Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	8	17	15	40
TfD	0	0	2	0	2
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	14	13	27
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 7 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 12 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 111 sockpuppet investigations
• 11 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 16 requests for RD1 redaction
• 46 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 32 requested closures
• 170 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 32 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (35 out of 7825 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Stun Siva 2024-06-11 21:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo Keffiyeh 2024-06-11 19:38 2025-06-11 19:38 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hari Singh Nalwa 2024-06-11 18:20 indefinite edit,move Continued disruptive despite semi-protection; WP:ARBIPA Abecedare Kuki war of independence 2024-06-11 17:38 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thakor_Sumant_Sinhji_Jhala Abecedare Koli war of independence 2024-06-11 17:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thakor_Sumant_Sinhji_Jhala Abecedare Naraz 2024-06-11 14:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; no objection for this subject to be created view draft if properly reviewed at NPP ; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Colombia 2024-06-11 05:19 indefinite edit Edit warring / content dispute Daniel Case Kelly A. Hyman 2024-06-11 04:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case White Mexicans 2024-06-11 04:06 2024-09-11 04:06 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: per RFPP Daniel Case Nano-ayurvedic medicine 2024-06-10 21:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per AfD discussion Vanamonde93 Tribal revolts in India before Indian independence 2024-06-10 19:19 2024-09-10 19:19 edit,move Sock puppetry; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala + others Abecedare Rebellions 2024-06-10 19:16 2024-09-10 19:16 edit,move Sock puppetry (LTA); see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Principality of Sealand 2024-06-10 18:03 indefinite move Edit warring / content dispute DrKay Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation 2024-06-10 17:33 2024-06-12 17:33 edit Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish List of peace activists 2024-06-10 15:12 2025-06-10 15:12 edit Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish False or misleading statements by Donald Trump 2024-06-10 02:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Modern American politics. Will log at WP:AEL Ad Orientem Carly Rae Jepsen 2024-06-10 00:56 2025-06-10 00:56 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Discospinster Al-Sitt 2024-06-09 21:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Hamis Kiggundu 2024-06-09 21:15 2025-06-09 21:15 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case Aditi Rao Hydari 2024-06-09 20:37 indefinite edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-09 20:33 2024-06-12 20:33 edit Persistent vandalism - modification to originally intended level. Amortias Nir Oz 2024-06-09 03:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of ongoing armed conflicts 2024-06-09 03:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:PIA Anarchyte Nuseirat refugee camp massacre 2024-06-09 02:43 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Russian Air Force 2024-06-09 01:56 2024-06-16 01:56 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; follow up Robertsky IDF Caterpillar D9 2024-06-09 01:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Front for the Liberation of the Golan 2024-06-08 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Lok Sabha 2024-06-08 21:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: wp:ARBIND Ymblanter Template:Timeline-event 2024-06-08 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2530 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation 2024-06-08 16:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Om Parvat 2024-06-08 05:48 2024-12-08 05:48 edit,move Arbitration enforcement revise to ec upon further review. Robertsky Skibidi Toilet 2024-06-08 04:14 2024-12-26 20:45 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: per RFPP Daniel Case Black Sea Fleet 2024-06-08 03:56 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Vikrant Adams 2024-06-08 03:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case Trinamool Congress 2024-06-08 00:47 indefinite edit,move continued disruption by autoconfirmed accounts; raise semi to ECP Daniel Case

Need a rangeblock

Please see this thread. Troll; NOTHERE. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Admins are requested to check if this user had edited under previous account name User:Walrus Ji. 27.123.253.165 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this should have been posted on ANI, but I agree that there are some issues with Special:Contributions/27.123.253.0/16: edit warring[1], baseless accusations of 'controlling' an article[2] and of socking[3][4][5], and apparent hounding[6] (citing a March 2022 diff?). Someone should make it clear to them that they can't go on like that. Not sure of course since I can't see them, but their revdelled edits here may also be relevant. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is still ongoing. They are pushing the idea that this blog (blacklisted, replace .com with .xyz) is a "legit Online platform", adding comments like "Collaboration can't be expected atleast from such bad faith editors like you. Go away." [7] There's also an RSN thread for the content/sourcing issue, but I think the IP user's behavior itself is problematic. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Apaugasma: Why you are doing publicity of that blog. Do you control that blog? Or paid for it. Your repeated use of non existent domain is not proving anything. Will you please stop spamming it again and again as I count you have paste the that blog's link 3 times in 24 hour period. You should not be evade our .xyz blanket filter by replacing it with .com. Not getting what is your connection with this blog. 27.123.253.83 (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have been arguing at Talk:Badi' al-Din that this blacklisted blog is unreliable [8], while 27.123.253.x has been arguing that it is fine because it is cited in an academic journal [9] (itself listing questionable/fake 'impact factors' as credentials). Their casting me here as a spammer seems to be an aspersion tactic. In general they have a remarkable interest in our spam blacklist for an IP, referring to a March 2022 whitelist request [10][11], and knowing what admins are active in it [12].

TrangaBellam may have been wise to bring this to AN after all, since this does look to be an LTA. They appear to be the same user as 37.111.216.0/22, who geolocates to the same city as 27.123.253.0/16, is also focused on spam/blogs, and who was also responsible for the previous disruption at Badi' al-Din (cf. [13]), which also revolved around false accusations of spam (cf. here) and which first led them to be reported at ANI and to be blocked, after which they started socking with accounts (SPI). The oldest account here was indeffed by Blablubbs so this is effectively block evasion. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Linking all the vandalism and disruption to someone who has disagreement with you is really a nice point to escape the situation. If you want to drop the stick you are most welcome. 27.123.253.83 (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

User: M.Ashraf333 & General Qamar Javed Bajwa page

The user M.Ashraf333 has constantly been undoing my additions on the Qamar Javed Bajwa page, claiming that I represent some sort of political bias. This is despite the fact that my additions contain a wide number of sources, and nowhere do I claim that my posts are proven facts; everywhere I have posted 'claimed' and 'accused'.

I have made these additions, with a variety of sources, because I feel that they are relevant to the wiki page- especially one that relates to a national figure.

I've even put a section to tell both sides of the story as well. If the user disagrees with my additions, they are free to add anything here, or anywhere else on the page, to shed further light on both sides of the story- (with sources of course), though by no means should this be an opportunity to blatantly censor relevant information- and in my opinion this attitude of censorship is against everything that Wikipedia stands for.

Each time the user removes my post, they state no other reason for doing so other than accusing me of 'political bias'- despite the fact that I am literally just posting relevant info gathered from sources. On the latest undos of my posts they have begun slinging personal attacks based off my edit history, and now they are threatening with blocking me from editing the page.

It takes me quite some time for my contributions to Wikipedia, and seeing the repeated personal attacks of bias in my attempts to tell both sides of a story is quite hurtful.

This is about the third place on Wiki that I have now posted my concerns with this user's disruptive behavior, including the article's talk page to avert an edit war, but nowhere am I receiving any responses from Wiki mods. Umer23459 (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you haven't informed User:M.Ashraf333 that you're opening this thread. This is necessary as every complaint has two sides and he has the right to express his. Animal lover |666| 06:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Animal lover 666, As I replied him multiple times but he keeps pinging me everywhere to defame me. I have put a section to tell both sides of the story as well. This is exactly the point I tried to convey to him, he includes the usual daily news to BLP which is not verified by any court, i.e. allegations of journalist, statements of opposite political leaders and hearing of Supreme Court on Arshad Sharif's murder.

If you look at his contribution timeline for the last 3 months, you would surprise to see that, the user is just here for to include these things only on this page. The timeline of the contributions and continued deep interest make him vulnerable to a political bias. Please take a look on the archive section of noticeboard too, and I have requested to open the SPI case here for using multiple accounts to disrupt this article. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 11:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Just noting both are still EW on the page.Slywriter (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

User that appears to making numerous racist pro-Chinese anti-American edits on many pages

This is my first time reporting this type of thing so not sure the best place to put this. But the user User:Golden_Mage seems to be making many pro-Chinese anti-American/anti-European edits on many pages, including edits converting edits such as this where they changed links to Indigenous peoples of the Americas to Redskin and changed links to Chinese people to Han Chinese. Ergzay (talk) 09:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The edit you linked was to an article discussing obsolete racial categorisations from the 18th century, so while I know nothing about the subject matter, it's not immediately obvious to me that linking to terms like "Negroid" and "Redskin", or changing Chinese people to Han Chinese, is even contextually incorrect, let alone racist. You say this was on many pages -- are there examples on articles that aren't about 18th century race science? Endwise (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Per Endwise, these all appear to be relevant terms in context. Yes, the terminology is considered wrong and racist today, but in the context, these are the terms used by the people like Blumenbach. Also, he's adding these as piped links so that modern readers can get the correct context; he's not using the terms in a reader-facing way. I don't see anything like what the OP is categorizing here, I see nothing that is "pro-Chinese" or "Anti-American". If the user in question is doing so, the one diff we are given shows nothing of the sort. --Jayron32 16:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It's difficult to see any merit in the original complaint whatsoever, especially having looked over 20-25 of Golden Mage's most recent contributions. Frankly, the accusation that this user is somehow "pro-Chinese" tests the bounds of WP:AGF. Theknightwho (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The linked diff is an improvement. Those are the terms used in that time period (cf scientific racism). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

User keeps removing well sourced facts

A Polish user @Marcelus in the article Poles in Lithuania despite comments by various users, keeps removing well sourced material because of an agenda of his own of not letting anyone present these facts instead of his ideas of "influx of Poles to Lithuania" (never happened – no sources for this information), "strip of land of total Polishness" (historical sources reject this nonsense, that reminds propaganda from the 1920s and to the contrary, there are language islands), etc. Please, arbitrate and stop this edit warring with a constant removal of sourced historical and ethnographic material. 90.131.35.248 (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Eh, first of all we are talking about the WP:LEDE, which is a short summary of the article. Polish community in Lithuania was created on the basis of the influx of Polish people and the Polonization of autochthons. There are references for the migration of Poles in the article, section "History". There is not mention of the "strip of land of total Polishness", but In the 19th century, the processes of Polonization also affected Lithuanian and Belarusian peasants and led to the formation of a long strip of land with a predominantly Polish population, stretching to Daugavpils and including Vilnius, which again is described in more detail in relevant section. Marcelus (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Article semiprotected for 1 week, as I believe but cannot prove that the IP is evading an edit warring block, and I would prefer to see them participate in a discussion in good faith over their concerns rather than continue edit warring from another new IP, but if they don't I will be very unforgiving with the block button. @Marcelus: various users' allegations of ownership against you are very hard to refute given that you keep restoring your last revision without regard to intervening edits, often without explaining why. Please use the talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector all of these IPs are probably the same users. I explained why the changes are bad/unnecessary here: Talk:Poles_in_Lithuania#Unsourced_restored, and here User_talk:78.56.121.167. The user clearly doesn't care about it, because he didn't respond once. Also I would like to let you know, that he moved now to History of Poles in Lithuania Marcelus (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm watching that article too. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Small check

Is article Vlad Levykin was created over deleted Volodymyr Levykin? Anntinomy (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

They are two different names, so no, but they are the same person, and I've deleted Vlad Levykin per WP:G4.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Need help at Miss World 2022

I procssed a speedy for Miss World 2022, and recieved a message on my talk page at User talk:Paulmcdonald#Miss World 2022 that makes a lot of sense. To make a long story short, I think it's best to restore the article and then roll back before the broken re-direct as requested. I've attempted to do so but I'm getting some database issues and now I'm concerned that I'm making the issue worse and not better. Can I get some help?--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paulmcdonald: I agree that attempting to undelete that page causes a database error. I have submitted a bug report to this effect, a developer with access to the logs will be able to investigate and see what is holding it up. The train did deploy to enwiki today I think, so maybe WP:ITSTHURSDAY... ST47 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Worked fine for me. That being said, it's going to take me a week to un-split this ridiculous pair of histories... easier than I thought Primefac (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Open proxies

I am currently under attack of an LTA who hounds me cross-wiki for more than a year now (SwissArmyGuy, see the latest case). Of course the LTA uses a lot of open proxies. Some of them are already detected and blocked, some are not. For instance, 179.63.255.230 looks like one. I'm afraid there are more to be seen, so I wonder where to report them. Is this board a right place, or is there a more specific venue? — Mike Novikoff 02:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I took a quick look at Special:Contributions/179.63.255.230. They are blocked for six months as a proxy on the Russian wikipedia so I've gone ahead with a two-month block here. In general you can report possible proxies at WP:OP. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

User:D.Lazard

D.Lazard (talk · contribs) This user has constantely undoing right corrections of many users in some pages (for example, 'Euler's totient function') JuanPV78 (talk) 03:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC).

I have given the above user some advice on their talk. As there is no discussion on article talk, the matter does not warrant discussion at a noticeboard at this stage and this should be closed soon. Johnuniq (talk) 06:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Gavison-Medan Covenant House of Yahweh sock nonsense

Basically what it says on the tin. There's no SPI case on enwiki, but it seems to involve cross-wiki abuse. Since I can't do much, I thought I'd send a message here to get some admin eyes on it. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 14:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

All of those accounts blocked as socks. Not sure which one is the main account, but it's pretty obvious there's laundry all over the place. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@RickinBaltimore It seems as though it's a cross-wiki abuse case related to the House of Yahweh. I think @Mtarch11 knows more about them. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 15:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Figured I"d say this, but there's a global version of Twinkle which gives you the ability to report users to meta:SRG from any Wiki just like how you would with reporting a user to AIV/UAA here. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU: the main account is Piermark, see it:Categoria:Wikipedia:Cloni sospetti di Piermark (incomplete list). --Mtarch11 (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

how do I delete a redirect?

CRC Advisors now redirects to Creative Response Concepts, but the opposite is true: Creative Response Concepts is "the firm now known as CRC Advisors"[14]

So I need to delete the redirect, move Creative Response Concepts to CRC Advisors, create a new redirect for Creative Response Concepts to CRC Advisors, then change CRC Advisors to "formerly Creative Response Concepts."

My apologies for being dumb. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a round robin page move you want to clear the redirect, some complications to do it so probably easiest to just ask for it to be done at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think an admin can just move it over the redirect, leaving a new redirect behind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

There is an number of non trivial edits done on that title before it was converted into a redirect though. A page swap would be more appropriate. – robertsky (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, right, I guess some care is needed with the histories. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: round-robin page move  Done. Cheers. Salvio ^giuliano 21:47, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

hey, thank you! soibangla (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Anthonydevolder

Back in 2011, a user using the name "Anthony Devolder" made a short self-biography on their talk page. More recently, US politician George Santos has been in the news, including for using other names including "Anthony Devolder". Multiple news sources earlier today covered this 2011 Wikipedia page. It has been deleted, and on the talk page links to media coverage are redacted. Is this how we want to handle this, that information originating on Wikipedia becomes visible in many places on the media, but not here? I thought some other admins should be aware of this. See User_talk:Anthonydevolder -- Infrogmation (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here. I'm not sure the media coverage is the main issue - I think the actual Wikipedia-centric problem is that an admin blocked the account for violating our username policy, but it is extremely unclear to me (and evidently a number of others, per talk page discussion) how this account violated our username policy. I asked the blocking admin directly, but it may be the middle of the night for them, so they may not respond right away. I don't think it's an urgent issue, though. Perhaps it's something to be talked over at WP:AARV? —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I added a (poorly formatted, it seems) request for discussion there. Moncrief (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

As an admin, I think that the decision to block the account and delete the content was unwarranted and unwise. Page protection ought to have been a first step if vandalism is a concern. How does a userpage with inoffensive (if fanciful -- but again, it's a userpage, not a factual article) material created under a form of someone's real name violate Wikipedia's rules? I'm not seeing it. Unless there's actual cause, it's a bad look for us to hide this material when it's everywhere in the media. Moncrief (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Infrogmation per the oversight policy, Suppression is a tool of first resort in removing...identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public. For context, you posted a link to an attempted outing on a user's talk page which in nearly any other context would be a textbook violation of our harassment policy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wugapodes|a·po·des - I assure you nothing of that kind was intended. I saw an article in the media referencing a Wikipedia page, so I added a link to it on the talk page. (Is that no longer a fairly common thing to do? Pardon, I'm something of an oldbie, more recently mostly active on Commons.) On consideration, I'll note that the user's self biography has been there publicly viewable for more than a dozen years (until a few hours ago), and as far as I know the user never tried to remove it nor requested it be removed. Thanks for your input. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The outing policy, while obviously needed and good in theory, has sometimes led to fairly ridiculous results when zealously enforced (most notably, by allowing a bad-faith editor to puff up him and his spouse's pages for a decade+ while he worked to ban anyone who dared hint that he might have a connection to his real identity). In cases like this one here, linking to off-wiki speculation, even in a reliable source, about a username's owner is certainly frowned upon. It does tend to lend an odd sort of "everyone knows what we're talking about but nobody can say it out loud" tenor to the discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It always amuses me how some admins are willing to twist and distort the concept of "harassment" until it is entirely meaningless. How is this abandoned 2011 account being harassed exactly? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wugapodes, would this article be allowed to be posted on a page that is not the user's talk page per the oversight policy? Muhibm0307 (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Muhibm0307 Given that it's already been oversighted, for now, it should not be: "If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing." I can say that we are currently having a discussion on the oversight email list regarding how to interpret policy in this case. That's why oversight is a tool of first resort for attempted doxxing of editors: every situation is different and figuring out how the policy applies can take time, but the potential for damage is real and should be limited while figuring out next steps. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wugapodes, the issue is the article has been posted on Talk:George Santos. Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know a great deal about oversight policy, but I don't get what you're saying here. identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public -- it is completely public (as in listed prominently at George Santos, everywhere in the media, and acknowledged by him) that George Santos and Anthony Devolder is the same person. Are you saying here that User:Anthonydevolder is a pseudonymous/anonymous account, and that implying User:Anthonydevolder might be Anthony Devolder would be outing them? Because, I mean, that's literally their username... Endwise (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I too am uncomfortable about the policy basis for the block. I am an active administrator at WP:UAA. According to our username policy, real names, stage names and pen names are permitted except when they imply that the editor is a specific living person they are not. I cannot see how a hard username block is appropriate here, since I see zero evidence of any impersonation. If this person was famous back then, it might have been appropriate to soft block and give him the opportunity to verify his identity. But he was utterly unknown back then. Similarly, I see no good reason to suppress the content that this editor wrote way back then. What is the basis in policy for that? What is it about this content that required suppression? I just don't get it. I have great respect for Doug Weller and look forward to his explanation. Cullen328 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Endwise There can be more than one person in the world named Anthony Devolder, and the holder of this account has not made their identity public. As a tool of first resort, suppression is used in situations exactly like this and then discussed depending on the specifics of the case. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Wugapodes, but we need to use common sense every once in a while. Personally, I was quite surprised how many people named "Jim Heaphy" (my name) there are in the world when I did an in-depth search about 15 years ago. In this case, the stated date of birth is identical to the now-notable George Anthony Devolder Santos, and the editor talks about residence in Brazil, European ancestry, an LGTBQ identity, and a strong wish to be famous in the US. I estimate the likelihood of this being an account for the notable George Santos at 99.9%+. Where is any evidence to the contrary? I still fail to see the basis for these actions. Cullen328 (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

And where should it be discussed? Here? Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Muhibm0307 It is being discussed by oversighters on the private email list. These editors are have access to the suppressed information which helps evaluate the full context of the situation and are selected for their experience handling cases like this. Concerns about the use of oversight can be reported to the Arbitration Committee who supervise the use of and access to that tool. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

That is understandable. (I sort of already know how oversight works.) Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Moncrief, this information may be helpful to you with regards to your WP:AARV request. Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me. I still don't understand why there was a hard block and why the template at the top of the user page discusses an extreme violation ("...offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive..."). Moncrief (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wug· - The original 'block' claims it removed Anthony Devolder's 11 year old talk page bio for "user name" violation [15], (not "oversight policy.") The name "Anthony Devolder" as a user name is no more a violation than your user name or my user name. And, if there is "more than one person in the world named Anthony Devolder;" then wiki was very unwise to remove that Devolder's talk page. Also, I feel the "oversight policy" you mention does not support removing Anthony Devolder's personal talk page bio. 1st) Anthony Devolder is the guy's name, it's not a pseudonym & not anonymous. 2nd) He clearly made his own "identity public" 11 years ago when he wrote his bio on his talk page. So far, no one has been able to give a legit reason for deleting Devolder's talk page. At this point it seems clear that someone made an error and the talk page should be restored. ~Best regards, BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I see now there now are multiple news outlets with coverage of the Wikipedia user page in question, in addition to it being discussed on social media. However Wikipedia decides to deal with this, perhaps we should keep in mind the Streisand effect. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  Very good point, infrogmation. BetsyRMadison (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Responding to a report made by email or on-wiki is one thing, but if the source of our information is Politico, then there is probably no need for oversight, because whatever it is, isn't private information anymore. Levivich (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. A sensible dose of WP:IAR here tells us that there's really no problem with discussing openly whether this account belongs to the now-famous person it seems to. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

And it's not the only one ... Daniel Case (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't fault Doug for starting off with a page oversight and a username block, but I do think the issue of this being reported in multiple sources should be taken into account when deciding what to ultimately do with the information. It may just be completely pointless, and make us look goofy to boot. I had a couple IRC buddies who worked for the government around the time of the Snowden leaks, and they were always complaining that they weren't allowed to read the news because it had classified documents in it... is that what we want to do here? jp×g 06:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Note that there are now articles about this in BuzzFeed News, The Independent, the New York Post, the Daily Mail, the Bharat Express News, HuffPost, and Mediaite, which I guess we are not allowed to link to here (?). However, they've already been used to reference an entire paragraph of text at George Santos about the ongoing controversy (which I commented out, since the exact same links were OS'd when put on his talk page). Can we get some update on what is going on with this? jp×g 06:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  You can add The New Republic to that list. One of my biggest concerns is that Santos or other people might cite the block/oversight as proof that it was not him, despite that being highly unlikely. The listed reasons for a block in the generic username violation hardblock template are if: it is obviously offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia." (emphasis added). Obviously, the only applicable one is the impersonation one. It might put Wikipedia in the unenviable position of seemingly defending Santos in the eyes of the general public.I think any resolution should consider whether to edit the wording of the block template if it stays up. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Last night, just before going to sleep, I was using my iPad and saw this on Facebook. I went to the page and didn't notice the date (I'm hoping to get Specsavers to come to my home to get me new glasses, I clearly need them. I thought it was someone picking this up from the news and creating an account and the userpage and even wondered if CU would be advisable. Clearly I messed up. My take is that if it had been current it would be suppressible, but 2011? No. It's clearly not someone picking this up from the news, creating an account and a userpage for fun. Was it actually Santos? Who knows. I've unsuppressed already. The block isn't necessary given the date so I'll go undo that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I forgot, the Disney thing had me convinced it was a hoax and an attack on Santos. Puzzling though, why do that in 2011? Doug Weller talk 09:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

He was an unknown 22-year-old with an active imagination, using a Wikipedia user page as a kind of dream board/scratch pad/place for brief, late-night, stream-of-consciousness musings. It doesn't seem particularly puzzling to me, for what that's worth. Wikipedia has long attracted all sorts for the simple thrill of knowing that anyone can write their way into a tiny bit of the internet. Moncrief (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure because I don't have visibility of deleted edits but I believe the sequence of events is this: (1) created the account, (2) wrote an autobiography (of sorts) on his user page, (3) attempted to write an autobiography in mainspace but was prevented by the edit filter (in part because the account name and article name were the same), (4) abandoned the account and used other accounts with different names. Levivich (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's in the history, it's not suppressed or revision deleted. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe Levivich means the trajectory of Santos's alleged involvement in Wikipedia, not just this page. I don't know about (2) or (3), but I don't think they were related to this user name. (4), as far as I'm aware, is regarding two or more sockpuppet accounts in 2022, after the election. Anyway, I'll stop, as we're getting off the main topic. Moncrief (talk) 17:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI, this account has zero deleted edits, probably for the reasons Levivich suggests. BD2412 T 19:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Does this mean we're done oversighting links to the Politico article or is OS still discussing that? Levivich (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for asking this. This is my question as well. Moncrief (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

At this particular point in time, yes. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

See [User talk:Prose072#January 2023], should they be unblocked or block reduced? Sorry to just give a link, iPad copy didn’t work with the username for some reason. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

OS team is discussing. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, but yes, what? There were two separate, oppositional questions, and I'm not sure which part the "yes" applies to: Does this mean we're done oversighting links to the Politico article or is OS still discussing that? Moncrief (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The former. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• Aside from the OS issue, which is being vigorously discussed, why not just U5 this page? I'm not sure why we would keep an extant, yet blanked, version of it regardless of whether it is OS worthy. Its no different than the other spam userpages we get, which routinely get the U5 treatment. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  People are already complaining about it being only blanked. In my opinion, there's an element of transparency involved with the page. If it's deleted it will look like there's something to hide. It's not like we don't have worse pages to be getting on with. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Normally, sure, U5 it, but in this particular case, where the page has already been widely published (in fact, that's what brought it to our collective attention), there really is little point to deleting it, and doing so may give the wrong impression, as zzuuzz said. For better or worse, the revision history of the page is evidence in a public debate, hiding it from the public would not further our basic mission of education, nor our values of transparency and... my favorite Wikipedia tagline... accountability through excellent recordkeeping. Blanking it is a good compromise. Levivich (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  "accountability through excellent recordkeeping" not heard that one before, I like it! Though I will push back a bit on the idea that we shouldn't delete things merely on the basis that its been widely published. I think that gives the wrong incentives for our trolls/detractors/mischief makers, and takes our editorial decisions out of our hands. If something should be deleted under our policies, I'm hesitant to change that outcome because of external factors. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Some might say the fact that it hasn't been deleted for 11 years proves that the only reason we'd delete it now is external factors. :-) I agree though, that we shouldn't not delete things merely because they've been widely published. In this particular case, I think there are more factors in play. Levivich (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  Note that the account is now soft-blocked by Beeblebrox - the block I should have used. Doug Weller talk 08:11, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  I suspect if this had been initially U5'ed it would still be that way. However, given all the discussion that has happened if someone thinks it should be deleted it probably needs the formal consensus finding of MFD (given that it's been undeleted I don't think DRV would apply anymore). The page is full protected now, but if a non-admin wants to nominate it, please ping me and I will happily place the MFD notice to complete the process given that the User Talk isn't really the right place to find consensus to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• This is a ridiculous amount of ink to spill over an account that only ever made two edits, both to the editor's own user page, eleven years ago. If it wasn't for the famous name connection, this would never even make it to ANI. BD2412 T 19:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

User:William G Rothman

• William G Rothman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would an administrator mind trying to get this user to refrain from directly editing Greg Rothman and instead follow the suggestions left on their user talk page by seeking assistance from others. I realize that COI editing is not prohibited, but it would probably make it easier to help this person if they at least participated in the discussion on the article's talk page. Others have been trying to help out, but this user continues to prefer to directly make changes themselves. There are probably ways that the article content can be improved and the more editors trying to do so the better, but at the same time content shouldn't be removed just because the subject or someone representing him (I'm assuming that's the case here) feels it's biased, particularly if most reliable sources are referring to the content in this "biased" way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE which I suppose sort of kicks the can down the road. If they change their username or create a new account it can be dealt with at that point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you Callanecc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vector 2022 has an RFC

Administrators, there is an RfC on whether Vector legacy should be restored as the default skin on the English Wikipedia. If you haven't already and would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

On a related note, it has been suggested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rollback of Vector 2022#Publicizing this RfC that mass messages (WP:MMS) be used to publicize this RfC, as this issue affects millions of users who use this website, and WLNs and Village pump posts alone proved ineffective last time in gauging an accurate consensus. Editors have proposed sending these messages to either (a) all active users in the past 30 days, (b) all active extended confirmed users and administrators, (c) a random sample of active users, or (d) everyone who was on the nine 2022 ArbCom election mailing lists. Is this a good idea, is it feasible, and which group of users should receive these hypothetical messages? InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

No, because as many have already pointed out to you there, this RfC is fundamentally toothless per the third fourth point of WP:CONEXEMPT, and we already had a widely-advertised RfC on Vector 2022 just a few months ago. – Joe (talk) 05:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, the third point? ArbCom? And the previous RfC was not widely advertised enough, as evidenced by how many users were blindsided by the launch. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Fourth, sorry. And you will never reach everyone, but the last RfC attracted ~328 participants, which is far more than usual. – Joe (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

In the previous RfC, the Web team wrote (emphasis in original): If the community decides against deploying the skin, no deployment will be made. Which means that the WMF was willing to comply with the community's will, and they were prepared to stand down if the community was against deploying V22 at this stage. If you're suggesting that the WMF will do an about-face now that Vector 2022 has launched and refuse to honor the consensus (or lack thereof) of the community, then that is truly unfortunate. And yes, 328 is indeed a higher number than usual, but guess what: it wasn't enough. We're talking about a UI change that affects millions of visitors, this wasn't a debate on what to put in an article's lead or what speedy deletion criterion should be amended. We need to do better this time. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I can't say what the WMF will do. But if I were making a bet, I'd go with what the web team has already politely implied that they will do: continue with their years-long programme of pre-deployment UX research, community consultation, incremental change, and post-deployment UX research. – Joe (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Mass messaging seems a massive overreaction. Doug Weller talk 09:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Over complex perhaps. Just throw it into MediaWiki:Sitenotice on the 25th (a week after deployment).©Geni (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

• I said in the RFC that there is nothing to suggest that it will be more representative than the original, well attended(relatively) one. And people are always quicker and more likely to air grievances than offer praise. 331dot (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Password forgotten

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

---

Dear administrators, I have forgotten the password of my original account User:Paytime, how can I recover my password (I have not added any email address). Paytime3 (talk) 09:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Paytime3 This isn't specifically an administrator issue(the Help Desk is the forum for this)- but if you did not have an email address on your old account, there is no way to regain access. You will need to use your current account and identify it as a successor to your old account("I am Paytime3, I was previously Paytime but lost access"). 331dot (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@331dot:, My another account in this English Wikipedia (Paytime2) has been blocked by User:Zzuuzz. Paytime3 (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Look, it's just not a great idea to arrive at the admin's noticeboard saying simply "I'm a sockpuppet of x". I'd unblock the account, but you don't need 3 of them. You may ignore the 2nd account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:51, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's also not a great idea to post to a checkuser's talk page saying simply "I am back, you blocked my previous account". @Widr: FWIW. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It's a lie. I dont know them. Paytime (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

{{checkuser requested}} See the discussion above and Paytime's latest comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

On it. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Paytime2 is more or less  Confirmed to Paytime3; these two are also a decent technical match for an LTA (who has a habit of showing up at noticeboards saying "I'm a sockpuppet of x"), but I'm not familiar enough to be certain about that connection and I don't think it matters too much, so I'll leave it at that. Paytime didn't show up in my check of those two, and I don't see any reason to check them independently. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Blablubbs. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Unblock request for Rathfelder

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

---

I feel very much discredited, which is perhaps only right. Even reading Wikipedia is quite upsetting. I would like an opportunity to reinstate myself and show that I have learned from my mistakes and wont repeat them. I still think I can make a positive contribution.

Process

I was not clear how, or indeed if, I was supposed to respond to the community consensus discussion. I didnt feel I was able to put my case.

I feel that the decision was an excessive punishment as far as the WP:BANPOL is concerned. I fully accept that I have done wrong. I recognise that and I would like an opportunity to explain how it happened and show that I have learned from my mistakes.

I had been attacked several times, generally without reasonable cause, and I have not felt much support. I dont feel that the collaborative approach is very effective. Very few projects seem to be operational. It is completely open to individual editors to be confrontational. On one occasion I was threatened with an immediate block because I was said to have committed three copyright infringements. It was true, but they were spaced over three years, were all minor, and one was in respect of material I had written myself. I was very sorry to find that Fayenatic london said that I had been abrasive. That was certainly not intended, and I have done my best to be supportive to other editors. However I have increasingly felt threatened, for example by those who express disbelief that I might not be aware of some policy which they find important, and by those who say that because I did something it should be treated with suspicion. That, of course, has been considerably exacerbated by this block.

I am asking for a more balanced approach. I have put in a lot of time and effort over the last ten years and I think I can properly say that the things I did wrong were a very small part of that. I still think I can make a positive contribution, though I would have to work hard to build up trust.

If I was allowed to return I would propose to continue to avoid categorisation altogether. I would certainly avoid the articles which got me into trouble. However I have done very little Wikipedia:BLP editting and I dont think any apart from Alex Scott-Samuel have been controversial. Biographies of living people understandably attract more attention than most other articles and I have been very careful with them.

History

I started editing in December 2006 primarily working on the history and organisation of the NHS. I did start Socialist Health Association, which was the organisation I worked for, and clearly I had a conflict of interest, although I was then very inexperienced and did not appreciate that was important. In fact the article was almost entirely historical, and I had priviledged access to its archives. I dont think there was anything controversial in it until 2019.

Mostly I worked on articles relating to British healthcare organisations. I didnt do much work on categorisation until 2013, but after 2019 I did a lot of that. The huge majority was completely uncontroversial - adding articles to existing geographical and historical categories and developing existing categorisation schemes.

I was blocked and accused of vandalism while I was creating Dewrance & Co. Ltd, without, as far as I saw it, any justification and without any opportuity to discuss it. I created User:Harry Boardman in December 2016 as an insurance policy. I havent used that since August 2019, and I lost the password so dont have access to it, which is why I didnt mention it.

I created User:Bigwig7 in August 2018 also as an insurance policy. I used this account to create Alex Scott-Samuel‎ in February 2019. I fully acccept that this was wrong and I had a conflict of interest. I didnt see it as an attack page. I took some trouble to include his academic work. At the time there was a great deal of media coverage about him, almost entirely hostile and I did try to produce a more balanced view. He was the chair of the Socialist Health Association of which I was the only employee but what he did to me was a very small part of what drove the extensive coverage of his activities in the media. There were battles over the Socialist Health Association article but I kept out of them. Only one significant contribution was from me, and that was defended by other editors, not me. I didnt make any significant edits after 2019 because I realised this was a mistake.

I should add that User:BarleyButt is nothing to do with me, although they have edited both those articles.

I now see that what I did was dishonest. There is no reason for me to do such a thing again. I am now retired and have no employer so there is not likely to be such a stressful situation again. My user name is such that it is immediately apparent to anyone who I am. That is not generally a problem, but it was in that situation.

I am quite upset to be accused of acting "as though he's superior to the community for so long, " I dont feel superior. I am well aware that there are plenty of editors who know a lot more than I do, but I often dont feel much sense of community. There are areas where I have more experience than most editors and I have tried to be helpful, but they are mostly rather out of the way.

I would say in my defence that my actions actually had little effect. I dont think any decisions about categorisation or deletion were altered by my piling in, and my edits on those two articles were all referenced to reputable sources and survived subsequent discussions in which I was not involved. After things settled down in my personal life I decided to keep away.

I value Wikipedia and I have devoted considerable time and attention to improving it over the last few years. I have contributed quite a lot of photographs and I have made financial donations. I maintain my subscription to the Health Service Journal primarily to inform the coverage of NHS articles. I ask that the things I have done wrong should be considered in the context of the things I did which were right. I am happy to accept any restrictions which are thought appropriate. Rathfelder (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This is WP:CBAN following this [16] AN thread, and the unblock request has been copied here at Rathfelder's request, per WP:UNBAN. Meters (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Oppose - lost the trust of the community about two months ago, due to serious abuse of Wikipedia: vote-stacking with socks, in conjunction with socking to create and maintain a conflict-of-interest BLP attack page. Is the punishment excessive? Absolutely not. Even if we were to forgive you, it would not be so soon. starship.paint (exalt) 15:57, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Checkuser note - I found no evidence of recent (as in more recently than their banning) abuse of multiple accounts, and agree that User:BarleyButt is  Unrelated. This is not an opinion on the request, I may comment later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - This was only two months ago, and I don't find the unblock request in any way persuasive. I'd feel differently if the editor edited some other projects for a long time (at least six months, preferably over a year) without having any COI, sockpuppetry, etc. As I said in the siteban discussion, using Wikipedia to advance personal real-world disputes, and sockpuppetry to game consensus, are two "high crimes" on Wikipedia. A simple, "I shouldn't have done that, won't do it again" two months later just isn't enough for me. I want to see proof that this editor can edit collaboratively (elsewhere) without abusing the privilege. Levivich (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Conditional support - if you haven't socked since your ban. PS- IMHO, you should've waited 'at least' six months, before requesting your ban be lifted. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have conditions in mind under which I could support in the future (and they are harsh) but this is too soon. If we start giving the impression that you can run amok abusing multiple accounts to defeat consensus and write hit pieces on living persons you know personally, and then once caught you can just apologize and move on like nothing happened, we will never recover from it. Some will call out WP:NOTPUNITIVE but I have always said that there is a benefit of deterrence in treating harshly editors who commit harsh offences, as Rathfelder certainly has, over the course of years and up to very recently. The standard is six months, though I can't say I feel even that is long enough. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Let me quote what I say just 2 months ago: "No one is bigger than the project, and I don't care how much "good" was done, socking to vote stack, on top of having a COI negates all of that and then some. Also if someone is going to need multiple topic bans to even be allowed to edit, they shouldn't be editing period." That was 2 months ago. I'm stressing that because that is WAY too soon to even consider lifting the site ban, let alone what led to it. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
• I cant respond to the discussion, but if the appropriate period of blocking is six months I am content to wait. Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC) copied from user's talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs)

  I can only speak for myself, but I want to clarify that I did not say that six months was the appropriate length of time. I said that's the standard, and I also said I wasn't sure that would be long enough in this case. There are lots of editors who did good work over long periods of time who got into similar levels of trouble and are still blocked years later. I don't want to discourage you, I don't think you're at that point, but I can't predict what's going to happen with this over the course of time. I've just seen a lot of "I waited six months so unblock me" ban appeals in my time here, and they are never successful. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Rathfelder: - my personal opinion, is two years, no socking, and edit other projects without much incident in that time. Plus, when you’re back, you’d still be indefinitely topic banned from certain areas. starship.paint (exalt) 01:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Starship, Rick, and Ivan. This unblock request coming so soon after the block feels shortsighted and frankly a bit arrogant. I'm simply not convinced that the net benefit is there - we'd have to tie one hand up watching both of his hands, and all the good content work in the world can't make up for a complete and utter lack of trust. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) I hate to say it, but as far as being an unblock request goes (i.e., regardless of the severity of the offence, socking, subsequent banning etc), it reads as mixture of "not my fault" and "didn't mean any harm", which fails to acknowledge that a) it wasn't anyone else's fault, and that b) harm was clearly done. SN54129 15:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a shame Mr. Rathfelder feels like the community was unfair, but Wikipedia has a right to protect itself from abuse. The request is long on excuses and short on apology. I see no evidence he has learned from this experience and in any case, he hasn't even waited long enough to request Wikipedia:Standard offer. Try again in six months with less whingeing and fewer excuses. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:14, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see no meaningful signs of remorse. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Starship, Rick, and Ivan. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm disappointed to still be seeing things like "I used this account to create Alex Scott-Samuel in February 2019. I fully acccept that this was wrong and I had a conflict of interest. I didnt see it as an attack page. I took some trouble to include his academic work. At the time there was a great deal of media coverage about him, almost entirely hostile and I did try to produce a more balanced view." It suggests that including his academic work is a sufficient balance for also including a nasty quote calling him "a swivel-eyed middle-aged conspiracy theorist" (attributed to The Times as "the Times called him...", but sourced to a clearly strong anti-Corbyn opinion piece from a columnist). I'm sorry, but I remain unconvinced by claims that it wasn't written as a deliberate hit piece by one of his professional enemies hiding their true identity with a sock account. As written, the article was around 50% "Controversy". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I doubt that I would support an unblock even after six months, but this appeal is way too soon to even consider. I find it hard to believe an experienced editor has this severe a lack of understanding of the standard offer, and of how the community views using socks to vote stack and to create a negative COI BLP. Both sock accounts were inactive for lengthy periods (eight months for Bigwig7, and two years for Boardman) but returned to editing. All three of Rathfelder's known accounts have been active at the same time, including tellingly, all three on Alex Scott-Samuel‎ in less than a one-week span. I find Rathfelder's explanations disingenuous. Meters (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is just trying to get everybody else to see the history with the same rose-tinted glasses that he is apparently wearing. But no, socking to include the quote swivel-eyed loon about a real life adversary in their BLP is not try[ing] to produce a more balanced view. Idk what it would take to convince me to support an unblock, but an acknowledgment of what actually happened would be the first step. nableezy - 00:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per above NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 00:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Request to close and deal with bludgeoning

... at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Doug Coldwell revisited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Admin guidance wanted at Ukraine war-related AFD

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine: phase 4, I am asking for an (uninvolved) administrator to step in and make a procedural-type ruling: is this AFD the place an issue (whether a "phase 4" of the war has started, or not) is to be debated, or is that properly being decided elsewhere? And either way, can this AFD be closed (please) because it was not properly started and has only gotten messier since? If appropriate, please open a new, clean AFD with a proper nomination. I hope an administrator could step in and help out with guidance (and i suppose say that you were asked, here). Thank you for your consideration! --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

Hi, How often these are checked / deleted? There are currently 200+ files in this category? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And on a related issue, how to add {{PD-UK}} to the acceptable license? See File:Livestock on the road outside Rhos Inn, Blaenffos, Pembrokeshore, circa 1900.jpg. I get the message This file cannot be imported to Wikimedia Commons because it is not marked with a compatible licence. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

On File:LeekTowngraph.svg, I get This file (or an older revision of this file) contains elements that cannot be accepted for security reasons: Setting event-handler attributes onload="g237al(evt)" is not allowed in SVG files. Yann (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

And in Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons reviewed by a human, many files can't be imported to Commons for various reasons. Many because of hidden revisions, so these should be made visible. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:49, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: My guess is that the category is reviewed by only a few admins at irregular intervals. I do look at it but have been a bit busy lately. WRT {{PD-UK}}, the corresponding Commons template (c:Template:PD-UK) is deprecated. When I updated the license here locally to use {{PD-UK-unknown}}, I was able to export the file to Commons. We should probably deprecate the use of this template locally as well. I know nothing about technical aspects of SVG so no comment there. AS for dealing with various impediments to copying a file to Commons, I have no good suggestions. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a good percentage of the files in this category should not have been transferred to Commons; these need to be individually reviewed and vetted for authorship/copyright issues. This also isn't an urgent backlog, there shouldn't ever be a rush to delete such files. -FASTILY 23:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, they were reviewed before being transferred to Commons. Yann (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that about you in particular. We often see files transferred by editors who aren't familiar with copyright. As such, standard operating procedure is for an admin to manually review each transferred file before deleting. -FASTILY 07:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

LTA sock

Please block Seethesignsaroundyou, sock of LTA Jermboy27--confirmed on Commons (I'm a CU)--see also this and this. Socking aside, they're attempting to engage in WP:PROXYING ([17][18]) and edit warring on Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Jermboy27‎. Эlcobbola _talk 17:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Request for previous edit to be removed entirely

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

---

I made an edit to a page which had the incorrect source cited; although corrected now, please could someone assist in removing the initial edit from the page's history?

Many thanks UnknownBrick22 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does it matter? We do not suppress/oversight edits without reason. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Admins are certainly capable of hiding the content of the edit, but there's no reason to. Edits aren't hidden to handle ordinary mistakes. They are hidden due to copyright violations, extreme disruptive text, potential libel (especially against a living person) or privacy violations. Your edit doesn't sound like any of these. Animal lover |666| 10:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

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

User:GoodDay reported by User:RoyLeban

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

---

Page: Hunter Biden laptop controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: GoodDay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20] First revert by GoodDay, this one is not a violation (though I believe it is a violation of WP:VERIFY, I am not making that argument here).

1. [21] Second revert, violates 1RR in effect on the page

Diff of notice posted to user's talk page: [22]

Comments:
This is a 1RR violation. Their previous revert was 15 hours earlier. GoodDay also disingenuously argues in the change comment that cleaning up citations is a "big change" that needs consensus: "Recommend you get a consensus for such big changes". No change to the substance of the article was made. Citing the same article twice in same paragraph, in the middle, and at the end, made it unclear that the source for the entire paragraph was the single article. This same article is also cited twice in the previous paragraph, and that should also be cleaned up, but I didn't do that, because it was more complex (that paragraph has information which comes from multiple sources). So this means that, in addition to violating 1RR, GoodDay gave a rationale for the revert which does not hold water.

RoyLeban (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I've only made one revert of the edit-in-question. Therefore, there's no breach of 1RR. But, I have undid my revert anyways. I am concerned though, about recent edits & discussions on that page-in-question. PS: The 'report' should've been made at the Edit-war page. GoodDay (talk) 08:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Both reverts were in the same section of the article, the first section, plus you provided a disingenuous rationale for the revert. RoyLeban (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, this isn't the page for reporting edit wars. But I am concerned with what appears to be WP:IDHT, refusal to drop the stick & WP:BLUDGEONING behaviour on your part. Furthermore, since your return to the 'pedia on Jan 15, 2023? You've concentrated entirely your energies, on just one page & its talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't edit Wikipedia often because it is too frustrating — things like this happen all the time. You know that I never saw this article before 2 weeks ago, and that I assumed a malicious editor had put unsourced material in the lede. So your accusations above, like your rationale for the revert, don't hold water. I assumed my changes would be accepted, yet you and other editors are not only blocking that, as this inappropriate revert shows, this group of editors is acting like they own the page and even cleanup of citations is not allowed without their approval. It seems like there is a huge case of WP:IDHT in that group. I've kept at it because apparently the thirteen previous editors who came along and noticed the same problem were bludgeoned into giving up. You don't get to tell me how I should spend my Wikipedia editing time.

I very rarely report anybody. Sorry if I reported it in the wrong place. RoyLeban (talk) 08:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I can only let the other editors who've communicated with you (since Jan 15, 2023) on the talkpage-in-question, make their own assessment of your behaviour at that page & more so its talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

If you feel like people aren't "dropping the stick", it's because there's been a succession of 14 different people calling for improvements to lead sentence -- but that's not Roy's fault, he just got here.Feoffer (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Change to the CheckUser team

At his request by email to the committee, the CheckUser permissions of MusikAnimal are removed. The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks MusikAnimal for his long service as a CheckUser, and his continuing service on Wikipedia.

For the Arbitration Committee, Primefac (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Change to the CheckUser team

• MusikAnimal, I and no doubt many others appreciate your service: thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Chhapra Family

I stumbled across this page doing routine NPP work. It clearly wasn't ready for main space - it was a single run on paragraph of bolded text and the actual subject/focus of the article wasn't clear. So I WP:DRAFTIFY'd it, which is the typical course of action in these situations. Subsequently, the original author recreated the page into main space with the exact same content. I reverted this by performing a round-robbin move (moved the draft to a temporary page, then moved the recreated article back to draft, blanked and tagged the temporary page for G6). However, the original author has recreated the exact same page in mainspace again, despite me notifying them of the move to draftspace. I've warned the user for disruptive editing, but I don't want to do yet another round-Robbin move (in fact, can't right now since the temporary page is still pending deletion). I've temporarily created a cross-namespace redirect from the mainspace title to the draftspace title in the hopes of getting the author to work on the page in draft, but I know that such X-namespace redirects usually aren't allowed. Thus I ask for help as to what to do next. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

First of all, protect the page from being recreated. Additionally, look at the user's edits and decide of this user needs to be blocked. Animal lover |666| 07:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I have protected the page in article-space. Lectonar (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Adding an article

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

---

Hi I am trying to add an article about https://mizmash.com/ which is a price comparison site for appliances. It is saying i dont have permissions, how can i add this? thanks Christampa999 (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a feature, not a bug. Per WP:AUTOCONFIRM, your account needs to be at least four days old with at least ten edits before you can create an article. That's not a matter for the administrators noticeboard. Also, please read WP:COI, because you have one. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks etc.

I would like for someone to look over my shoulder at User talk:Qalandar303. I've made a few edits to the article the editor is fighting over, so I'd prefer to withdraw administratively, so to speak, and the editor is testing my patience (which, admittedly, is in short supply). The editor has made some serious personal attacks on Talk:Subh-i-Azal, following their edit-warring with User:Cuñado over something silly--they wanted to add two citations that weren't actually being used, and in arguing their case crossed a few boundaries, IMO. I warned them for this edit, which put the cherry on top of the sundae. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think they upped the ante with a legal threat involving various other (?) editors. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Other editors may also wish to take into consideration consistent personal attacks and slurs by User:Cuñado - one against me personally, here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attempted_schisms_in_the_Bah%C3%A1%CA%BC%C3%AD_Faith#This_Page_Needs_a_Rework (which was admitted as being such by another editor) - against anyone who attempts to contradict narratives of the organization he has openly admitted to belonging to. I would also like to cite the following entry Criticism_of_Wikipedia as context. Qalandar303 (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed for legal threats. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)