to sweep aside a problem with Wikipedia's coverage of the Mattel Aquarius character set, or might even think about "solving" the issue with more deletionism, but this following huge issue does affect Wikipedia's coverage of UTF-8, which none of us will be able to sweep aside.
I'll title this subsection the
Ostracism feature request
for reasons that will become clear.
So, the HUGE BIG STONKING issue and massive problem with apparently current general or at least discouragingly common practice at Wikipedia is this:
<rant mode on>
Very, very, very often, deletionists will pursue and accomplish the deletion of templates on the grounds that currently nobody relies on them anymore. This they often do because deletionism is a form of pedantry, in the traditional etymological "that'll teach 'em" sense: They don't like thing X, hence they don't want you to have it, and nobody can have it, so say the self-appointed teachers (deletionists) to us, the children and recalcitrant pupils (non-deletionists). There is of course absolutely no good reason to erase a template "nobody uses" anymore, but they're very afraid of being proven wrong, so they delete the template just in case someone might think of using it.
On a long enough timeframe, this zealous overreach is an outright catastrophic problem, because it vandalises history and makes a non-trivial amount of it significantly inaccessible:
You see, the problem is, the past is not what Wikipedia's Winston Smiths would have you think. The past—and editing history on ultimately thousands of articles affected by this issue—again, the past was different from what deletionists and historical revisionists (but I repeat myself) would rather like.
So when these literally non-constructive editors aggressively pursue the deletion of templates "nobody uses now", those templates almost unfailingly used to be relied upon by something on Wikipedia – sometimes widely relied upon. And that's in the edit history. The deletion of "unused" templates today drastically vandalises the history, the edit history, of the past, and often makes past edits and pages upon pages of template-reliant historical content inscrutable.
That's vandalism. That's 1984. It should not be happening.
</rant mode off>
The same is true, to a much lesser extent, for images, but it's not as bad with those, as actual page content is not as deeply intertwined with "just the pics", and also, unlike templates, there sometimes are good reasons to affirmatively wipe images, notably copyright issues. By their very nature, templates don't tend to suffer from actual copyright issues in anything near the same way.
Concretely, the place I ran into the template deletion issue now was here. This is far from the worst example of the impact template deletion can have upon recorded (edit) history, but you can see the problem, and how this time, I got to the point where rant mode toggled on.
There is a possible technical fix for this, one which even deletionists might consider a happy medium, but it requires high-level intervention, possibly developer intervention:
If a template "nobody uses" or should be using anymore really cheeses you off, then maybe there ought to be an option to ostracise the template by consigning it to history without actually deleting it, meaning: Once you tick that "ostracise" box, the template will no longer render in current article revisions, while still rendering just fine in all past article revisions, throughout the history.
If you can swing that, that would all but solve the issue. The final act of redemption would be the undeletion of already-deleted templates, and all of those could also be ostracised. That would make it possible to browse Wikipedia's edit history again without running into these highly aggravating issues ever so often. If mass template undeletion is too much to ask, maybe at least give us a process to ask for template undeletion into ostracism. Also, ostracism might sometimes be the right choice for non-template content.
Okay, now back to our regularly scheduled programme,
and the rest
COMEÞ NOUU the mistake I wanted to ask for your help with, the one that was not fixed at Wikicommons:
What follows may take some explaining but ultimately is a simpler problem that possibly doesn't need Administrator attention – but it still needs somebody's help. If you, the busy Admin, want to skip this, please point me somewhere else for help with the below. Thanks.
The Mattel Aquarius character set includes a good bunch of characters that were not in Unicode until September 2024, when they became part of Unicode, in the Symbols for Legacy Computing Supplement Unicode block. It also includes a whole bunch of characters added in 2020, in the earlier Symbols for Legacy Computing code block. (Read the PDFs and relevant forums; the history and resurrection story is fascinating.) Between those two blocks, this little machine that could not even has now, since the year of our Lord 2024, achieved round-trip convertibility, meaning you can losslessly convert data from the most humble of 8-bit home micros to modern UTF-8 and back again. But I digress. You see, when those characters were not in Unicode, those working on representing the character set table in Wikipedia used pictures instead. I don't think they did that for all the characters, because some of those weren't simple shapes, but they did this for clearly unencumbered ones, like the simple-shape "sextant" characters. If you look at the history of User:Rowan03, who seems to have been inactive since 2020, he uploaded a bunch of sextant character pictures to Wikicommons. I want to draw your attention to his upload of 31 January 2018, at 22:42: This is where Rowan accidentally uploaded the wrong picture under the wrong filename. He recognised his mistake and requested help with renaming the picture. As best I can make out, User:Krassotkinintervened, but seems to have done it wrong, either accidentally or "accidentally on purpose". I note that that user now is subject to a quite serious ban, so maybe the latter is not unlikely. Whatever the truth of that matter, the long and the short of it is that
both File:Mattel Aquarius character 0xBA.png and File:Mattel Aquarius character 0xBB.png are now identical, and the description isn't right either. The real shapes are here: Fig.4, p.20. The nomenclature here is that the six (2x3) "sextant" pixels are counted and labelled left-to-right, then top-to-bottom, and only those semigraphics pixels that are on are named. In the Mattel Aquarius character set, those pictures (from back when they weren't in Unicode) appeared as characters 186 and 187, or 0xBA and 0xBB, respectively. They're identical. It's confusingly non-apparent on Wikipedia what's going on, but on Wikicommons, 0xBB actually redirects to 0xBA, when it really shouldn't. Per said sextant nomenclature, 0xBA should be 2-4-5 and 0xBB 1-2-4-5. Per Symbols for Legacy Computing, these should be U+1FB18 and U+1FB19, respectively. The latter page actually shows you the right shapes if you have the requisite fonts installed and recently upgraded. The table on the Mattel Aquarius page still shows incorrect shapes because it relies on those pictures. Now before anyone's tempted to brush things under the carpet and to just delete the pictures and make Mattel Aquarius use actual characters too: WAIT. Please wait. The right thing to do here, for reasons similar to those complained of at length above is that the mistake should be fixed, the correct picture should be uploaded and substituted (which I don't think I've done here; your help is welcome and wanted), and then we should wait for the Wayback Machine to do its thing in archiving the fix, and then, once font/character support is ubiquitous, and only then might we wish to update that table to use "real" UTF-8 characters. 'Sound like a plan? —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 04:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
PS: I'm also seeing another issue in that Aquarius character set table, where its character 219, 0xDB, i.e. U+1FBEB LEFT JUSTIFIED RIGHT HALF BLACK CIRCLE doesn't render right, but I suspect that might just be transient font issues on my machine – unless there's a problem with a widely-distributed font and it isn't just me? In such case, please lemme know.
Please state in two simple and clear sentences sentence exactly what needs to be done on enwiki and/or on commons to fix the problem. DMacks (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see why this is an administrative issue on either Commons or en.Wikipedia. You don't need to be an admin on commons to upload pictures. So if you have copyright compliant pictures of those characters where we currently lack correct pictures then upload them to commons. If there are existing files, then rather than fluffing around with renames, just give the file a different name. Then once you've done that, go to the relevant Wikipedia page and replace any of the pictures which are the wrong character with the right one. Once you've done that feel free to submit the page for archival at archive.org or whatever other archive site you want and within a few minutes, you won't have to worry if the pictures are replaced with actual unicode characters. If you don't have pictures for those characters, that still isn't an administrative issue, go to the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab and ask for help or try somewhere else more suitable for help getting pictures you don't have. If you can't find anyone willing and able to make characters, then tough cookies. Wikipedia (and Commons) are volunteer projects, so if you can't find someone willing to do something you care about you need to either do it yourself somehow or accept it won't be done. I mean if you do have the right pictures, you could try to get a rename at commons later if you really want but to my mind this is a fairly unimportant detail in the grand scheme of things and in any case not something for en to care about, it's an issue for commons if they have poorly named pictures which we are not using. To be blunt, this seems to me more like an excuse to rant about deletionism and other stuff. To be clear, AN is not the place to request new features. That would be WP:VPT or WP:VPR or maybe by opening a ticket somewhere (although I expect it'll be closed if there isn't any evidence of community demand for the feature). Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
BTW, if some of the pictures have already been replaced with actual Unicode characters, frankly although wikipedia isn't exactly a place for you to do stuff for your own personal need, I don't think anyone would have really cared if in that one likely rarely visited page you'd just replaced those characters with correct pictures for about 20 minutes, submitted the page for archival then came back and self reverted once archival was done, especially if you hadn't opened a big rant on AN beforehand. Ultimately whether the page uses correct pictures or actual characters probably isn't that big of a deal so it isn't clearly disruptive or something which could easily be considered WP:POINT to make the change even if you're only really doing it for your own personal needs. Of course now that you have left a big rant, editors might be more annoyed if you did do it. Likewise if for some reason you feel you need to do it with multiple pages. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I'd add that it's possible to upload files over an existing one so you might not even have to worry about renames or deletions. (Both versions are visible in the history.) I have no idea about the protections etc involved here and whether it's possible for these files, but my point is even if it's an issue I don't see any reason to be so worked up about it when you can just upload the correct file under a different name and worry later about resolving the possibly incorrect file if really needed. In any case, if it really matters so much to you the incorrect files are dealt with, you will need to take it to commons not here. Also I see you've already had a help desk question directed to WP:VPI, another place which is far more suitable than AN for a feature request. Although I would say wherever you propose it, you're likely to find your proposal has far less chance of success if you start it off with a rant about deletionists. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
ReadOnlyAccount, if you want help then you need to ask for it much more concisely, and without the ninety-something percent of your post which consists of irrelevant content. I very much doubt that anyone (except maybe Nil Einne) knows what you are asking for, or, quite frankly, cares. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, just tossing this into a word counter, I get a reading time of 5.5 minutes for the original post on this thread. Few, if any, people are going to read all of that. It's just too much. Please remember we're all volunteers here. ReadOnlyAccount, try to be far more concise. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello - we have a suspected sock @Orunaalkallan who edited Talk:Kattan dynasty 100's of times to artificially boost edit counts.
They have engaged in edit wars in Kerala on multiple occasions.
They have been warned of edit wars on [1]16th march by @Benison and about nonconstructive edits by other users.
Confirmed to some other socks and blocked. If you see something really obvious like this, it might be better to just contact a CheckUser directly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Recently, a large edit war erupted at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election (see history). Quite a number of accounts were involved, including some that would appear to be sockpuppets. To stop the edit war, I fully protected the article for 1 week [3]. I posted a notice regarding the full protection here. After a bit of sandbox sand tossing and finger pointing in that thread, an RfC was started to sort out criteria (see RfC). Some productive motion is happening in the RfC, but no consensus has yet been assessed. Various editors are wanting the article to be unlocked. The full protection is going to expire in about 14 hours. I've placed a very stern and final warning regarding edit warring and sockpuppeting on the article here, pinging all recent editors in the process to make sure everyone understands there will be no further warnings before blocks will be applied for edit warring and/or sockpuppeting. Some suggestions have been made to apply EC protection, which I'd rather not do but I'm amenable to.
It is possible that I will not be around to monitor when the protection expires at 03:22 UTC 16 March 2025 (tomorrow). Some other eyes on this when the protection expires would be useful, especially a few hours after the protection expires when morning comes round in the UK. Given the warning and pings I made here, admins should feel at liberty to apply blocks as needed to prevent this edit war from erupting again. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user has accused more than a dozen different editors (including myself) of edit warring and sock puppetry. I think that accusation is overly broad and WP:UNCIVIL. While there might be something afoot at this article, such a broad-brush accusation of a serious offense is wholly inappropriate and counter-productive. As if that weren't egregious enough, this user has brought the issue up here, in the AN mud-pit ... but did so without notifying any of the users they admonished in their message on that talk page and included here. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I can only imagine it was due to lack of time and maybe a combination of a software that collates the last slew of names who edited? Hammer by name, :D, the talk page was crazytown though, it did need a hard-handed sheriff to ride in. The talk page took me a while to sift through and guess on how many socks there are, even so, I do mildly agree with the "broad-brush" stroke, though as I'm not a sock, I didn't fear it. I can read the CU queue is busy, but this page does need a good look at. I'd bet three bob there's at least 3 there.Halbared (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
@Mikeblas: I didn't accuse you nor any other specific person of edit warring or sockpuppeting. If you go back and read what I said before the pings at the top of the notice I posted, you will note that it says "Pings to anyone who has edited the article in the last two weeks:". The notice did not say "pinging the people who edit warred and/or sockpuppeted". I am painting the broad brush because there were dozens of reversions in an edit war shortly before I protected it. The edit war was wildly out of hand, achieving nothing, and causing mass disruption to the article. The people who are interested in maintaining the article needed to be aware of the edit war and sockpuppeting and that there would now be zero tolerance for it moving forward. If I were instead to apply a thin brush, and only block those who had edit warred before, it would essentially be giving carte blanche to resume the mass disruption to the article to the people who weren't involved in this edit war. Relax. There is no reason to feel accused, either by you nor anyone else who has edited the article in the last two weeks. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Your claim is incongruent with your words. You're forgetting paragraph you wrote that starts with All of you should consider this a final warning, where you threaten us all with with blocks WITHOUT any additional warning. All 27 users in your list deserve an apology, and you should either clarify or retract your post. Your approach was inappropriate, and your words have done damage. Your Relax response is condescending and dismissive. -- mikeblas (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Mikeblas, if you really think I'm accusing you of edit warring when you have made 1 insignificant edit to the article after it was protected by me, then we have nothing to talk about. If you think "relax" is condescending because I'm trying to reduce heat, then again we have nothing to talk about. I will not be retracting my comment as it doesn't need to be retracted. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
mikeblas, although you were not edit-warring previously, it's quite reasonable that if you had started to edit war after the unprotection had expired you would be blocked without further warning. You could easily avoid this by keeping with your original stance of not edit warring. If you didn't like to be informed of this, I don't think any of us care since we're sick of editors complaining that they weren't adequately informed and so should be blocked. There's absolutely no reason to care about a warning that you will be blocked for something where such a block is totally justified, when it was reasonable to warn you which it clearly was as a editor of the article from before the edit warring. Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
It's not acceptable to accuse everyone of some action and threaten to ban them for it ... because they might do it in the future. The All of you admonishment was misdirected, and it's that simple. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Surely I can't be the only one thinking "why does this article exist for an election that is probably four years away?". For all previous elections it has only been "activated" when the election is announced. Assuming the next election does happen in 2029, how relevant are polls taking place now going to be? (Hint: not relevant at all). Black Kite (talk)16:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
It's madness. Surely it's in contradction of WP:NOT somehow. It's large already, and as it seem to be getting updated with every single opinion poll that takes place, by 2029 it will be *gulp* how big?! That level of detail is unencyclopaedic and the opposite of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi16:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Add to that multiple new editors who are SPAs on that single article, for whatever reason, and you have a complete mess. And yeah, I do wonder if WP:NOTSTATS applies here, because there's no context to the vast swathes of tables, just ... stats. Black Kite (talk)17:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
See AfD on the article from last year. I do note however there are at least two contributors to that AfD whose only edits were to the AfD. This seems par for the course for this article; lots of contributions by SPAs. This type of article tends to get very, very long. See Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election. For whatever reason, this most recent page has drawn 415 thousand pageviews in the last 30 days. It's highly visible (part of the reason I protected it for a week to stop the disruption). --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Well, what is certain is that an election will happen at some point within the time frame up to and including 2029. Maybe keep the major polls, or ones at regular intervals?Halbared (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion on what to do about the article and/or its content is not appropriate for this noticeboard. I recommend starting a discussion on the article's talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree. This is not the place to discuss this. This thread was simply a "heads up" but it got hijacked by someone who doesn't seem to understand what a warning is. Let's close it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please remove the article from the blacklist and move it to Article space
OP indef'ed, history cleanup due to an issue caused by them complete! I have also fixed a typo in the spelling of "Article" in the title of this section. MolecularPilotTalk08:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What article are you talking about? We need to know both the blacklisted name (where you want the article to be) and the article you have that should be at that name. DMacks (talk) 02:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
As part of their disruption, they moved their user-talk to article-talk, which then got deleted there (Talk:نبيل البرادعي) and a new user-talk with new messages created. Should we do history cleanup to fix that fragmentation? DMacks (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Request to revert unauthorized edits from my account
Hello admins,
I recently discovered that my Wikipedia account was compromised, and multiple unauthorized edits were made. I have since recovered my account and changed my password.
I kindly request an admin to **revert all edits made from my account** to restore the previous correct versions.
Please let me know if you need any further information.
I'm certainly quite skeptical that someone compromised their account just 21 minutes after they registered, immediately made three incompetent-but-tame copy edits, and then never edited again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Graye04 has been moving draftified articles back to mainspace with little or no improvement. They also made several breaking moves of Aeros Corporation, and at least one edit to Aeros that removed useful links and left broken markup. Several of his image uploads to Commons have been deleted as copyvios, and there are fair use issues with some of their uploads here. The NPP who moved the articles to draftspace in the first place tagged most of them with undisclosed COI notices, which Graye04 denies.
According to WP:DRAFTOBJECT the appropriate action is to talk about things on the article talk page(s) or at WP:AFD, unless the user is determined to have a conflict of interest, in which case it is to redraftify. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What's up with IGenii?
Could we get some eyes on IGenii (talk·contribs)? I'm not sure if this is a bot or if there is a serious WP:CIR issue or what. It's not quite vandalism but almost all of the edits are nonconstructive. Thanks! hbent (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I doubt this is a bot (though their earlier edit summaries are LLM-generated). So I'd say we just revert the bad edits, explain why on their talk page, same as any newbie. If they get really persistent and don't respond to any talk page notices, the next step is probably a pblock from mainspace. -- asilvering (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to update my user page to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. I may become an occasional paid editor and want to clearly disclose this information while maintaining neutrality in my contributions. TLJ3 (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am going to initiate WP:RM discussion for Byzantine Greeks article. It's a low engagement article though, with only 20 active page watchers in the past 30 days. [5]
As long as the messages are simple notifications not arguing for one side or the other, it shouldn't be an issue - notifying Wikiprojects is pretty much standard procedure in fact. - The BushrangerOne ping only20:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The reason I asked is that I recently added bunch of new Wiki projects [7]. Is it still fine to notify all of those?
@Bogazicili: Just a point of clarification to Bushrangers's good advice, you do need to make sure you're neutral in selection of projects. I don't know enough about this case to give examples, but if I make one up e.g. if there's a case where the name is largely disputed between Greeks and Turks, it most likely wouldn't be acceptable to only notify WikiProject Greece or Wikiproject Turkey. Both of these wikiprojects would likely be relevant wikiprojects so both can be notified, but only notifying one is likely to be canvassing. In this case, since you added these wikiprojects, it's important that you weren't unfairly selective in which wikiprojects you added, where ones of equal relevance to the topic were missed out for no good reason. If it seems like you were, editors are likely to be concerned. That said, this is the form of canvassing which causes the least long term harm especially if you leave a notice on the RM about your notices, since it can be simply corrected by notifying the wikiprojects you missed. Leaving non-neutral notices causes far more concern since you can't truly correct it. Anyone who's seen those non-neutral notices has seen them. Also, if you tried to be fair in what wikiprojects you added, that's probably good enough. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate the answers! The reason I wanted to ask in admin noticeboard is for additional clarity, given it's a contentious topic. Bogazicili (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am opening this review of my own closure of this closure due to this extended discussion on my talk page. The primary objection by Cortador appears to be that those endorsing the closure did not make policy based arguments and should not have been weighted as they were. My counter is that they were policy compliant and agreement with the close is agreement with the closer's provided rationale at the RFC and expanded rationale at AN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh, that's interesting! No, I disagree and I think that people who didn't !vote in the original RfC are uninvolved. If you're involved if you voted in the close review, then recursive close reviews would have tactical uses for people who were gaming the system.—S MarshallT/C23:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Endorse People need to accept that stuff happens: you win some, you lose some. At Wikipedia, you shouldn't keep battling. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Uninvolved with the RfC but involved with the close review I guess? There is no reasonable way to read this discussion and find an affirmative consensus for overturning. Much of the argument since the RfC has been relitigating the RfC. Opinions among the rest are somewhat evenly divided numerically, but there's some misunderstanding of WP:VOTE and WP:DUE: due weight is about determining the proportion of coverage in high-quality sources, not just the existence. Also: the possibility of further discussion on the underlying question remains open. All this relitigation is a waste of time, and this needs to be put to bed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Endorse not because I agree with either close (see my !vote in the close review and the discussion on SFR's talk), but because I think close reviews on close reviews are generally not productive and this is not the rare circumstance where I woud have brought one. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Endorse - I'm involved as I wrote the close that led to the review which this review is reviewing. My reading of the review of the close is that it was an accurate analysis of the community's perspective. Chetsford (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm not going to do that.Aditya Vikram Birla Group was a false positive caught by a regex attempting to stop abusive recreations of the unrelated page Adityaram Properties by a prolific sockpuppeteer. Deanne Pandey was an unattributed cut-and-paste move from the then-G4-tagged Deanne Panday, which was also being abusively recreated by a prolific sockpuppeteer. The ill-informed 2024 AFD of the misromanized salt-evading version (not to mention the innocent contributions of the editors fooled into expanding it) mean that it can't be speedy deleted either as a recreation of the previously-afd'd version or as a creation of a banned user - both of which it indisputably is - but I'm not going to help justify its presence. —Cryptic09:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
After thinking about it for days I've undeleted the deleted article, history merged it with the current version, and left behind a redirect, especially since the majority of the content of the current version was not written by the sockpuppets in the first place. Anyone is of course welcome to file a second AfD, but until then we shouldn't make it harder to find content that already exists out of grudge-bearing. * Pppery *it has begun...16:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
I would like to request third-party opinion on what's going on at this XfD. I understand that opinions can be strong in a discussion, but I think things have crossed a bright line which may have invalidated possible consensus in the discussion, per our canvassing rules, WP:VOTESTACKING, in particular.
That said, I have commented in the discussion, and I think third-party opinion is warranted. Thank you for looking into this. - jc3714:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I just got back from dinner and saw this email:
"Someone, probably you, from IP address 46.154.163.13,
has changed the email address of the account "CoffeeCrumbs" to "pericogonzale[at]yandex.com" on Wikipedia.
If this was not you, contact a site administrator immediately."
The [at] was added by me.
I immediately contacted the compromised account Wikimedia address, but I also wanted to drop a notice here; I do not know how long it takes an email from them to be read, I wanted to raise the issue so that the account could at least be temporarily locked before it did some kind of damage, probably spam related, but hopefully not something worse. Thanks! 184.57.226.148 (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
You might want to change your email and password quickly, probably add a lot of symbols and numbers, which is what I did with my account. Generally most people tend to hack your account quickly when the password is short and easy to guess. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it appears the password has already been changed. Upon checking, it appears I used the same password as my WPO account, and according to Google, that was apparently seen in a data breach eight months ago. That's...not ideal. The only silver lining is that it hasn't been used yet. 184.57.226.148 (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
CU verifies that the account has been compromised. Along with some others, it seems. Going to be a long night in the CU mines. I have blocked User:CoffeeCrumbs for now. Suggest enabling 2FA in the future. Spicy (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the block. Sadly, my password security is usually more responsible than this. I'm thankful that it didn't cause serious damage, and hopefully I can recover my account at some point. 184.57.226.148 (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Edit warring between two users at article 2025 Nagpur violence
I don't know how to determine who is in the wrong in edit warring nor do I know how the dispute started and if this page's name is correct, this should be a way for me to get administrator attention to this article. There is edit warring on the article with from what I counted 10 reverts in the last day or so. For administrators information, I am uninvolved. DotesConks (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
We've had issues following the release of Chhaava, which tells a romanticised (and fake) history of Sambhaji. The violence is connected to Aurangzeb who apparently killed their hero, whenever it was. The article is under contentious topics which I'll need to read up on as I don't dive into India/Pakistan disputes normally. Secretlondon (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Liz, that would require me to report someone and I don't know who is the one edit warring and would be at fault under the policy so I wanted an administrator to sort all of that out. DotesConks (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
It's not a great approach to dump a problem here and expect "an administrator to sort all of that out". You should present a case, ideally at ANEW, not here, where you identify editors and edits that are problematic and violate policy. You are a very new editor and you should learn to resolve some problems on your own and not come to ANI or AN any time you sense trouble. AN generally has much lower traffic than ANI or other noticeboards and generally deals with larger issues of concern to the administrator community along with certain subjects like unblock requests and RFC closure reviews. But as you are here longer, you will pick these things up. In general, I'd advise you to go slower when dealing with administrative matters unless you are reporting vandalism to AIV.LizRead!Talk!06:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I previously used this account in 2020, and then when I wanted to edit Wikipedia again in 2023, I created a new account, User:Koshchki123. Now, when going through an old password manager, I found the login to this account again. How should I proceed with the two accounts? Кощки123 (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
You can keep both if you use them for different reasons (phone and computer, for instance) but you should link them if you use both. One way is to put the template {{Alternate account|YourOtherAccountName}} on each of your user pages. If you don't want to use both, just stop using one of them and only use the other. You can put a note on the unused one, on the user page "This was another account of (username you want to use) but I don't use it anymore" if you like, to prevent any misunderstanding. An example would be my two alt accounts, User:Pharmboy and User:Farmer Brown. I used them, but redirect the talk pages only, to my main account. Dennis Brown - 2¢06:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. I plan to only use the other account in the future (as it has far more of my edits, and rollback rights). Кощки123 (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User Viceskeeni2 refuses to engage in a proper discussion and have recently violated the 3 reverts rule on page Gata by doing a fourth revert. I plead moderators to take an action on him.
Because you reverted a sourced version of the article, we're discussing whether or not that version will stay or won't, however you keep doing disruptive edits by removing that version without any consensus being reached. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
No I'm not, I'm just saying that they have been removing a part of the article without there being any evidence on whether it's a right reason to or not and there has, yet, been no consensus reached. But alright sure, I wont edit again on the article until the discussion is finished Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Concur with reversion to status quo ante bellum before this edit war began. Get consensus to move forward with this content first. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Before the edit war began, it was the article the way it is right now just without the fact that it's of Armenian origin Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not going to discuss content and make a decision on what is right and wrong. The article is back to its state before the edit war began. Get consensus on the talk page of the article before moving forward on this issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
So would you have me revert back to 28 May 2020 [8]? Would you have me decide what content is right and wrong? That is not an administrator's role. Our role is to stop the edit war. See also m:The Wrong Version; "There are no reports of an administrator ever having [reverted to] the "right" version". --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what version of the article stays up while a discussion takes place. What is important is that there should be a good-faith discussion on the article talk page based on reliable sources leading to a consensus version of the article. It would be perfectly reasonable for anyone to say, based on current evidence, that they have had enough of Armenian-Azerbaijani political bickering about a food, ffs, and ban one or both of you from such a discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see that this is particularly surprising. Just like any aspects of culture, food can be a significant point of contention between neighbouring communities. There's no reason why people would care about whether Nikola Tesla is Croatian or Serbian or whatever; or for that matter all the disputes over whether someone is English/Irish/whatever or British; but not care about similar issues when it comes to food. When the communities are generally at most friendly rivals, the disputes can generally survive without too much problem e.g. Pavlova. When there are greater points of contention they can be more problematic e.g. the recent dispute at Rendang, or many food disputes involved Malaysian and Indonesia or Malaysia and Singapore (e.g. Yusheng). Still if the politics, relations and other stuff aren't enough to have resulted on a GS or CTOP, the food disputes will hopefully be likewise. But when relations between the communities are terrible enough that they need a CTOP or GS, unsurprisingly the disputes over food can do likewise. I'm sure this isn't the first in the Armenian-Azerbaijani area. Likewise there are surely a bunch in the Eastern European topic area, I mean even Chicken Kiev is affected and that isn't even a dispute on origins or linkage to a specific community. Likewise IPA. And for A-I, we have a whole article on Politics of food in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The Gata edit-warring and 3RR violations isn't the only issue. Viceskeeni2 was blocked, then unblocked with a topic ban, and recently had his topic ban softened to just Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts, broadly construed [9]. During that discussion though, they were warned [10] against POV push in other areas of Armenia-Azerbijan, which they clearly have not followed as shown by the poorly sourced edit-wars in Gata.
What is more concerning is that after all of this and being unblocked with topic ban then topics ban being softened, Viceskeeni2 still violated even this softened topic ban that they're currently bound by [11], [12]. The first edit is a direct violation of their topic ban Armenia-Azerbaijan conflicts, broadly construed. The second article is largely based on the conflict between First Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, which also makes it a violation. This isn't the first time Viceskeeni2 has violated a topics ban [13], [14]. I believe it's time Viceskeeni2 behavior is reviewed by admins and they face sanctions, imo they're a net negative for this topic area and clearly unsuited to edit it or just follow softened restrictions. Even interacting on talk pages without throwing personal attacks every other comment is a challenge for them [15], [16]. Vanezi (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The Religion in Azerbaijan edit is a clear-cut violation of the conditions imposed by HouseBlaster on February 17 (I'm not sure I see how the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic one is though). Honestly, even the editing at Gata is a violation of it in my opinion--claiming as Azerbaijani an Armenian cultural food is in a very literal sense part of the conflict. I didn't see this restriction logged at AE, otherwise I would have imposed the snapback sanction earlier. Topic-ban reimposed. signed, Rosguilltalk04:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
@Rosguill they were already topic banned from AA conflicts, broadly construed [17]. Your sanction has the same wording [18], was it intended to be this way or a broader tban like their original [19]? Vanezi (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Ah yes, my mistake, I misunderstood HouseBlaster's prescription. The topic ban is now for Armenia and Azerbaijan topics, full stop. signed, Rosguilltalk13:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately for you, I don't think you're going to be able to argue your way past the edit at Religion in Azerbaijan. But for the record, I don't think that HouseBlaster gave you license to revert 5 times in under 24 hours at Gata (food) or that they realized that you were heading straight into a contentious dispute by seeking to edit that page. The reverts alone (not to mention the wikilawyering now after the fact) are evidence that you are not prepared to edit these topics collegially. signed, Rosguilltalk13:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
No I won't, even if it was accidental, it's a violation, I accept the punishment as long as it's not a total Wikipedia ban or anything and am sorry. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
My comment was purely that editing about the food of either country is not inherently about the conflict. It was not a license to do that sort of edit. My apologies that my WP:ROPE has led to this mess, and thank you to Rosguill for reimposing the topic ban. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)19:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Don't worry your decision didn't lead to it, it was my mistake. The editing on Gata didn't cause the topic ban, I forgot about the ban and edited on an article that violated it. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The only thing there that really violates it I guess is the Aghdam mosque part, I'll remove that sure, I forgot it when editing, sorry for that. However, adding the name of Azerbaijan to it does definitely not violate anything, I didn't edit on the part that mention the conflict etc., only added the missing name. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
How about that rather than dance on the edge of your topic ban, you just avoid the area entirely? Keep this up, and it's likely your dancing will go astray and you'll find yourself blocked. It isn't worth it. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not "dancing on the edge of my topic ban". The religious edit is a violation, yes I admit it and I already accepted the punishment. However, me being punished and accused, of things that I haven't done that are similar to what I'm forbidden to do, is unfair. I edit on what I'm allowed to edit (except this one time, again sorry) Viceskeeni2 (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
"...that are similar to what I'm forbidden to do..." And there's the rub. You are doing things similar to what you are forbidden to do, and decrying responses to that as unfair. You put yourself in the situation of being subject to a topic ban. That you find it unfair to be viewed in this way isn't our fault. You are subject to a topic ban that is to be "broadly construed". How about you stay away from "similar" things and restrict yourself to editing things well beyond the "broadly construed"? There are ~7 million articles on this project. I'm sure you can find something else to do until this topic ban is removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The ban before wasn't broadly construed but ONLY to the conflict. I even asked the guy that set the block if I could edit on Gata (food) and he said YES. Now it's broadly construed, so I'll make sure to stay away from similar things too like the politics of the countries. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of course you are dancing on the edge of the topic ban. That's how you accidentally violated it. Hammersoft gave you some good advice on how not to be blocked. There are many subjects that have no link whatsoever with Armenia or Azerbaijan. Why not edit articles on South American species of moth or villages in Thailand or Polish social media influencers? Or, if you are so interested in food, something that is eaten in West Africa? If you edited in any of these areas there would be no danger of violating your topic ban. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Luckily for you, Wikipedia expects you to base contributions off of what is written in authoritative RS, not your personal knowledge. signed, Rosguilltalk13:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to appeal my block, please unblock me, and consider my request to post on WP:AN. This is my main account, but Hanshingling, OkuAli, ShriBhala Ji, BonzonElite SanjeevModdi, أسامة بن عبد الله وليد, & TonnyJ accounts were blocked for committing sockpuppetry. I admit all my past mistakes, including committing sockpuppetry, using ChatGPT for 2 talk page replies, and disruptive editing. I'm really ashamed for doing all these past mistakes. In the last 20-21 months, I didn't commit any sockpuppetry through the last CU run; it was confirmed by an admin.
On Hanshingling, I twice used ChatGPT for compiling replies to talk page notices, one to Abecedare's block notice and one to Kuru's notice. In 2022 ChatGPT was new; I wasn't aware that we should not use GPT for compiling any replies or writing on Wiki. My main account, Bensebgli, was blocked for disruptive editing on 27 April 2023. In my recent unblock appeal, two admins who blocked my sock accounts (Abecedare & Dough Weller) agreed only on the condition that if I accepted TBAN in the WP:GSCASTE area, then it would be okay for my account to be unblocked; otherwise, it would not. Which I first refused to accept, but after reading WP: GSCASTE and other TBAN conditions, I'm okay with TBAN. Kindly unblock me and lend me a last chance to earn the Wikipedia community's trust through my productive contributions.
I'd request to involved and uninvolved admins kindly consider my unblock request. If you guys can give me a last chance to return, I'll follow all the guidelines, and I'll follow my TBAN whatever community you impose against my account, and through my clean/productive contributions, I'll prove that your given chance was an opportunity.'If I'll be unblocked, I'd like to contribute to BLP, Media, Entertainment, Sport, Science, Transport, Geography, History, Technology, Education, LGBTQ, or Medical fields. '}} Bensebgli (talk) 09:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC) (Copied over from their talk page. Abecedare (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC))
I have already disclosed all my accounts. In my recent comments, I already explained Johnbendenz or Anujror are not related to my account in any sense. If anyone wants to examine CU or other tests, I can help CU admin in this test. Johnbendenz first edited in May 2022, one year before me, on Wikipedia. But I started editing from March 2023 onward July 2023, on Wikipedia through my Bensebgli and sock accounts; those were all blocked in July 2023. Anujror has also been editing Wikipedia for the last 3-4 years. We can check their edit history, and Anujror's investigation page is full of evidence that this user is still today committing sockpuppetry, and he is not linked to my account in any sense. Also, this or other IPs are blocked for continuing spam and socking from different groups. Any IP is not blocked as a sock of Bensebgli by any admin. I didn't commit sockpuppetry through any account or IP in the last 20-21 months. Bensebgli (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
(there were pings at the start of the message that I have removed as I've already pinged NXCrypto above) MolecularPilot🧪️✈️ I have already disclosed all my accounts and admitted my past mistakes. Anuj and Johnbendens are not related to my account. These two sock groups started editing Wikipedia from 2022 one year before myself. John didn't edit after 27 may 2022 but Anujror and his 20+ sock accounts are blocked. On Anuj's SPI case page there are 3-4 accounts listed for investigation. Anujror is still busy in commiting sockpuppetry he is also not related to my account in any sense. To be honest I'm not a robot or an alien it is not possible for myself to be present or commit sockpuppetry using 2-3 sock groups at a same time.
1.1 Johnbendenz edited from 20 may 2022 to 27th may 2022 his sock account edited from 23 may to 27 may 2022 one Year before myself. I started editing from my very first account (Bensebgli) and sock accounts from 28 march 2023 to 19 July 2023. After 19 July 2023 I didn't commit any sockpuppetry through any new account or IP. Johnbendenz belong to different sock group not to my account in any sense.
1.2 Anujror account started editing from 12 April 2022 his edits were mostly on Ror caste related articles and continued editing till 13 July 2022 after block of sock accounts of Anujror (Anuj Haryana, Anuj Ror Haryana 08) he started editing on Gujar caste related articles through new accounts. These claims can be confirmed by checking their edit history. Anujror's SPI case page is full of complexities dozen of users are blocked as Anuj's sock. On SPI case page 3-4 accounts are listed as suspected socks of Anujror. Anujror started editing from 8 April 2022 one year before my editing on Wikipedia he is senior and experienced then me just like Johnbendenz. I'm different from these sock groups and not related to these two sock groups. When I said and repeated I didn't commit sockpuppetry for last 20-21 months in (someway this claim was confirmed when PhilKnight deactivated ping as was already pinged on User talk MolecularPilot🧪️✈️ ran CU test against my unblock request that Bensebgli didn't commit sockpuppetry for last 6-7 months).
Weak support for unblock with TBAN from WP:GSCASTE-area, broadly construed. I have my doubts that this will work out, because the editor's past socks and even recent unblockrequests have been deceptive (can expand if needed), but am okay with giving them another chance. Abecedare (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Support - it's been a while and they seem to have learned from their mistakes. I don't see a problem with an unblock because they can very easily be re-blocked should they violate our rules again, I think they seem very genuinely sorry and deserve a bit of WP:ROPE and a second chance. :) MolecularPilot🧪️✈️23:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Talk page response from blocked editor: Please you can explain in which sense do you think anything in my reply to NXcrypto was related to battleground mentality? When NXcrypto first linked my account with too many stale and even with active other sock groups I calmy replied to all his questions and doubts. He recommended me that I should take my case at AN according to him more than one my sock account was blocked. I replied him that my unblock request was answered and responded by the admins those block my sock accounts and they clearly said they're okay with my unblock under TBAN condition and when my request was rightly answered on right time then recommendations of taking my case at AN is not a valid recommendation in this reply nothing was related to battleground mentality or offensive or even rude. But later admin himself asked me to take my case at AN replying that any single admin's decision cannot unblock my account until other admin's involvement then I asked him to post my request at AN. But I can only reply at this point that anything was clearly not offensive or battle ground mentality like words I used in any of my reply to any users on my talk page. Instead I calmly answer every questions of NXcrypto and admins. Because I'm aware that Wikipedia work on mutual collaboration of different editors and we have to respect other editors regardless of their gender, ethnicity, nationality or religion. I hope this reply will clear all your doubts at good that nothing was bad/hurting in my reply but if you still believe when I said NXcrypto's recommendations are invalid 'this reply if hurt you then I'm really sorry for being ignorant and little bit rude. MolecularPilot🧪️✈️22:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - Per bad faith aspersions cast at the talkpage as well as earlier deceptive appeals. [24][25] I don't think the user is disclosing all of their accounts. Since this user hasn't done anything outside caste subjects, I don't see any benefit in having them on Wiki. Koshuri(グ)06:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
so, @Simon2920q8394 is an user who was recently blocked for creating a bunch of redundant articles about FNAF animations I guess. But that's the problem, all the non notable articles are still up there even though the user responsible for it has been blocked. For example, this. Can an administrator just look into this user's edit history and delete all the articles marked for speedy deletion? They've been up for way too long. Thanks Yelps :) talk18:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Looks like they're all gone now. Speedy deletion works, it just isn't as speedy as you might want (admins have to do due diligence on such requests). — rsjaffe🗣️18:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Your edits were not neutral. The article says "Arabization of a city", which several sources say was a Kurdish and Turkmen city and was Arabized; do you call the settlement of its indigenous people Kurdification? this is not Kurdification and is a different matter. If you think this city has been Kurdized, write a new article entitled "Kurdification of Kirkuk". or you can take this to Kurdification, which has a separate section for your writing. Zemen (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
You seem to be contradicting yourself. Contrary to what you are saying now, you apparently do not have a problem with the edits that include the Kurdification of Kirkuk since 2003 in the “implementation” section because you have not removed this, but instead, first you removed the part in the overview section that included the Kurdification of Kirkuk during 2014-2017 that you claimed was not sourced properly (even though the article includes the sources that document the Kurdification of Kirkuk) as well as the parts that included the well-documented (by HRW and Amnesty) incidents of Peshmerga and Asayish committing human rights violations. Even after a source was included in the overview section, you still reverted it. I am not convinced at all that your removal of these parts are not motivated by a high degree of bias and desire to keep the article in line with your own narrative. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia that is supposed to be as impartial as possible. Your removal of these edits is not justifiable at all. Montblamc1 (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
@Montblamc1 Why are you editing while logged out? Why are you hiding your identity? Despite all the warnings on your talk page, you still haven’t learned that every article has a talk page where you can raise your concerns? Sikorki (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
When he added the word 'semi' to 'Kurdistan region' I recognized it was him even before this edit war started, since he’s the only one who does that see [1] and now he’s doing it again while logged out [2]. His recent edits on the Arabization of Kirkuk seem to justify the Arabization occurring there, which might explain why he hides his identity.Sikorki (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I'm sorry if this is out of order but I just published The Signpost and put up a request at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages for a publication alert. It hasn't happened yet according to one of our readers. Is there any way to move this along? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure who would know about this who frequents the AN board but I do see JPxG and xaosflux had edited either the talk page or the main page and might know something. LizRead!Talk!00:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added the notice, but I wouldn't mind having an admin more experienced with watchlist notices double check me. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)02:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am opening a close review for my following close [30].
There was an ANI regarding my behaviour,[31] but not a single close review. The ANI was closed with a consensus that all of my closes can be reverted. There was no such consensus in the ANI.
The content of my closes was never contested. Now editors who are unhappy with the close (without having any policy objections) are reopening discussions in hopes of a different close result.
Here's two other closes that were reverted by participating editors: [32][33] They are still not closed (and approaching archiving without resolution).
But if there really was consensus on ANI to reopen all of my closes (based on no discussion of closes themsleves) then I will reopen every RFC I closed myself, because I'm tired of getting notifications about it. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 02:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
And if it was about content, then why was the topic at ANI, which is for behavioural issues and not content issues? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 03:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
With the addendum the ANI thread found that while there isn't consensus for blanket reversion, either a new discussion can be started or any of your closes can be reverted by an editor in good standing. This doesn't really concern you since you can't challenge these reversion of your closes as there is existing consensus that allows it and I assume weren't a participant in the reopened discussions since you closed them. So it's more a matter of courtesy and if you don't want editors to notify you, I suggest you put a notice at the top of your talk page and/or add an editor notice asking editors not to inform you if they revert your close. It's possible some editors may still accidentally include you in a list of editors to notify especially if you did for some reason leave a comment in the discussion before it was closed and also if editors are simply pinging you. If it bothers you that much turning off pings might help. Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
To be clear, IMO what you're asking for is invalid. You cannot challenge the reversion/removal of you close since there is consensus it can be done. If you disagree there is consensus you should be challenging the close of the ANI rather than the reversion of your close based on it. You could also try to find a new consensus allowing you to challenge reversion of your closes but that seems unlikely to succeed. Nil Einne (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Also if you're getting notified due to undos of your closes you can turn off notifications for reversion of your edits. This will affect all reversions, that can't be helped since the WMF isn't likely to want to spend the time to somehow differentiate between reversions of closes, and other reversions. Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
"can be reverted by an editor in good standing.""
Even an involved editor unhappy with the result? Seems like bypassing of policies and established ways of doing things to me. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 03:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
As a reference, this is that discussion The Bushranger is referring to. I don't think we need to be flirting with a block for this editor. But it is recommended, TurboSuperA+, that you move on from this activity since you do have a topic ban. It's best to find some other activity on the project that you find equally engaging. LizRead!Talk!07:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm a bit frustrated because I did everything asked of me in the ANI thread and stil got an indefinite TBAN.
I self-reverted closes in question, as was asked of me.
I said I won't close any more discussions, giving myself a self-imposed TBAN.
I applogised for my mistakes.
And despite saying in the OP that if I agree to stop closing discussions we can avoid a TBAN, @Voorts still petitioned The Bushranger to give me an indefinite TBAN. Why?
Why say one thing then do another? It's petty and vindictive.
The only three people to respond to this topic are all editors involved in the ANI. I would like a review by an independent Administrator.
How do I do that? Another AN thread? ArbCom?
"It's best to find some other activity on the project that you find equally engaging."
I tried helping out at WP:DRN but I think @Robert McClenon feels I stepped on their turf so they began reverting my RfC closes. I got a TBAN because of good faith RfC closes.
Wikipedia is unwelcoming, anywhere you try to contribute, there's editors who watch that part of Wikipedia and will report you to SPI, take you to ANI, ask an Admin to block you, etc.
(edit conflict) I didn't participate in the ANI thread and you and have only read parts of it. I am aware that editors expressed concerns with you before opening the ANI but felt your responses to their concerns weren't satisfactory so I guess it was only in ANI where you started to suggest you'd do better. This is always a concern since editors should not need to be taken to ANI to start to do better. Also generally if an editor has shown signs of improvement and is promising to stay away from the problem area but editors feel it's better to go ahead with the formal topic ban, it's because editors don't trust them and feel a formalised situation where they will have to appeal to the community before they can go back to the area they were causing problems is the better solution. Without having looked much into your previous behaviour and the concerns expressed in the ANI, their judgment seems sound since you opened this thread and even after everyone told you it was a terrible idea, you're persisting with it. It seems clear you're still not learning that your closures generally fell well outside what the community expects and still at a minimum going to waste the communities time defending them. In fact, you now seem to be WP:Casting aspersions i.e. making personal attacks by suggesting Robert McClenon only reverted your close because of your involvement at DRN with AFAICT absolutely no evidence for this other than timing. This strongly suggests in the absence of a topic ban, you'd be back making poor closures in a few weeks or months. It also suggests there are wider issues with your behaviour that the topic ban is not going to resolve hence why we might need to consider something wider i.e. probably a site block or ban. Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
"by suggesting Robert McClenon only reverted your close because of your involvement at DRN"
Not only because of that, he was pointed to the thread (I guess pinging Admins when unhappy with a close on an RfC you started rather than go to AN isn't Adminshopping)
Robert admitted in the ANI thread he didn't look at the close, but he was complaining because someone else told him to: "I came to this thread because I was pinged by User:Cinderella157 about another RFC close: at Talk:Second Nagorno-Karabakh War. I haven't looked at the closes in depth"link
"I wasn't questioning that close. I was reporting that I was requested to look at that close"link
So am I crazy here, or did Robert McClenon revert a close he himself said he isn't questioning? I don't see any rationalisation or explanation of the revert that would suggest Robert had actually looked at the close and deemed it inadequate/faulty/lacking. What's going on here?
"probably a site block or ban."
Frankly, I am tired that the only way some editors know how to have a conversation on Wikipedia is by threatening blocks and bans. I am here complaining that it is an unwelcoming environment where a new editor gets slapped with accusations and sanctions at the first mistake. And now you're telling me I have made another mistake (one an editor with 20 year of experience wouldn't make) and that I am in danger of a site block/ban because of it.
Have an SPI case and CheckUser run on me because my edits seemed "too experienced for a 4 month editor".
Get a TBAN from closing because I am "not experienced enough".
A new user simply can't win and everything is stacked against them. So fine, site ban me and prove my point. See if I care. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 08:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) BTW, there's no such thing as review by an independent admin for many reasons including that "review" and even closing discussions isn't an admin power. If you want to challenge a close WP:CLOSECHALLENGE outlines what you should do. Since you've already asked BushRanger about it, the next step if you're certain there is merit to challenge it, is open a thread here. Remember that you can only challenge a close because there's a problem with the close like it not reflecting consensus. You cannot challenge a close because you feel the consensus was wrong or unjustified. As I said below, you really should have done that ASAP rather than continuing with this thread but whatever, if you really want to do it, I suggest you withdraw this appeal now and open a new thread challenging Bushranger's close and as I also said below, only reply if someone asks you to. Note that, despite having not read the discussion enough to comment, I'm 90% sure that your challenge will fail since Bushranger's close likely reflects consensus well enough so I strongly recommend against it. Also if you have questions over wikipedia processes like how to challenge a close, you really should be asking somewhere appropriate like WP:Teahouse or WP:Help Desk rather than opening AN threads. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I didn't say to close it. That would be unwise with so many comments even without a topic ban, and frankly the fact you didn't understand that is more reason why it's unwise for you to be making closes. I said to withdraw it, that doesn't require a close. I chose my words carefully to avoid such silly misintepretations. Anyone else is free to close it if they felt it necessary after you withdraw it or maybe we'd just stop replying until it was automatically archived. I mean technically someone could take it up themselves, but I find this incredibly unlikely not least because even if someone did want to question the reversion of your close, this thread is way too messy to do it. It'd be better for them to open a new thread. Once you've withdrawn your proposal, stop paying attention to this thread and definitely stop replying. There's always a risk a thread may developed into a boomerang and if you started the thread it's assumed you're paying attention. So technically you should normally pay some minor attention even after withdrawing. But I'll make you a one time offer. I'll pay attention to this thread and if real talk of sanctions against you develop, I'll notify you if that and you can check it out again. Nil Einne (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry I forgot to mention a key point. Note that any review you request of the closure will be assessed by all editors in good standing who wish to participate rather than just admins, with the opinions of editors uninvolved in the discussion and especially closure generally given more weight. Nil Einne (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
My problem is that so far not one of my closes had been up for close review. ANI is for incidents that need quick attention and editors who are being disruptive.
After I received complaints on my Talk page, I made no further closes, so there was no immediate danger of disruption/vandalism.
"Remember that you can only challenge a close because there's a problem with the close like it not reflecting consensus."
Nobody ever complained about the outcome of my close, they admitted it was "procedural". The only close that has been reclosed so far had the same outcome. The ANI against me was based on me not reverting my close when Voorts asked me to (I didn't know I had to)
"You cannot challenge a close because you feel the consensus was wrong or unjustified."
Please, please, please, take a look at my close linked in the title of this ANI, and tell me it doesn't reflect consensus, because I'm pretty sure it does. So why was it reverted? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Turbo, I have nothing against you personally and think you have the potential to be a good contributor here. In my view, your indefinite topic ban is necessary because your closes did not accurately reflect consensus (for example, in the one purprotedly under review here, only one editor cited COMMONNAME and that policy clearly doesn't apply here), you clearly don't take criticism well, and you still don't seem to understand what went wrong here. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
What's the point of an indef TBAN after I have already said I won't close any more discussions? Other than to get a block on my record and prejudice other editors against me in the future? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I believe a TBAN is needed because you could have reneged on that promise at any time. Any prejudice is because of the way you're handling this (combative, long walls of text, commenting on others' motives, etc.). As I said before, I think you can be a productive member of this community. You need to slow down and stay away from contentious areas. My recommendation is to focus on something else, like trying to get an article to GA, and try to rebuild your reputation. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
An Admin complains about my RfC close, I disagree -> I get a TBAN.
I complain about an Admin's close, the closing Admin disagrees -> I get sanctioned.
I thought Administrators weren't privileged members of Wikipedia but it is becoming obvious rules don't apply the same way. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 07:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
AFAICT, you haven't been sanctioned for disagreeing with a close. Since no one agrees with your problems with the close, and you haven't even appealed the close to AN but instead after asking Bushranger about it, you've allowed it to stand while making this weird appeal despite the close still standing, if you continue down this weird path you might very well be sanctioned which seems to be what editors are saying. If other editors hadn't agreed with editor's concerns over your closures, and these editor had continued to push it incessantly, they would have been sanctioned too. Frankly by this stage since you've opened this silly appeal and continue to argue over it, there is a chance if you formally appeal Bushranger's close you might be sanctioned. But I think if you make a simple appeal and do not reply anymore unless someone directly asks you to reply, you'll probably be fine. But you're cutting it awful fine. Ultimately it's always the case that if one editor or a small number of editors feel something, but consensus is against them, these editors need to let it go or they will be sanctioned. This includes admin, but most admins know that, so do drop it before any sanctions are forthcoming. Nil Einne (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
"but consensus is against them,"
You think that I am complaining because I disagree, no, I am complaining because the close of the ANI 1) doesn't reflect consensus, 2) shows a lack of understanding of the issue on the part of the closer, 3) there was never a close review of my closes, so how do we know they're "bad"? TurboSuperA+ (☏) 09:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
The creation of this thread by TurboSuperA is akin to escaping the lion's den, only to then re-enter it to try and retrieve one's hat. I therefore think it would be best for it to be closed. Daniel (talk) 07:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
That was not what I meant by my comment; I personally think it was ill-judged for you to return to a noticeboard to reignite debate on this topic. Daniel (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I am doing this because I don't think editors should waste time relitigating and reclosing discussions that have a non-controversial and undisputed close.
Two of my closes that had been reverted three weeks ago are still waiting on a close. I am guessing they won't be closed before they expire.
I got punished for doing something nobody else wanted to do. How does that help improve Wikipedia?
One close that was reverted and closed again had the same outcome. I am gonna go out on a limb and say that all of my reverted closes will be closed with the same outcome.
That's nothing to do with you. If any editor in good standing felt the actions were improper, they're welcome to open a discussion. It's not up to you to decide for other editors what is a waste of their or anyone else's time if they feel it's better your closers are re-closed by someone else. No one is asking you to do the re-closing, or spend any time on anything related. In fact that's precisely what we don't want you doing. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Reopened 21 days ago, discussion bludgeoned and there's 4-5 IPs whose only Wikipedia edit is a !vote in that RfC. Nobody has closed the RfC yet.
Reopened 23 days ago by a participating editor who is unhappy with the close, despite another editor endorsing the close: "@TurboSuperA+:, this closure was perfectly fine. There was nothing new being added and most comments were completely ignoring the opposing views. Well summarized by you as WP:NPOV" Nobody has closed this discussion yet either. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Just noticed that despite it being Robert McClenon's who's action they were challenging and despite them saying above "I think @Robert McClenon feels I stepped on their turf so they began reverting my RfC closes", TurboSuperA+ never actually notified Robert McClenon and didn't even ping them until they started to cast aspersions, not that pinging is enough. So I've now done so. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
They reverted the close after saying they didn't look at the close. I guess some editors are so experienced they know what to do without looking. Amazing. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 12:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Says the person who reported me to SPI without evidence, without a single diff. Even though you knew I wasn't a sockpuppet account, you didn't retract your accusation, but wasted Admin/CheckUser time anyway. TurboSuperA+ (☏) 15:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I reported you to SPI because I believed you were a sock, and other editors had similar concerns. That’s how the process works. What remains unclear is how the SPI process relates to the behavioral issues you are displaying here. Nemov (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An administrator recall petition for Master Jay has been closed
There is no further action needed or possible here. Master Jay has resigned the tools. Any necessary discussion can continue at WT:RECALL or wherever else may be helpful. StarMississippi01:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'll admit that I likely don't know enough about this new version of this new process, but should someone who commented in the discussion be closing the discussion? Also, is it still just a matter of getting to 25, or are opposers comments weighed in the closure? Yes, I probably could go click on the policy, but I'm curious what the current community interpretation of the policy is. Thanks in advance. - jc3703:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Jc37 It's mostly about Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Archive 2#Early closure, where people agreed that the petition can be closed as soon as it reached 25 signatures. I didn't provide any closing comment nor did I sign the petition, so I thought it would be okay for me to close it anyway. There's not really anything else that would've happened. Opposers are not considered, which also why I thought it would be fine for me to close; there's no assessing consensus. It's a matter of getting 25, which it has. win8x (talk) 03:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The only thing the person closing the petition must do is verify that all signatories are extended confirmed; I think the "straightforward cases" clause applies here. —Compassionate727(T·C)08:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
It's just another ill-thought out process that's become all the rage lately. A recall petition that opens and closes in less than five hours. I guess admins aren't allowed to sleep. Sure, Jay was up and on the project when this started. But, the reason it was started was due to inactivity. Yet, it closed in less than five hours. Unreal. Nevermind that according to our policies and guidelines, Jay didn't do anything wrong to prompt this. <sigh> --Hammersoft (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Similar to people gaming the system to get to ECR. Perhaps they didn't violate the letter of any policy or guideline, but the right gets removed anyway. Here, we have an admin who didn't admin (or really edit) for many years, then promised to increase activity when they would get desysopped, yet didn't follow through on their promise. They have every right to go for a RRFA, but instead have retired (while keeping the admin bit for as long as possible), apparently valuing the admin title more than simply editing and helping Wikipedia. As for the process being "all the rage lately", the previous one was 4 months ago, and this is only the third in total. I don't get why this is considered such a big deal, we have many user groups with automatic expiry, or which can be removed after a short discussion. Why admins (or in this case admins-in-name-only) should get some special protection as if that badge is superspecial and untouchable is not clear, but it gives the impression of "closing ranks" by a few vocal admins unhappy about the process. Fram (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
So you feel a process to remove a privilege is ok if it opens and closes within five hours, giving little or no opportunity for the subject of the request to respond? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The real decision gets made at the RRfA or the administrator election, just like for anyone else who wants to be an admin, if Master Jay so decides. You use the word "privilege" but the rest of your statements seem to treat adminship as a right. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The subject of the request did respond. The subject of the request also had more than five years, not merely five hours, to make good on their pledge to return to active editing. Hammersoft, we all know where you stand on recall, but this case is not the cause célèbre you seem to believe it is. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
What's happening is is a conflation of the process with the target of this process in this iteration. I'm referring to the process alone. This case highlights the massive hole in the process, but I'm talking about the process and not the case. Having a process where a person targeted in that process has less than five hours to respond is flat wrong. The process needs to be fixed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
They can respond at any time during the recall, and if they are going to RRfA they have thirty days from the closure of the recall to respond and craft statements. In the past the recalls have proceeded based on handling of discussions and noticeboard threads so this situation is a bit different, but it's not as if they were unaware of the concerns for years. They also did not follow through on their commitment to return to active editing and continued the gaming that had been called out prior. What would more hours before opening the recall have done? Either someone stops at their talk page and says "if you don't resign you'll be recalled" or someone demands the same commitments that weren't met the last time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
There's got to be a better way. I'm not talking about the 5 hours, but about communicating the real minimum expectations. Write down somewhere that if X years go by and you're only doing the bare minimum to keep the right, you'll start being held to a higher standard, even if you're not causing problems. What I wonder is, if someone proposes X change to adminship policies and there's consensus against that change, can people who just want to enforce their own standards for adminship that don't have consensus use the recall process -- which doesn't factor opposition into the equation -- to try to enforce their perspective anyway? Putting a finer point on it, if some group of 25 people decides activity requirements should be higher, what's to prevent that group from badgering admins who meet the requirement that has very broad consensus but not the unofficial requirement? (I'm getting a little hypothetical -- not looking for "but also did you see this diff from Jay"). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The petition doesn't remove anything, RRfA does. If the view of that group doesn't represent consensus, then the admin will pass RRfA. The stress they'll go through doing that process is a flaw with recall, though. win8x (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Actual admin gaming the system to keep their admin bit: shrug. Hypothetical group of 25 editors gaming the system to get rid of admins: panic! Fram (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I think part of the issue is there is no hard and fast limit, but over a decade of inactivity with just enough edits to keep the permission which included raising their activity level to the new minimum threshold and not making good on a commitment to return to activity falls far enough foul of WP:GAMING that it spurred some action. This isn't an example of picking a low activity or inactive admin and removing the tools for no reason, it's an example of the community removing the tools from someone whose only edits in a very long time were GAMING. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
People keep linking to WP:GAMING as though it's self-evident. We have a concrete minimum. If someone is meeting that minimum -- even over a long period of time -- without any evidence of bad faith or disruption, why is that gaming the system? If that behavior isn't ok, say so in a policy somewhere (it's entirely possible I've missed somewhere that it is indeed written down clearly FWIW). Don't make the minimum pieces of flair 15 and then call bad faith when someone only wears 15 pieces of flair. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Apparently for most of us it is self-evident in this case though. "If that behavior isn't ok, say so in a policy somewhere"... er, WP:GAMING does exactly that (guideline, not policy, but people get sanctioned for violating guidelines all the time, and getting a right removed which you haven't used in 5 years and barely used in 15 years is hardly a sanction anyway). Fram (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
If there's such strong consensus that routinely meeting only the minimum number is gaming the system, why avoid documenting that anywhere? I wouldn't even oppose that; what I oppose is assuming it's self-evident that minimums aren't actually minimums. Also Actual admin gaming the system to keep their admin bit: shrug. Hypothetical group of 25 editors gaming the system to get rid of admins: panic! - I know you mean this as sarcastic/snide, but yes. Actual admin harming absolutely nothing while contributing almost nothing: shrug. Group of editors forcing that admin out with no evidence of harm, holding them to a higher standard than we actually communicate: bad. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
On the subject of evidence of harm, given that the admin in this case had contributed almost nothing for 15 years, what harm is done by their no longer being an admin any more? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Bad-faith wikilawyering – arguing the word of policy to defeat the principles of policy. The principle of the admin inactivity policy is to make sure admins are active members of the community who are up-to-date on the current culture and norms. Specifically making just enough edits to follow the letter of the policy while not actually following through on why the policy exists is gaming.
Yes. At Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators. At the top of that section, something like "Activity requirements ensure administrators are up-to-date on current policies, guidelines, and norms." and then immediately following the ordered list, something like "While administrators who routinely make only the minimum number required to retain the user right will not be automatically desysopped, a recall petition may be used to determine whether that admin is sufficiently engaged to understand current policies, guidelines, and norms." — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites, I worry a bit that this wording will lead to the exact problem others have described or hinted at - that an admin who is largely inactive, but still fully complying with the activity requirements, is recalled for basically no reason other than "25 people think, against consensus, that our activity requirements should be higher". In this particular recall case, we have someone who had promised to be more active, and additionally had also been a bit of a dick about it. I have no problem with this one. But if we're going to recall people simply "to determine whether that admin is sufficiently engaged", well... that's a big step up from our current procedural removal numbers. -- asilvering (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
"additionally had also been a bit of a dick about it" alludes to an aspect that for some reason has not been mentioned in the focus on activity, the poor communication that accompanied that inactivity, not participating at the BN for the resysop, and accusing Sitush of sockpuppetry. Communication is WP:ADMINACCT, which is something the community values. I suspect that this wouldn't have gone to Recall so fast, nor if it did would it have received 25 signatures that quickly, if there had been the slightest indication of the editor wanting to communicate with the community or be otherwise accountable. CMD (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I think that's a good addition. Admin tools are a privileged that is earned, and should require effort to maintain. I don't think the risk of a largely inactive admin account being hacked is particularly high, but removing privileges of inactive admins is nevertheless a good security measure. Cortador (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The petition doesn’t remove anything. It initiates a process during which the community can decide. ꧁Zanahary꧂23:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Reading the discussion, that whole nomination toom appears to have been POINTy and to make an example (the admin's name came up is discussion of minimum number of expected edits, and prompted the review, no indication of any misuse of the broom otherwise), which is not how we should be defining standards. If the community wants higher standards (eg more active admin), start an RFC to raise the bar. The review process should only be triggered based on actual admin actions that may be controversial to the community, otherwise it's going to prompt for more cases that, even if they are dismissed at an RRFA, wastes everyone's time. — Masem (t) 16:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
"Any extended confirmed editor may start a petition for an administrator to make a re-request for adminship if they believe that the administrator has lost the trust of the community." Apparently "the community", or at least a large enough portion of it, doesn't trust an admin who lost their adminship for inactivity already twice, regained it because bureacrat's felt they had no choice, even if they didn't believe the editor to be deserving to remain an admin in 2019 alreadyv, promised to become more active, and again became a non-active admin. They were perhaps not a bad admin, they simply weren't an admin at all, and this has now been officialized. Time is mainly being wasted by people (aminly admins) bemoaning the process because for some reason this admin should have been protected from it, as it is so important that they keep the title. Feel free to give them a shiny barnstar and bestow upon them the "emeritus-admin" honorary title if it makes you or them feel any better. But whining about a process because it desysoped someone who wasn't a real sysop anyway seems unproductive. Fram (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I think it makes no perceptible difference to anyone but MasterJay whether MasterJay is a sysop or not, so I am not complaining that he will be desysopped. I am complaining that this was treated like an emergency in immediate need of resolution (it clearly wasn't) and that the obvious other moves (reaching out to MasterJay on his talk page or just waiting until he would probably be desysopped by the 5/100 rule in a few months) were not even contemplated. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Recall can take up to a month, and he won't be desysop'd for another month still, so I don't see how this was treated like an emergency in immediate need of resolution. You've also clearly missed the WP:GAMING concerns if you think automatic inactivity will apply. REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk18:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Not really, he asked to be desysopped later, at the very last moment possible, keeping his admin bit for one extra month while at the same time retiring. Fram (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Well, let us look at recent years' edits, including 7 post-recall petition:
Year
Count
2021
21
2022
12
2023
12
2024
13
2025
15
Overall that looks like 100/5 would have been hit soon, or gaming of 100/5 would have become more apparent. —Kusma (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it feels like there should be a separate process to review admin's that do not meet or barely meet participation levels, verses starting a recall because of potentially harmful and hostile actions with the broom made towards the community. "Emergency" isn't the exact word but we are talking the difference between an admin seen as disruptive to the community vs an admin that is just being idle. Masem (t) 18:59, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
This was, in a word, bad. Even leaving aside the "meeting the minimum isn't enough anymore" which has been extensively discussed above, and the fact that there was no abuse of the tools at all, there's the fact that, as mentioned on the recall petition page, the petitioner made no attempt to communicate with Jay before starting the petition, and when this was questioned pointed to a discussion six years ago as evidence of attempted communication. Also the claim, said by multiple people who signed the petition, that a barely-active admin was not believed to be up with community norms still strikes me as treading dangerously close to casting aspersions as it's a claim made about user conduct with absolutely zero evidence beyond "they're barely active". - The BushrangerOne ping only20:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The lack of prior communication is the one thing that bothers me. I’d like the following to be added to the policy: “The petition must include at least one link to a recent (within three months) noticeboard discussion that helps explain the reason for the petition. If there have been no relevant noticeboard discussions, one must be started and closed or archived prior to filing.” — rsjaffe🗣️20:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
In this case, I'm not sure what purpose a noticeboard discussion would have served. I think the issue should have been raised at Jay's talk page prior to the opening of the petition, although I doubt that would have led to a different outcome in this case. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
A noticeboard discussion would have given the potential recall voter a broad view of the issue, just as the discussion did here. It would also give the administrator in question a chance to comment prior the petition’s initiation. — rsjaffe🗣️05:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
On whether this was close to a personal attack or not: Let's back up. A basic principle of security is to limit admin access to actually relevant accounts to reduce the surface area of an attack. This means that inactivity itself is a reason to revoke said access (at least if you agree with this principle - which I'd argue the community does). An editor could be the greatest ever, the most wise admin, but if their last 150 mainspace edits go back to 2009 (!!!), that and only that is a reason to pull the permissions from the account. As this example indicates, it's not a personal attack at all to point out such inactivity; it's possible (and even likely!) that such an editor did nothing "wrong". It's just good policy to yank access anyway. In the same way, an overeager new editor that makes 300 dummy edits to get to extended confirmed status could very well be a wonderful editor, but their EC status still needs to be yanked, and pointing out that the EC status wasn't really earned is not a personal attack. SnowFire (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
We do have an inactivity policy that asks for 100 edits in 5 years. I do not see how the number of edits in the decade before these 5 years is relevant for security today. —Kusma (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it's fruitful to litigate this specific case too deeply given that the user indicated they're giving up the bit, but even judged strictly on their past 5 years, it is at the very least debatable if they "really" maintained the 100/5 standard. Switching to the more general case... if an account gets to extended confirmed status with 499 edits of the Sandbox, the editor has fulfilled the letter of the requirements, but not the spirit, and should lose EC status. An admin who fulfills the letter of the 100/5 requirement via trivial edits, but not the spirit of the 100/5 requirement, should similarly be desysopped for inactivity (which is no-fault and in no way saying they made a mistake or are a bad person, just that their account is inactive). SnowFire (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I am not trying to relitigate this case, but I am trying to learn from it for the future, so I think it is worth examining what happened. The edits from the past 5 years look pretty typical for an occasional editor: a few odd spelling corrections here and there and minor updates to a few articles. No real content creation and no engagement with the community, but nothing silly like your 499 sandbox edits either. I can't see evidence for the accusation that forms the basis of the recall petition that MJ has been actively trying to game the 100/5 standard in the last few years. (We would probably have noticed around July). I do see that MJ has been desysopped for inactivity twice and has never returned to the level of editing typical for people who contribute to this board. Going forward, perhaps we shouldn't allow a second resysop without a return to actual engagement with content or community? —Kusma (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@SnowFire: I never said that arguing inactivity was aspersions; it's entirely reasonable and logical. What I'm saying is bordering on aspersions is saying the user is not up with community norms without any evidence beyond "well, they haven't edited much". The result here may well have been correct, but the way we got there is troublesome. The ends justify the means? They shouldn't. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Let me get this right. Jay was "gaming the system" but somehow the 25 editors signing on to this shortcut that was easier than getting consensus on an RfC to raise the activity requirements again – these 25 were not gaining the system. So this means that 25 editors can initiate a recall on any admin for no reason at all – "I don't like him" is enough reason, as long as 25 others agree with you. OK, I'm waiting for 25 extended-confirmed MAGA editors to simultaneously initiate a couple dozen recalls on admins whose actions are insufficiently "DOGE". Sure this would be "gaming the system" but we have no way to stop them from doing that... 25 signatures are 25 signatures, and that's the only requirement. Don't say I didn't warn you. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I would fully support raising the minimum number of signatures needed for a successful recall petition. That said, a petition is not de-adminship, it only requires resignation or an RRFA. A frivolous recall of the sort you describe ought to lead to a successful RRFA. In this case, I don't see how Master Jay would have passed, and I also don't see that any of the signatories were acting in bad faith, so I don't know how you conclude that they were gaming the system. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
But at what cost? In the old system I could count on the Arbitration Committee to deflect frivolous recalls, but the new system squarely places the burden on me, to take a not insignificant time off from my regular administering activities to prepare and submit a frivolous re-request for adminship, and then watch that discussion for a full week. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
A long time ago, editors got together and decided that consensus was the best decision-making process for our project. Your (Wbm1058's) comments seem to suggest that this process - 25 votes, without even "oppose" votes allowed to be considered - is contrary to that. I wonder if this (part of this) process is illustrating why that perhaps consensus would be the preferred model here. - jc3718:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
The 25 votes is the minimum needed to trigger a discussion to take place. Jay was entitled to start that discussion, whose outcome is decided by consensus. But (putting aside procedural concerns) I doubt anyone here seriously thinks Jay would've passed, that consensus supports his adminship, or that he should have the sysop right. Indeed, his position has consistently been that he's entitled to them because he once passed RFA and meets the letter of WP:INACTIVITY, not even that he plans to return to activity, a position unlikely to resonate with the community-at-large. Anyways, if you want to skip straight to consensus you only need to get rid of the petition stage. But then you guys would say you're losing time in your week to supervise a discussion you didn't want to be a part of. So the petition acts as a safeguard.
In the old system I could count on the Arbitration Committee to deflect frivolous recalls suggests y'all actually agree with ArbCom's decision-making. But every time ArbCom desysops an admin that isn't an inactive account doing rambo actions, a sizable number of people (including some in this section) claim ArbCom is overreaching, violating policy, disregarding the community's will, etc etc. So it's kinda hard to see this discussion as anything other than relitigating admin recall. Even if y'all were right, I don't think these examples are strong vehicles to make your point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure who you are intending to group me with, with your "y'all" comments, but much of what you just said, I didn't say.
As for the "petition phase", I'm not sure how or why that should be treated any different than any other initial phase before an RfC, whether brainstorming/idea, or whatever else. I guess I am just surprised that we now have a process that allows for no dissent. Regardless of whatever is "intended" to happen next, this process doesn't allow for dissent or the minority opinion. Even WP:RFA doesn't do that, and neither do arbcom processes - and those processes are about as close to voting as we get on Wikipedia. So, I guess I just am surprised at your comments.
I'm aware of how we got here. I just think it might be worth assessing if this process meets the "wiki-way" of Wikipedia.
I never met a process yet on Wikipedia that wasn't worth discussing if we can make it better, or to align better to our current policies. Nothing is perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look to better things when the opportunity arises. - jc3720:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
@Jc37: sorry if unclear, was replying to two comments in one, and the second half is quoting (and responding to) Wbm1058's comment directly above yours. To your comment, recall is bespoke and afaik comparable only to arbpol amendments, IIRC as compromise to admins sceptical about recall. The direct equivalent to other wiki-processes would be to allow any editor to start an AN discussion, and consensus to arrive at an outcome which may be stripping the +sysop bit. This is what we do for every other user right or ban discussion. But admins were worried of getting punished for taking difficult decisions, so there's a widely publicised and long discussion (the RRFA). And admins were worried about being frivolously taken through this time-consuming RRFA process, so there's a petition stage to filter out frivolous and spurious recall attempts. It's unusual precisely because we wish to add friction to revoke someone's sysop bit, and we don't artificially create friction in any other process to my knowledge aside from ARBPOL amendments. That said, it doesn't make sense for the petition stage to allow dissent, because that would make it a consensus discussion, which is then a duplicate of the RRFA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
But ProcrastinatingReader, consensus wouldn't determine a closure at an RRFA, a candidate would still have to get at least 75% support (or whatever percentage is used today), not a simple consensus or majority. And I imagine a lot of parties would show up to Oppose after an admin has lost their tools at a Recall that might not have chosen otherwise to participate in an RRFA. I think it's a bigger hurdle than an original RFA and probably more stressful than one as well. LizRead!Talk!20:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
It's between 50% and 60% for a crat chat, or 60% for an automatic pass. A majority. Without arguing if it's stressful or not (I'm sure it is), the massive opposition to recall in general makes me think some people would support any RRFA for just this reason. In Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Graham87 2, a couple people voted support in opposition to recall. win8x (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
This is a very confusing paragraph. Yes, someone clearly making perfunctory edits to hit a threshold is gaming the system, we have a long precedent for that. No, 25 editors using a system the way the system works are not gaming the system, almost by definition. CMD (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
If you are referring to the automatic deadminship policy, it requires 0% of RFA voters to think anything. It triggers a blanket and automatic deadminship process. This level is set far below the grey area where discussions would be held. CMD (talk) 05:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I think what Geni is trying to say is that the the effectively what this recall means is that 30% of RfA voters (actually 40%) can decide a minimum activity requirement since an admin can be recalled and then lose the tools if they don't meet the level of activity this 40% of RfA voters feel they need. And Geni feels this is wrong since this minimum activity level should be decided by consensus rather than what these 40% of RfA voters feel. (Yes once those requirements are set de-admining is almost automatic, but the point is it was decided by consensus.) I think this gets into an interesting intersection of what we think of consensus etc. There isn't any clear policy guidance etc besides what we set so any discussion about minimum activity levels would IMO be basically almost a vote on what people prefer with consensus trying to find what's closest to some sort of average or something like that. More interesting, this decision could easily be made by significant less voters than an RfA might actually receive. So whether it's clearly better I dunno. Of course in any case the recall procedure was also decided by consensus and as far as I can tell, most people complaining aren't those who supported the consensus for recalls but never expected them to be used like this.
More importantly, I'm just not convinced this is an area when can or should try to codify exact requirements since they seem too complicated. While I can understand why some inactive admins may feel it's unfair, per WP:NOTBURO etc, I feel it's not unreasonable for editors to say, we may have some absolute minimums but beyond that, we may consider other factors like how long it's been since you've been more active, whether you've given any signs this might change, how important the small amount of work you're doing seems to be, how inactive you've actually been throughout the years, how you've responded to concerns over your inactivity (beyond indications of whether it may change) so that we just cannot codify it all. I mean if we are getting 5-10 or more of these a year then we really should consider if we need to change something. But if we're only getting one of them every so often, IMO it's probably not necessary to codify what cannot be easily codified. At most, perhaps we should add something mentioning that those are the absolute minimums and admins may be recalled if editors feel their insufficiently active despite meeting the minimums.
P.S. Per above it's actually a little more complicated than even 40%. Over 50% of RfA voters can definitely decide. 40-50% might be able to decide. 40% or less cannot decide. Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I find it bizarre that many of the same editors who criticize "rules-creep" are now criticizing a process that allows the community to take action without rules-creep. I note the essay WP:AJR. There are also some blatant misrepresentations here. 25 editors does not "recall" an admin; it simply starts a consensus process. The "five hours" did not complete the process; it only completed the beginning of the process. A process that Master Jay, correctly, determined would find that he should not retain the admin toolkit. The arguments for recall were not "just" inactivity, but the general hostility and misrepresentations going back years regarding that inactivity; with the defending arguments relying on that inactivity to claim that, as he made no recent actions, there were no harmful actions. 217.180.228.171 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The community can initiate a recall when they don't trust an admin is fit for purpose. This is written down and clear. If you want a rule about what makes humans trust others, that is outside of the scope of an encyclopedia. 74.254.224.119 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
It would be great if just once we could have a discussion about recall without anyone feeling the need to raise implausible hypotheticals for how recall might someday be abused. Does any seriously believe that the community would just stand by and allow 25 extended-confirmed MAGA editors to start bushwhacking admins? Of course not. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Does anyone seriously believe that the Democrats would just stand by and allow one unelected guy to start bushwhacking the US Federal government? Of course not. We don't need no stinking "constitutional creep" to get in our way. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
In this case the hypothetical standing by "the Democrats" and the hypothetical bushwacked "US Federal government" are both us, the community. And the community already has the power to bushwhack itself, that's an inescapable implication of the consensus system. CMD (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Does anyone seriously believe that the community would just stand by and allow 25 extended-confirmed editors to start bushwhacking admins? Of course not. Oh, I think I get it now. Appointed checkusers would declare them "sockpuppets" and block them; no community consensus needed, and only subject to Arbcom, not community, review. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:32, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an admin take a look at Draft:Prapas Pothongsunun? I'm asking about it because the creator queried me about it at User talk:Marchjuly#Question from Prapas Pothongsunun (06:42, 23 March 2025). Articles about academics aren't really one of the areas I tend to work in, but it seems that tagging the draft for speedy deletion per G11 is a bit harsh. I get that this is likely an attempt to create an autobiography, but anything promotional about the draft could, in principle, be cleaned up if the subject of the article meets WP:NACADEMIC. The same user also created Dr. Prapas Pothongsunun, which they started as their user page before moving it to the mainspace. That probably needs to go, but it seems like they should be able to submit the draft to AfC for review and try to improve it to bring in more in line with relevant policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Virtually all of the references in the draft appear to be articles coauthored by the subject, which fail independence. It would be better in this case to start from scratch. BD2412T17:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The images at this page need to be resized to comply with Wikipedia's standards for use of non-free images. However, when I try to upload the new image using the "Upload a new version of this file" link, I get a red box telling me the file name contains a right single quotation mark. But it doesn't. I'm not entering unicode characters as I save my file. Anyway, I even tried copy-pasting the single characters suggested as replacements but I get the same error. The red box told me to come here with this issue. I really hope I'm not bothering anyone... Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
He's undoing your edits because what you're writing is all wrong. For BBC Radio, you keep replacing it with the regular BBC logo, which is completely wrong, the Shine album HAS been released in the U.S., and you removed a video file of Bill Clinton talking about Princess Diana's death. These can't be classified as "good edits". NoobThreePointOh (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion seems to have petered out, so going to go ahead and close this. While there's quite a bit of discussion that clarification of the closure is desirable, the overall consensus below is that the closure was correct and The Heritage Foundation is blacklisted and deprecated. Having looked over Dr vulpes' closure myself, while the exact wording could perhaps indeed have been clearer, it's obvious the intent is blacklist and deprecate. - The BushrangerOne ping only00:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I find [Closer's] closure of the Heritage Foundation RfC rather confusing and, to an extent, incomplete. [Closer] seem[s] to have found a consensus to blacklist over security concerns, but [Closer] didn't really address the argument that blacklisting would not protect editors or readers; indeed, [Closer] indicated at the end of [Closer's] statement that [Closer] thought this was a compelling argument, and it's deeply unclear to me how [Closer] could find a consensus to blacklist for security reasons if [Closer] found those security arguments uncompelling. Moreover, [Closer] did not make a clear finding on the reliability of the Heritage Foundation; [Closer] seem[ed] to have found [it] GUNREL on the basis of its publishing false claims, but [Closer] did not address (and it is not clear if [Closer] even considered) some of the other arguments, such as whether its being a think tank means its reliability should be evaluated differently from, for example, mainstream news media, and whether the Heritage Foundation was more reliable in the past. [Closer] also did not comment on the acceptability of proposals to maintain links while bypassing the Heritage Foundation website, such as by using the Internet Archive.
In addition, the closure did not give an actual category of reliability for the source. Per @Aaron Liuhere and here:
Besides this, there's currently confusion at RSP over whether the source is generally unreliable or deprecated, a status that is different from whether it is blacklisted . . . I'd appreciate it if we could know if Heritage is, besides being blacklisted, generally unreliable or deprecated. This matters for its classification at RSP and by extension whether it's included at Wikipedia:Deprecated sources.
In a month since the close, and since issues were raised, Closer has not addressed or even responded to most of the issues; they have been pretty inactive recently, so I'd infer that they have been busy with other things. Placeholderer (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Blacklisting clearly doesn't affect security as I think people are naive if they think they'd capture IP addresses using their own domains. Secretlondon (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Eh? If you use the network inspector tool in your browser, they serve 22 distinct IP trackers from a variety of places from the main page of the site in question. Don't call people naive if didn't bother checking the website. 166.196.61.59 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I'v added a link to it as I feel it would be uncontroversial. If someone feels it should be removed or otherwise linked differently, I will not have any issue with it. LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me!03:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Vacate. It's not the consensus I would've found, but it is a reasonable one. No problems there. However, I felt the explanation for how he found the consensus he did was very convoluted and not well-reasoned, and there were a lot of nuanced questions that people raised within the RfC that weren't addressed in the closure. I'd prefer someone else write a more cohesive, thorough closure, especially because this could attract public scrutiny. —Compassionate727(T·C)22:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
There's a lot of complexity here. I would endorse the decision to blacklist, clarify that this also means deprecate, and rewrite the closing statement to make it an orderly disquisition with a coherent sequence of ideas, and includes a summary of all the major arguments.—S MarshallT/C10:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Participants
Overturn I cannot understand how a source can be blacklisted based on a purported leaked document. There is no further evidence/confirmation (to the best of my knowledge) that this leaked plan is even real and not a hoax. As others have stated blacklisting would not impact security (the purported plan involved sending targetted phishing links to users via fake accounts, not through references). Any legitimate concerns of reliability were completely overshadowed and unable to be discussed. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Endorse I do not think there was any other option to the closer than closing it as 4 (Deprecate) or 5 (Blacklist) and both of them have the same effective result, apart from the fact that editors trying to add the domain will be warned against (4) or prevented from (5) adding it. There was a clear consensus that we don't want this domain being used here. Black Kite (talk)10:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Endorse what exists, requires clarification While I concur with Actively Disinterested below in the comments that the closer was somewhat ambivalent regarding reliability I do think any reasonable closer would see that there was consensus that Heritage Foundation is thoroughly unreliable. Furthermore, while blacklisting is not a perfect security tool by any means it will, at least, make hostile actions against Wikipedia marginally harder. This is of benefit, especially in light of the unreliability of the source. Furthermore the spam designation may be of use for handling this particular unreliable source as it is regularly cited by articles on economics due to its indices. Which were discussed at length in the RfC as unreliable. Simonm223 (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I've adjusted my !vote to endorse what exists, requires clarification, on the basis of the conversation with @Aaron Liu: below. I think the consensus for the blacklisting was clear. My assumption was that blacklisting was not being treated separately from deprecation but the closer should specify whether that's the case rather than us assuming. Simonm223 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. I don't see any big problem with the close when it comes to representing the consensus of the discussion. It does not seem to be particularly ambiguous to me that the intention was to find Heritage to be unReliable as well as blacklisted although it is unfortunate that this is not stated explicitly. Maybe it seemed so obvious to that the closer just didn't realise that there was any scope for such a misunderstanding. If clarification is required then maybe somebody else can add an addendum to the close to explicitly cover this and maybe also to say whether the Daily Signal was found to be unReliable too. Surely we do not need to formally overturn a mostly correct close on a fully argued out RfC just so it can be clarified? (We certainly don't want to reopen it!) --DanielRigal (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Overturn or at least complete the close by deciding whether it is generally unreliable or deprecated, which was completely missing in the close. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Striking my vote as there's no need to overturn the part that's already been closed (the blacklisting), but we do still need to clarify if it is generally unreliable or deprecated. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The problem is that they were already asked to do that, and haven't… for a month. At this point it looks like someone else will need to tack on a second closure making a judgment on this… —Compassionate727(T·C)23:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Endorse I don't agree with the result of the discussion for the reasons I stated at the time. However, given the RfC discussion, the closing is a reasonable summation of the discussion. Springee (talk) 02:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Overturn per Placeholderer. There's remaining issues the close needs to address, especially what the reliability of the source is. I would've endorsed the existing parts of the close if not for the close not mentioning the reasoning for believing the theater argument did not prevail (a belief I think is within the closer's discretion, but they still should've included reasoning), although that's only a very small thing, so I endorse the existing parts except for that. (Also, I was not pinged since you can't edit a failed ping to fix it without a new reply/ping.) Aaron Liu (talk) 02:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Endorse. There is no need to determine if it is reliable or not when the decision was clearly to not permit it to be used at all. Regardless of whether this was because of reliability or other problems (as in this case). I hate this result as much as the next person - but if/when the Heritage Foundation is no longer engaging in cyberwarfare against Wikipedia editors specifically... then a discussion can be had to unblacklist it and in that discussion the overall reliability can be determined. There is zero benefit to immediately determining reliability of a source that is being blacklisted per community consensus in any case. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!23:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I think part of the confusion is that "5(Blacklist)" isn't a question of reliability, even deprecated sources aren't blacklisted as blacklisting is usually reserved for spam. The RFC had two questions, reliability and whether they should be blacklisted. The list of options would have been better expressed as the normal 1-4 options and then asked respondents to add if it should be blacklisted. As it is the close doesn't seem conclusive on the question of reliability. It could probably have been easily qualified but the closer hasn't edited in the last few weeks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
With all due respect for those endorsing the close, the purpose of an RfC at RSN is to determine reliability, and the close literally didn't do that Placeholderer (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I think the assumption that both those of us endorsing and the closer made was that blacklisting was an enhancement of deprecation rather than an entirely distinct action. Simonm223 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
That still has to be spelled out since blacklisting is in fact a distinct action. I'd be fine if we just tacked on a "deprecated" onto the close since that seems like the consensus to me (though marking as generally unreliable instead and not blacklisting is still well within the closer discretion. Just adding the source's status still leaves question as to the basis for having blacklisting over the security theater concern, but that alone is a fairly minor problem and not something I'd start a closure review about). Aaron Liu (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
There is disagreement[35] over whether the close indicated GUNREL or deprecated. If this discussion gets into in-depth discussion over whether the close was for GUNREL or for deprecation, it could conceivably lead to an RfC over interpreting the close of the RfC Placeholderer (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The closer makes clear they should be considered unreliable, but doesn't mention deprecation. Deprecation and blacklisting are different processes for different purposes. All the close needs is to clarify whether the source is unreliable or deprecated. I wonder if it's worthwhile someone else adding to the close to clarify that point, as Dr. Vulpes is unavailable. I don't think it's as clear cut as all those calling for blacklisting in the RFC also wanted deprecation, as some of them make no mention of reliability only security concerns. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°11:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Ideally, close would also clarify issues such as use of archived or whitelisted links; whether or not HF was differently reliable previously; the reliability of the IEF; whether or not (and why or why not) the reliability should be broken down by topic area; and apparently the reliability of all think tanks since the listing on RSP invents a "presumption of unreliability for think tanks" (though this wasn't even mentioned in the close—an example of problems with interpreting the close). But I think stuff that would be nice for the close to have is a secondary issue compared to the close not judging reliability Placeholderer (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
(Plus reliability of the Daily Signal, which, despite not being mentioned in the close, was included on the RSP listing, though hasn't actually been blacklisted) Placeholderer (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
The presumption of unreliability for think tanks is prior consensus; as the summary at RSP mentions it can be found and was referenced in prior linked discussions. That part of the RSP summary is independent of this close and about prior discussions. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh, my mistake! I change my complaint to be that it was mentioned as reasoning on RSP when it wasn't included reasoning in the close Placeholderer (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
I want to add that I think this is an WP:ADMINACCT issue (Dr. Vulpes was failing to respond to queries about this RfC even before he disappeared), and while I don't intend to escalate it further now, I find it concerning to see this from someone recently promoted by the administrator elections process. —Compassionate727(T·C)23:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Kind of agree, but I say cut the guy some slack. Radio silence over the internet usually means sudden life stuff. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Report of Abuse and Fraud by Administrator LuchoCR
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Wikipedia Team,
I am reaching out to report a Wikipedia administrator, LuchoCR, who is abusing their power by unfairly blocking accounts and then demanding payments to restore access.
My account (Merquisedec1996) has been blocked under the accusation of "multiple account abuse and block evasion," which is completely false. After the block, LuchoCR contacted me, demanding $500 USD to regain access. I have evidence of this behavior, including screenshots and communication records.
Additionally, I have discovered that I am not the only victim. This user has been using the same scam on many other people, arbitrarily blocking their accounts and demanding money for unblocking them. He is using the phone number (Redacted) to carry out these scams.
I request an urgent investigation into this matter and appropriate action against LuchoCR. I am willing to provide all necessary evidence to support my report.
I look forward to your prompt response and action to stop this abuse within the Wikipedia community.
Merquisedec1996, LuchoCR is not an admin on en.wikipedia.org. They are on es.wikipedia.org, a different project. Is that where this is happening? If so, there's nothing we can do for you. That's a separate project and you'd need to reach out to them. Note that this is an incredibly common scam, though. An admin blocks an account and then a completely different, unrelated scammer claiming to be that admin reaches out to the blocked user in an attempt to scam money out of them. --Yamla (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
I tell you that the person who uses that account is the correct one and does so because he contacts from his Wikipedia account via email to ask for money, well, what does he block? Aside from that, I have a recorded call asking me for money and I am not the first to do this since he sees that it is a publication or something from a company or something from an artist. Many people come. If someone could contact a Spanish administrator to proceed with their investigation because he is a recent user and I am from 2017, they are two very different things. Merquisedec1996 (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
No. You need to reach out to a Spanish admin. We only deal with matters related to the English language version of Wikipedia here. Note that nothing you have said convinces me this is actually LuchoCR doing this, though nothing you've said rules it out. Regardless, there is nothing we can do for you. Your problem is with a different project. --Yamla (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Even if we did that, this is not a matter for the English-language Wikipedia. If anything it'd be escalated to Meta for a global lock, and I find the idea that someone is impersonating LuchoCR more plausible than LuchoCR trying to run a scam. —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
You are required to notify the person you are reporting, as prominently reminded in the top of this page. I have done so for you this time.
I recommend discussing this with @LuchoCR directly, as this doesn’t involve English Wikipedia and, as others have noted, this is probably a scam being run by someone posing as LuchoCR.
LuchoCR blocked Merquisedec yesterday, with the rationale (loosely summarised/poorly translated) "Abuse of multiple accounts/block evasion: vandalism, intimidation, harassment, and personal attacks";
the block did not revoke talk page or email access, and Merquise has already requested an unblock on their user talk page at es.wp;
It's highly unlikely an es.wp functionary (he holds CU rights over there from all appearances) would throw it away to try and bilk someone out of $500.
I stand by mine and Yamla's belief that this is someone pretending to be LuchoCR doing a hideously poor job of extorting money out of some random guy he blocked. (Given he's still performing CU blocks over there today, the idea that his account got pwned also doesn't pass the laugh test.) —Jéské Courianov^_^vthreadscritiques16:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a note that LuchoCR responded on their talk and asked to have their response recorded here: The discussion was closed without giving me a chance to defend myself. Indeed, everything stated there is false; the user is harassing users via IP addresses, and although he claims to have a phone call between him and me, it is false. The phone number displayed here and on es.wikipedia is not mine. It seems that the individual searched for "LuchoCR" on Facebook and found this page, which I do not own, nor am I the person. I would appreciate it if this response could be linked to the discussion thread so that it is on record that I absolutely reject these accusations, and if they persist, I ask the administrators to take similar measures to those taken on es.wikipedia against this abuser. Pura vida. LuchoCR (talk) 2:35 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4) copied over by Valereee (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
This seems to imply that OP's accuation isn't just a case of a fraudster impersonating LuchoCR, but an accusation made up from whole cloth. Given the severity of it, I'm wondering if we shouldn't just block. - The BushrangerOne ping only20:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and block, since I also suspect UPE (see deleted contribs) and they have made precisely zero positive contributions since their account creation in 2017. -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I occasionally like to browse through AN/I when I'm bored, and see what drama is going on in the Wikipedia world. I occasionally use a screenreader, and this report is currently unreadable due to the line of X's. I'd really appreciate it if an admin could remove them as I don't believe I can do so without violating TPO (especially considering it's an admin noticeboard). I'd also like some clarification on if this is an appropriate exception to TPO or if I should avoid doing this in the future. JarJarInks٩(◕_◕)۶Tones essay21:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Done. I think it's in the area of "fixing layout/format errors". There were also two(ish) syntax typos related to links, so I fixed those as well. DMacks (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Reports like this are important for maintaining accessibility. Thank you, and feel free to comment when there are issues in the future. — rsjaffe🗣️23:35, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
request the deletion of a fake Wikipedia page created under my name, "Roshan Shrestha."
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dear Wikipedia Administrators,
I would like to request the deletion of a fake Wikipedia page created under my name, "Roshan Shrestha."
The page contains unreliable sources, unverifiable claims, and violates Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Despite the PROD tag, I request that this page be reviewed for immediate deletion under Wikipedia’s deletion policies as it is misleading and defamatory.
Supporting Evidence:
- I am a journalist and owner of Bethel Media House Private Limited, and my official website is khojsamachar.com.
- The page does not reflect verified information, and its content is fabricated.
Please take the necessary action to review and delete the page. Thank you for your assistance.
You put a speedy deletion tag, not a Proposed Deletion(PROD) tag. You seem to be a different person than that described in Roshan Shrestha. That describes a model and actor, not a journalist. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Based on the information you have provided, it seems like the text at Roshan Shrestha is simply about a different person by the same name. I don't see anything in the page that could be considered "defamatory" one way or another. signed, Rosguilltalk14:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, 331dot.
I understand that the page may describe a person with the same name as mine. However, I would like to highlight several concerns that question the reliability and notability of the information presented on the page:
1. **Lack of Verified Sources and Notability:**
The page does not include any official or verifiable sources that confirm who this Roshan Shrestha is. There are no social media links, news articles from notable or reliable Nepali news portals, or any content that clearly establishes this person's identity and notability.
2. **Potential Misuse of Name:**
Since my name, "Roshan Shrestha," is frequently searched on Google due to my role as a journalist and media house owner, I am concerned that this page might be taking advantage of that fact by using my name inaccurately.
3. **Unclear Identity of the Subject:**
The page fails to provide any strong evidence about who exactly the person being described (a supposed model or actor) is. It remains unclear and unverifiable, which risks confusing readers and misrepresenting information.
Based on these points, I respectfully request that the page be reviewed for deletion under Wikipedia’s guidelines for non-notable and unverifiable content.
The article as written cites several different news websites. I'm not an expert on Nepali media or language, but the cited sources give the impression of professionality at a glance, which is essentially all we ask of a WP:NEWSORG absent evidence of misinformation or paid placement. I'll note that the photos provided of Shrestha across the articles seem to consistently portray the same person, further undermining the argument that this is a hoax of some kind.
If you're confident that the sources in question genuinely aren't reliable (and that you can demonstrate that clearly such that others will be persuaded by your arguments), you can proceed to nominate the article for WP:AfD, the standard process for requesting deletion of an article on notability grounds. We are not going to take any special action here at AN unless there's actual libel or other defamatory text. If it turns out that there is another Rohan Shrestha that is more notable than you and it affects your SEO, I'm afraid there's nothing that we at Wikipedia can do about it (after all, we're equally accountable to the other Rohan; if they're notable, they're notable). signed, Rosguilltalk15:04, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
"Thank you for your response, Rosguill.
I understand your perspective, and I appreciate the clarification. However, I would like to elaborate on why I believe that the sources in the article may not meet Wikipedia's reliability and notability standards:
Lack of Reliable and Independent Sources:
The news articles cited in the Wikipedia page do not come from recognized, mainstream, or independent media organizations in Nepal. Most of the cited sources are from little-known websites that often do not follow professional journalism standards and could be considered unreliable.
Unclear Identity and Misleading Photos:
While the photos seem to be consistent, there is no concrete evidence that the person in question is notable. There are no well-established social media accounts, interviews, or verifiable content that can confirm who this person is.
SEO and Name Confusion:
My concern stems from the fact that my name (Roshan Shrestha), which is well-known due to my media presence as a journalist, may be unintentionally associated with this individual, affecting my online reputation. This could be a case of mistaken identity.
Based on these points, I will review the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process and follow the appropriate steps to request deletion if necessary.
Yes, it is possible that this individual could be mistaken for you. But that is neither "defamatory"(a deliberate effort to smear your reputation) nor "misleading"(a deliberate effort to deceive). With 8 billion humans on this planet, it is inevitable that more than one may have the same name. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
"Thank you for your response, Yamla
I understand your perspective, and I appreciate the clarification. However, I would like to point out a specific issue with one of the cited sources in the article that may highlight why I believe the page is misleading and does not meet Wikipedia's reliability and notability standards:
Misleading Source (Rohan vs. Roshan Confusion):
One of the links in the article actually refers to an Indian artist associated with Ranveer Singh, and the name mentioned there is Rohan Shrestha, not Roshan Shrestha. You can see this in the following link:
Ranveer Singh’s lovely memories with Oprah Winfrey and Rohan Shrestha
Please pay close attention to the difference in spelling: Rohan and Roshan are two different names, but it seems there has been some mix-up here. The confusion over the letter S in their names creates a misleading impression that these are the same individuals. This source, therefore, appears irrelevant and misleading when used in the article about Roshan Shrestha.
Name Confusion and Potential Misleading Information:
This confusion contributes to my concern that the article might be unintentionally creating a case of mistaken identity, which affects my online presence and SEO. My name, Roshan Shrestha, is associated with my work as a journalist, and the inaccurate information in this article could harm my reputation.
Based on this evidence, I will review the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process and follow the appropriate steps if necessary. I wanted to bring this specific source-related issue to your attention for further consideration.
Rohanshresrha, STOP. There's nothing we can do for you here. You need to stop posting here. You also need to stop using AI chatbots. --Yamla (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
If you are going to argue for the deletion of this article, focus your arguments on Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia has exactly zero interest in your online reputation and SEO. 331dot (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
I understand your perspective, and I appreciate the clarification. However, I would like to point out a specific issue with one of the cited sources in the article that may highlight why I believe the page is misleading and does not meet Wikipedia's reliability and notability standards:
Misleading Source (Rohan vs. Roshan Confusion):
One of the links in the article actually refers to an Indian artist associated with Ranveer Singh, and the name mentioned there is Rohan Shrestha, not Roshan Shrestha. You can see this in the following link:
Ranveer Singh’s lovely memories with Oprah Winfrey and Rohan Shrestha
Please pay close attention to the difference in spelling: Rohan and Roshan are two different names, but it seems there has been some mix-up here. The confusion over the letter S in their names creates a misleading impression that these are the same individuals. This source, therefore, appears irrelevant and misleading when used in the article about Roshan Shrestha.
Name Confusion and Potential Misleading Information:
This confusion contributes to my concern that the article might be unintentionally creating a case of mistaken identity, which affects my online presence and SEO. My name, Roshan Shrestha, is associated with my work as a journalist, and the inaccurate information in this article could harm my reputation.
Based on this evidence, I will review the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process and follow the appropriate steps if necessary. I wanted to bring this specific source-related issue to your attention for further consideration.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Confirmed to some other socks and blocked. If you see something really obvious like this, it might be better to just contact a CheckUser directly. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
The petition at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Master Jay for Master Jay to initiate a re-request for adminship (RRfA) has received 25 supports from extended confirmed users. An RRfA or participation in an administrator election is required for them to maintain their toolkit. For further information, please consult the administrator recall policy. win8x (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Done. I think it's in the area of "fixing layout/format errors". There were also two(ish) syntax typos related to links, so I fixed those as well. DMacks (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)