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. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} 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 seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	18	0	18
TfD	0	0	6	2	8
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	8	2	10
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 user-reported username for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 136 sockpuppet investigations
• 15 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 0 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 27 elapsed requested moves
• 7 Pages at move review
• 31 requested closures
• 69 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 33 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 7989 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Operation Azm-e-Istehkam 2024-07-09 17:35 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Talk:Wikilink 2024-07-09 16:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan Talk:WBD 2024-07-09 03:35 2024-07-12 03:35 edit,move Apparent (i.e., fairly obvious) IP sock puppetry BD2412 8 July 2024 Ukraine missile strikes 2024-07-09 02:40 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq 3rd Assault Brigade 2024-07-08 23:45 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Robert Ford (outlaw) 2024-07-08 19:40 2024-07-22 19:40 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather 128th Mountain Assault Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-08 07:17 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C 47th Mechanized Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-08 06:08 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C 59th Motorized Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-08 06:08 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C Noodle and Bun 2024-07-08 04:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Noodle and Bun 2024-07-08 04:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Felicia Fox 2024-07-08 03:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine 2024-07-08 03:10 indefinite edit,move General sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR.; requested at WP:RfPP: Special:Permalink/1233247791#China and the Russian invasion of Ukraine Red-tailed hawk Adnan Hussain 2024-07-08 02:03 2025-07-08 02:03 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Late Ottoman genocides 2024-07-07 22:50 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:GS/AA Rosguill July 2020 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes 2024-07-07 22:49 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:GS/AA Rosguill Draft:Dr shajahan basha 2024-07-07 15:02 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Draft:Vandals are cool superheroes 2024-07-07 14:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Soke Sam Gervasi 2024-07-07 14:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Kirata 2024-07-07 01:18 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case List of Indian films of 2024 2024-07-06 21:36 2024-08-06 21:36 edit Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter User talk:Superduper313 2024-07-06 20:52 2024-07-13 20:52 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Yamla 35th Marine Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-06 20:42 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case 36th Marine Brigade 2024-07-06 20:36 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Agenda 47 2024-07-06 19:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Masoud Pezeshkian 2024-07-06 19:40 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IRP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan 2024 University of Oxford pro-Palestinian campus occupations 2024-07-06 04:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case 2024 Kiryat Malakhi attack 2024-07-06 04:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case International Legion (Ukraine) 2024-07-06 02:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-07-06 00:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish

An open letter to the Ombuds Commission and the Arbitration Committee:

Two months ago, in an unusual break from their standard procedures, the Ombuds Commission, at the behest of the Arbitration Committee, allowed it to be publicly announced that they were investigating me. [1] This was how I found out I was being investigated by this body, they had not contacted me in any way. We were told they would have a result "soon". I contacted them to express my concern at this public announcement, but also to make it clear I was available to them if they had any questions. They replied with a fairly generic statement assuring me that the process would be fair. I accepted this and waited a month before contacting them again, simply to ask, since they chose to make a public announcement, if they could just give me even the vaguest idea of when "soon" was actually going to be. That was a month ago, and I have received no reply of any kind from them.

I'd like anyone reading this to consider how they would feel in my position.

I have not been told what evidence they are considering. I have not been told what I could have done to violate the access to nonpublic data policy,[2] which covers personally identifying information, such as real identities or locations of specific users discovered through the use of advanced permissions in or in the course of dealing with suppressible material using the oversight tool, or IP addresses revealed by use of the checkuser tool, It is an important rule and I am not actually aware of any accusation that reasonably explains how I might have violated it. The information I shared offsite was not PII at all. I understand that the committee nonetheless felt I breached their trust. I don't agree with the hardline stance they chose to take on this but I at least understand it. I don't understand what the Ombuds even have to investigate, or why it could possibly take this long to reach a conclusion. I suppose it is also possible that they have reached a conclusion and have simply not bothered to share it with me or anyone else, despite having taken the highly unusual step of allowing one of their investigations to be publicized.

I find it ironic that a decision was made to reveal something that is usually held in the absolute strictest confidence, in response to an allegation that I had revealed something that should have been held in confidence. I don't think it is unreasonable for me to at least be told what it is I am accused of, to be given a chance to respond to those accusations, and to be given at least the vaguest suggestion of a real timeframe for when the case may be closed.

Please ArbCom, the next time you know the ombuds are investigating someone don't ask them for a public announcement.

Please, Ombuds, the next time someone asks you to make such an announcement don't do it. And don't say you will have a result soon and then sit on it for two months.

I have followed what little is public about the commission's work for many years now, and it basically never does anything quickly. Why the rush to publicize this case, when clearly you were not close to a decision?

Optics aren't everything, but they do matter. Publicly naming and shaming me without even having the courtesy to tell me first that I was even being investigated, without explaining exactly what is being investigated, without asking me a single question, and without giving any actual honest estimate of when I can expect a result is very poor behavior. Please, do better. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

(The Arbitration Committee has been notified about this message.)

I personally share the above-described lack of insight into what the Ombuds Commission currently does, why it does some things and why it does them the way it does.
As far as I see, the announcement link above is in response to a public WP:ARCA request asking for oversight and VRT permissions to be restored after they had been removed for private reasons. If the information about the Ombuds investigation had been sent to you privately instead, would you really have wanted to keep it private and been fine with a prohibition on publicly mentioning it? And expected the Committee to rely on this after the suspension?

Because from my point of view, there were two ways to deal with the information received from the Ombuds Commission: a) keep private or b) inform you publicly about it. The latter required additional permission I personally find reasonable to request in that situation.

Asked differently: Would you have preferred being silently investigated by the Ombuds Commission without even knowing about it? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

To be clear JSS didn't notify us of an open letter to us which I admit I find strange. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is... open  :)
But, more seriously, he probably assumed that, considering the alacrity with which arbs, crats and admins were crawling all over this very page not so long ago, that there was no need to... ——Serial Number 54129 13:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

When I've been a part of open letters I've not made assumptions that the people I want to read it will read it. I've instead either sent them the letter directly - as one normally does with letters - or pointed them to it directly. :shrug: Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It had always been my understanding that if they were looking into your actions, they would inform you privately so you could at least attempt to explain yourself. So what I would have preferred is that. To find out there was an ongoing investigation and to be told it was nearly concluded before I even became aware of it was certainly not how I thought it worked, or how it should work.

And now it is two months later and I know no more than anyone else about what they are investigating and when they will have a result. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I actually don't think that Ombuds reaches out to people it's investigating. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The way I got that impression was from asking a much more experienced arbitrator, but now that I think about it that conversation was at least a decade ago, so perhaps they have changed their internal procedures, which are an absolute black box. Except when they want to make a huge exception and tell the whole world. When they do one thing as opposed to the other is also about as transparent as piece of plywood. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that if it weren't the Ombuds, JSS would be aggrieved about something else, likely the fact that Arbcom didn't tell him OS revocation was being considered. What happened here is bound to cause hurt that won't go away in a few months. I also think JSS has a point. Having someone in limbo with no attempt to communicate or update for this length of time is unfair to him. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was already aggrieved about that, but I accept the rejection of my attempt to have it amended. That's just it, I'm not interested in dwelling on it, I'd prefer to just move on but I feel like there's this threat at any moment I might be subject to even more serious sanctions without even being told why. That kind of treatment is usually reserved for the worst kind of trolls and long-term abusers, I never expected to find myself being the subject of it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 your first sentence is beneath you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If any other editor wrote an "open letter to arbcom" and posted it at AN it would be closed so fast. This is not what this page is for, so I am closing this. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Original close
Not an AN matter. Take it to the talk page of arbcom or the ombuds commission, or the signpost, or the pump. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)}}

I've reverted the closure and copied the closing reason above. Issues of accountability, project-wide and inter-wiki governance definitely fall within "of interest to administrators" and this is the most central location to discuss it. It seems there are legitimate questions here regarding how the Ombudsman Commission operates, and stifling discussion that isn't disruptive is a bad look. Especially in a thread asking for greater transparency. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I...don't know. Reading through meta:OMBCOM I'm not entirely sure we have *any* direct means of recourse for their actions or how they conduct their business. As far as I can tell, they're only accountable to the board of trustees. What exactly can be achieved from this discussion, aside from perhaps a statement of solidarity if there's a consensus for that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

And even if so, why would that be a discussion only for English Wikipedia admins and not the general editing public? This is a discussion for the pump, or a page about ombuds or arbcom, or meta. But this is not something concerns enwiki admins, who have no role here. Levivich (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If I were an admin, or rather when I become one, I would like to know that I too could be put in such a situation if I were to apply and be accepted for CU/OS. Ombuds dont investigate users without advanced permissions as far as I know, so I dont think it's quite general readership worthy, but really who cares where this is? nableezy - 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was inappropriate to post this to a page unknown to the general editing public, to a page unwatched by non-admins, where only admins can comment and/or close a thread. Oh, wait... Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Straw man, floq. If beebs wanted the most eyes, it'd have been at the pump. If he wants the most sympathetic ears, this is the place. Levivich (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Far more people (and I'd wager a substantial amount also far more non-admins) watch this page than any applicable village pump page. I'm not sure you understand what straw man means; in this case, it directly addressed your false premise. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We both know what straw man means. to a page unknown to the general editing public was a straw man -- I didn't say this page was unknown to the general editing public. to a page unwatched by non-admins is another one; I didn't say this page was unwatched by non-admins. where only admins can comment and/or close a thread a third one -- you just made those three up, and then argued against them. directly addressed your false premise No, actually, it didn't. Here, let me repeat my premise for you:

Not an AN matter. Take it to the talk page of arbcom or the ombuds commission, or the signpost, or the pump.

Notice how that doesn't say anything about this page being unknown, unwatched, or only admins being able to comment and/or close a thread.

This lesson was free but next time I teach you, I'll have to charge. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

And even if so, why would that be a discussion only for English Wikipedia admins and not the general editing public? That sounds as if you are saying this discussion is not for the general editing public. Also, I don't agree that the pump is place to get the most eyes. More people will see this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point, I stand corrected, more eyes are here not there. Levivich (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a good time to beat this drum again, it should be Administration noticeboard, not Administrator's. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, ths actually is worth a proper discusson! (And, hopefully, validation.) +1 ——Serial Number 54129 17:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me like this is probably a discussion to be held at meta:Talk:Ombuds commission, or somewhere else on meta, with a notice or two at a relevant venue rather than a discussion for anywhere specific on enwiki. Just so it's clear, I'm not being dismissive of what JSS is saying. I'd also be concerned about a body saying they're investigating someone without giving feedback on the process to the person they're investigating. But I just don't think it's anything that we can resolve here on enwiki, because that body isn't accountable to us in the same way that local administrators, CU/OS, or ArbCom are. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

So, I did contemplate where to post this, and considered mutliple options, and ultimately decided this was the right place. Posting on the talk page of the ombuds is something I have already tried, they have never replied to any of my posts there. As this is not soleley, or even mostly, about ArbCom it didn't make sene to me to post it there either. Whether I made the correct decision ro not, I think since the arbs started responding here it makes sense to leave it here regardless. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't have the authority to force the Ombudsman Commission to do anything but open, public discussions like this have historically been a good way to draw attention to Foundation-level issues and get answers from the WMF. There probably isn't much the OC can say given the obvious privacy issues, but they might be able to clarify their process and give a better answer than "Soon". According to the most recent (but outdated) database report, this is the 19th most watchlisted page. If you ignore the ones that are only there because of an ancient bug, it falls inside the top 10. Shutting it down within a few hours gives the impression that we're trying to sweep it under the rug or cover up a transparency issue, which we shouldn't. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with JSS that the slow movement of the OC is not reassuring. The OC's glacial pace makes ArbCom look like a racecar by comparison (and I wouldn't accuse us of being particularly fast either). As for the substantive issue of notice, I am glad that the OC at least mentioned its investigation. I think the alternative, in which JSS could have been blindsided by a sudden OC finding would have, at least if I were in JSS's position, been even more disconcerting and distressing. I take general issue at the OC's lack of transparency and responsiveness. I do not however find the OC's disclosure ironic: we asked the OC if such information could be revealed. JSS did not ask when he revealed what he did. There is the key difference, which is what sets his conduct apart. Though, for what it is worth, I do not believe that JSS should receive sanctions from the OC; based on the severity of the actions, the appropriate action here was to remove him from the Committee, not to put an eternal black mark on him. As to the public nature of the notice, I think I would be content with the OC not mentioning investigations publicly so long as it was actually being communicative with the person they were investigating. There is a silver lining here: had the OC not revealed it was investigating JSS, we would not have been able to see just how slow and unresponsive the OC is. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support the reopening, and the call for an answer, even if one will be forthcoming. I think here makes more sense than the VP/WMF which while might be the right "audience" doesn't have the same level of eyes. Regardless of whether an investigation is merited, an editor (any, but especially one of @Just Step Sideways' tenure) deserves more information than what has been forthcoming. We saw this with WP:FRAM and nothing appears to have improved in the interim. Star Mississippi 22:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
• um something I think my issue is twofold. Firstly that justice should be swift and secondly it should be seen to be done fairly. Unending opaque investigations are inherently unjust and unfair. For the OC to admit their investigation publicly they have an obligation to deliver a swift and fair outcome. Instead we are left with the worst of mixed metaphors. A scarlet letter imposed as part of a interminable Kafkaesque Trial where the only thing the accused knows is there is a process. The arbcom were shockingly high handed when they rushed through their original decision and in so doing were harsh and uncaring to a colleague. This didn’t allow themselves time to get the coms right and cover off the unintended consequences like JSS’ OS permissions and this is the root cause of the manifestly unfair situation JSS has fallen into. I don’t believe that the committee intended this in anyway and that their aim was in part to do the swift and transparent thing but they have created a real human price from what at the time felt like a bit of performative politics. I hope the current committee reflects on this.Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Looking at their recent reports, it seems investigations often take about 3-6 months Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report Nov-Jan, Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report Aug-Oct, Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report May-Jul, Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report Feb-Apr, Meta:Ombuds commission/2022/Report Nov-Jan. So whatever the wisdom or fairness of this time frame, or of announcing their were investigating, saying there will be a result soon etc; it seems that the outcome here was fairly expected. While I appreciate soon can mean different things in different circumstances, perhaps at a minimum the commission should have said something like 'investigations often take 3-6 months'? Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• In the extraordinary situation where we decide to publicly announce that a named person is being investigated by the Ombuds Commission, that person should be informed of the announcement in advance. This shouldn't be a rule because it shouldn't need to be a rule. Everyone involved has been through a selection process that tests their judgment and discretion. That ought to obviate the need to explain what is, frankly, bloody obvious. An apology is in order, and a prompt one at that.—S Marshall T/C 10:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• It's the most common of bloody courtesies, whether or not you are a Wikipedian or anybody who works in any sort of professional capacity in the real world, to notify someone well in advance before announcing to the world that your star chamber is investigating someone for whatever high crimes or misdemeanors they've committed. Giving notice is a concept that has been around for as long as common law. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• (Speaking in an individual capacity) I think that it's important to note that the decision to publicise the Ombuds' investigation was taken by a Committee member alone, rather than a decision by the Committee as a whole. I was unfortunately inactive for JSS's appeal, but I'm not sure that I would've taken that decision (though I understand the transparency rationale). I'm sorry that JSS has been held in limbo for all this while, and hope that it will be resolved soon – I don't have any particular insights into how the Commission has been conducting their investigation and my guess is as good as anyone's in this instance. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Um.. that's actually shocking as the actual announcement refers to "we" not I. Given the context and the statement that this was an individual action was the OC misled when they agreed to allow an announcement? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  @L235 would you care to comment please? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the note. Five members of the committee (including myself) informally concurred in the decision to inform the community about the ongoing Ombuds case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I've now read a bit more of this discussion and can elaborate. I'm sorry for the anguish that I've clearly caused JSS here. That wasn't my intention. At the time, my thinking was that it might make sense to hold off on addressing the merits of JSS's request because we were told that a resolution in the Ombuds case would be coming soon. It would be particularly awkward for the committee to, for example, grant back the permissions and then have them swiftly re-revoked by Ombuds action, so it seemed to be best to hold off on addressing the substantive merits of JSS's request until the Ombuds had rendered its decision, whichever way it'd come down. However, we couldn't really do that without saying that the Ombuds had told us that a decision was on the way soon. With the benefit of hindsight, the request was decided fairly quickly on the substantive merits, and so this was unnecessary. But at the time, most arbs hadn't voiced a substantive opinion, and the disclosure seemed like a natural step. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Correct me but 5 isnt a majority right? The conversation appears to have excluded some arbs, so how many were actually involved and how many were excluded. Also was the referral to the OC an individual or minority action or was the referral agreed as a formal arbcom action? @L235 Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  So a member of the committee revealed committee communications without the approval of the committee? Sounds familiar, somehow... ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  I do want to clarify that once the Ombuds Commission gave the okay for disclosure, there was a discussion prior to it being disclosed and that I took part in that discussion and explicitly agreed to share that information. Whether disclosing it that way was the right call or not I don't think is up to me, but I don't want it to seem like it was a decision made solely by KevinL or that it wasn't discussed beforehand. - Aoidh (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  This must be confusing for people not on the Committee, so I've been told that it was a discussion not on the mailing list, so not all members were aware of the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I, too, have agreed to share that information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  So were you aware that some of the arbs were excluded from the conversation and does that bother you in any way? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't think much about the location and don't necessarily have to when stating my opinion about a topic. When I say I'm fine with something being published, I can do so in any conversation including a private conversation between two people. Whether the amount of such statements is sufficient for a specific piece of information to be published isn't something I had to evaluate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's a very political answer and to say you have no responsibility when your assent is being used to justify the addition of a scarlet letter on an editor seems .. um.. well not reflecting well on your character. Maybe I'm being unfair but every answer I have had on this subject has made me more alarmed not less. Is not giving a shit about process and fairness really the bridge you want to build your legacy on? @Aoidh interested in your observations too. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  At the time I did not consider the fact that not all of the arbs were able to see that discussion (though the email to and from OmbCom was on the mailing list). With the benefit of hindsight I think an email to the list summarizing the discussion and decision would have been warranted, and ideally a holding period where arbs could have time to disagree with posting it, given the atypical circumstances. That I didn't suggest that is on me and is something I will be mindful of moving forward. - Aoidh (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Aoidh that's a better more reassuring answer. I still have questions outstanding about the OC referral. Was the referral to OC agreed by the whole committee and did the whole committee agreed to ask the OC if they could publicise their investigation? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I have every intention of being transparent about my own actions as much as possible, but I am concerned that answering that question in a satisfactory way may run afoul of point #4 of WP:ARBCOND. I'm not trying to avoid the question, but I want to make sure it's answered appropriately. I'm going to ask about this on the ArbCom list. - Aoidh (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  # 4 relates to confidential correspondence received by the committee not correspondence sent by the committee. But per Barkeep this referral wasn't an arbcom action but an individual action. Should I take it that arbcom did not ask the OC if they could release the fact of the investigation.?

  Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  We were meaning different things by referral. I thought you meant initiating the investigation, not the fact that the investigation existed, whose facts have been discussed earlier. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  But the referral wasn't an act of the committee? Is that right. I expanded on my query below Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I was more specifically referring to the ...and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations since the answer to those two questions directly involves internal discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  But this apparently wasn’t discussed by the committee? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  An internal discussion did take place, though as I said above with the benefit of hindsight it could have been handled better on my part. - Aoidh (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Anyone can ask the Ombuds to take up a matter and I know in at least some enwiki matters more than one Arb submitted a request to the Ombuds. In this case I don't see any Arb cc'ing the list with any kind of report (though I could be missing it) so it seems like there was no committee "referral"? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  If I parse your answer this wasn't a referral put forward by you and that the referral wasn't discussed by the committee. Presumably then the committee did not request permission to release the fact of the investigation and the decision to release this information does not appear to be an approproately constituted decision where all in scope arbs could contribute. Am I being unfair or does this chain of logic reflect what happened? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  What are you calling a referral? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Reporting the matter to the OC as a potential investigation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  I am can make some informed speculation about how JSS was reported in November but I don't know. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  So how did it come about that OC were asked if the committee could publicise the fact than an investigate started? Seems shady that none of the arbs commentating has addressed this question in anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Spartaz: I'm not looking at my email right now, but my memory is that the OC's chair decided, without any prompting from ArbCom, to tell us that there was an open investigation. When we were informed they were asked if ArbCom could pass that information along to the community. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Spartaz I think Kevin addressed it above. It seems some arbs thought the OC might have made a decision quicker and were worried that the ARCA request might undermine that decision (if, for example, we decided to give JSS's oversight permissions back and the OC decided a few days later to yank them). As it happened the incoming arbs (including me) were of a similar mind to last year's committee and that was a bit of a moot point. I don't think anyone meant to tarnish JSS by revealing the fact of the OC investigation (I hadn't realised until this thread that ARCA was the first time it became known). I apologise to @Just Step Sideways for the undue stress that caused. In hindsight, it's clear that no decision was imminent and it wasn't material to the ARCA request. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Seems shady that none of the arbs commentating has addressed this question in anyway. isn't correct? I see that I had addressed it, L235 had addressed it, Aoidh had addressed it, and ToBeFree had addressed. HJ Mitchell has now since addressed it. I'm not sure what else you're looking for? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• It has been pretty obvious to me all along — having followed what you actually did post on WPO — that there was no merit whatsoever to this "investigation" or to their ridiculous action against you and that your "colleagues" at ArbCom were in a mad rush to kick you in the teeth before the clock ran out on their current term. Good for you for lighting a fire under their butts to put up or apologize. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  Endorsed, with added firelighters. ——Serial Number 54129 17:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• On Feb 24 2024, arbitrator Primefac stated the following on this noticeboard (unstricken): And if I hadn't used those words you'd find something else to complain about (diff). On March 7 2024, arbitrator Barkeep49 stated the following also on this noticeboard (stricken): I think that if it weren't the Ombuds, JSS would be aggrieved about something else (diff). Bold is my emphasis. So if I hadn't quoted these two seemingly disparate statements by these two arbitrators, I'd find something else to complain about? (Rhetorical: the answer is nyes, OT, goodbye.) El_C 06:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
  • To be preemptively clear, in my edit summary for the above, which read: non-random spotlight: a couple of arbitrators, a couple of chronic complainers? (diff), the purported "chronic complainers" are meant to represent those subject to the ire of the aforementioned "couple of arbitrators," not those two arbs themselves (i.e. I realize that my word ~flow was a bit meh). El_C 06:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• I would suggest that the five ArbCom members who agreed to publicise the information regarding the investigation (including L235, Aoidh and ToBeFree) check in with the Ombuds Commission on the status of the investigation and then update JSS and the community with the Ombuds Commission response (or lack of a response, perhaps at the one week, two week and one month stage). starship.paint (RUN) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Starship.paint: I have sent an email on behalf of the Arbitration Committee asking the Ombuds Commission to comment here regarding this matter. - Aoidh (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I appreciate that, but don't hold your breath waiting for a reply. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 05:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you Aoidh. starship.paint (RUN) 09:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• In my view JSS/Beeb was right to bring this here. Doubtless there are further issues I’m unaware of, possibly grave and deep, but at this time the raw facts presented in the open letter are remarkable, and the feeling this matter gives me is one of unease and dismay. A full disclosure and apology seem in order for starters, and possibly if others share my concern, an independent investigation into this case to clarify and make transparent what the rationale is. Two months of secret proceedings seems an outrageous chilling effect. Who will watch the watchers? Jusdafax (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  If the OC was done in two months it would be something of a speed record for them. They are glacial slow in the best of times. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yes as I mentioned above, whether right or wrong the speed of OC proceedings is one thing that isn't a secret, effectively their quarterly reports tell us that 3-6 months proceedings are very common. Nil Einne (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  That's kind of my point. I am fully aware that two months would be very quick for them, and they should obviously also be aware of that, so why did they approve a public statement saying they would have a result soon? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• What has this got to do with building an encyclopedia? Polyamorph (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  quite a bit. Elinruby (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how. Seems more like an overblown sense of self-importance from all parties which actually gets in the way of the process of building an encyclopedia, rather than contributing to it. I suppose that can be said of a lot of stuff that gets posted to the drama boards. Polyamorph (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• The Ombuds Commission cannot comment on cases publicly. We have sent an email to JSS with an update. Thank you, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  yep, you sure did, you sent me an email, finally, saying that you usually do take forever to decide anything and explaning why that is, but not addressing my actual concerns at all. I'm sending you all an email back, but I'm also copying it here:

  "I'm aware you guys take forever to decide anything, everyone knows that, I don't need it explained to me, what I'd like to see an explanation of is why I was not even informed this was happening, and why you let the whole world know about it before saying a single to thing to me, and why you let them say you would have a result soon, when you knew that was false.

  So, maybe in the future, don't allow a public announcement that you are doing an investigation and will have a result soon, when you know perfectly well that you won't have a result soon and that normally everything you do is kept confidential. That's the issue here, I found out I was being investigated when you let arbcom announce it, and even right now, I don't actually know what actions of mine you are investigating. I assume it's the same stuff the en.wp arbcom was upset about but it is entirely opaque to me how it is even a matter for the commission to be investigating as there is not any credible accusation that I am aware of that I misused advanced permissions or revealed actual personal information of any kind. " Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Pamandersonfanclub disruptive editing on Diagolon

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

---

This user keeps changing the Diagolon page and removing valid citations. It's clear that he is biased on the topic. I have already sent him a warning and he has since continued to edit the page. Ionophore (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Stale. Ionophore, Pamandersonfanclub was warned by an admin on March 2 for vandalism (diff). Their last edit was also on March 2, so I'm unsure what you are requesting us to do now. El_C 06:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh fair fair, I must have missed that warning! No worries then. Ionophore (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

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

2601:205:4300:54F0

IPv6 user 2601:205:4300:54F0* (IP alias 67.166.136.47) has engaged in repeated addition of unsourced, disruptive, and non-WP:RS content. User has received two previous bans for the same, and has continued disruptive editing without any acknowledgement of the repeated messages left on talk pages and edit summaries. Diffs for this most recent round—that is, after his latest ban—here: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. User is clearly WP:NOTLISTENING. Rift (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't have enough time to handle this appropriately, but I agree that 2601:205:4300:54F0::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) and 67.166.136.47 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are related and disruptive. Both have been blocked with a recent two-week block for the IPv6 range. It looks like the main issues are WP:DE, WP:BLP violations, and poorly-sourced and unsourced edits. They have never engaged on any talk page (their single edit to a talk page was to make an edit request). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies if this isn't protocol, @Daniel Quinlan, but can you take a look at this? I'm keen not to see this matter fade away without action. Rift (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Uncivil/potentially explicit edit summary

This revision [12] by 114.125.68.24 contains a potentially explicit edit summary. Per Help:Edit summary, only an admin can remove an edit summary, which is why I am requesting admin attention. Please let me know if I did this incorrectly. Mseingth2133444 (talk/contribs) 03:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This has been taken care of. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

IP used edit summary for insulting

Please hide/delete this edit summary. --Mann Mann (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it's not very civil (and obviously the IP will be blocked if it continues), but we don't revdel things unless they're "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive", and I don't think this rises to that level—it's just run-of-the-mill rudeness. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Strange numerical additions to articles

A series of IPs have been adding the same line of numbers ([13], [14], [15]) to articles and have been since at least February.

• 2401:BA80:AA05:6BE2:D847:87A3:2823:9123
• 2401:BA80:AA09:6D63:993E:4716:FE50:3EEE
• 2401:BA80:A102:4531:2049:1DFF:FE85:B0AA

I have no idea what the number is or why they keep doing it. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 13:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

No clue what's going on there, but with that wide an IP range, it sounds like a job for Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested. RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A soft block on Special:Contributions/2401:BA80:A100::/40 should stop it for now. Most all of the recent edits on that IP range are from this person. It looks like this person gets allocated a different /40 on that /32 every so often. Account creation is left on, so it shouldn't affect many people, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Requesting Block Review

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

---

210.3.136.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have blocked the above IP x 31 hrs for disruptive editing following a wave of unexplained reverts (no edit summaries) and rapid fire issuance of various levels of warnings to users both registered, and IPs. Their activities tripped the edit filter which was what alerted me to the issue. They were also deleting messages on their own talk page w/o reply. However, they are insisting their activities were constructive. Accordingly, and out of an abundance of caution, I am requesting a review of their editing and my block by any experienced editors. From my perspective, rapid fire unexplained reverts coupled with all of those warnings, and their failure to respond to messages and warnings on their own talk page, was disruptive. Am I missing something here? -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's well past midnight and I am off to bed. I will look in on this when I have a few minutes tomorrow. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

If Ad Orientem is missing something, than so am I. Mason (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I noticed the edits and had similar misgivings. Behavior trumps any presumed benefits from the edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Obvious troll, restoring obviously bad edits in the examples I saw. Likely an LTA. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• I reviewed a dozen, mostly bad reverts, and the rapidity of the edits, and the overall hostile demeanor of the editor, suggest the block is quite correct, and calls for an indef, as I see it. Agree with Dennis Brown: a troll. Jusdafax (talk) 05:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

IPs almost never get indef blocks. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• This is Hamish Ross, see other recent(albeit account) blocks: <example1>, <example2>. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:9438:F1F9:E653:5F6C (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Attention:_Toini_Ivanov. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Eh, that was also Hamish Ross, per their user page tag — my examples are more recent and more obvious. – 2804:F14:80C6:A301:9438:F1F9:E653:5F6C (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  Adding, not contradicting. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

  This is not a competition. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Multiblocks Wish updates

Dear admins,

Over the last few weeks we’ve been designing the user experience and user interface for the Multiblocks feature, that enables Admins to issue multiple blocks against an account (an account can be a user account, an IP, or an IP range).

Multiblocks was the #14 wish in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

After a design process and some consultation, we have published some designs of the feature. Please check them out and give feedback on the project talkpage.

Best regards, Community Tech –– STei (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate article creations

Dragisdr20 created and submitted Draft:Yerragundla. Because the article already exists, I declined and wrote them they should improve the and merge into the existing article instead of creating a duplicate. Without explaining why and without improving the draft, they did resubmit the article which got declined again. After a third submit and decline of the draft, I wrote them that they should stop submitting a draft for an already existing article.

I didn't got a response but instead they moved an other draft for the same village, Draft:Yeraguntla Sirivella Mandal to the main space that was declined multiple times too and finally moved back to draft space by Significa liberdade.

While I welcome their willingness to help, this practice just creates a lot of work for the reviewers. I don't understand the intention of creating articles that already exist and why they don't respond to messages, but that doesn't seem good practice to me.

I want to ask Dragisdr20 to stop doing this and have an administrator take a look at it. Thank you. Killarnee (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the article like user page User:Dragisdr20 seems like WP:COI. Killarnee (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Userpage appears to have been a rough draft for Ayyaloori Subhan Ali‎--as a draft this was declined thrice then rejected, after which Dragisdr20 moved it to mainspace anyway. It is now at AfD.

As for the Yerragundla drafts, they were clearly not ready for mainspace but it was less clear to me whether Yeraguntla Sirivella Mandal was in fact about the same locality in the existing article or about a different village with a similar name. Regardless, their edits, while perhaps good faith, appear to be largely WP:CIR-noncompliant. --Finngall ^talk 20:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

And again: Special:diff/1213469866 It this supposed to continue forever? Killarnee (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.

This page has become of what is being considered in RSes as Gamergate 2.0, though thankfully right now, attacks on BLP or other factors are minor, and from a quick history, very little revdel has been needed. However, a large number of fresh IP accounts have joined the discussion arguing against the approach taken in the current article (which is beholden to RS coverage and thus meet NPOV issues), being magnified in social media sources claiming the page is full of bias. (The article itself is locked down, that's not an issue)
Page has been tagged already with WP:DS/GG on gender-related discussions (which extended off the Gamergate arbcom case, and clearly applies here) But the number of IPs joining, knowing they are throwaway accounts, is getting louder. We probably just need some more admin eyes to make sure that we have 24/7 watch on any nonsense. — Masem (t) 00:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely needs additional eyes there. The talk page was already beginning to erupt a bit before the article page was protected, and the controversy doesn't show signs of cooling down any time soon. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If it gets so bad is semi worth considering? I know we don't usually on talk pages but still that is getting a little hard to manage it looks like. Valeince (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe temp ECP would be more useful, but I wouldn't be against starting at semi. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 01:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

A request for temporary semi-protection has been at RfPP for a couple of hours now. That said, in the immediate circumstances I think temp ECP would be useful, as there is evidence of off-wiki canvassing attempts on social media to the article and its talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The page has extended confirmed protection now, not be me, but by ToBeFree. Masem, do you think that the page will still need some extra eyes or if that should deal with the worst of it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Showed up just a bit late, but I'll say it anyway: my experience with the first 'Gamergate' leads me to believe that such a move will only magnify the already-occurring Streisand effect; that said, I completely understand it at the same time. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a Streisand effect here in the traditional sense of the term. I would characterise this as more of a tangential pile-on, because the sources that we consider reliable (for good reason) are publishing content that runs counter to the narrative that the groups who wish to use this backlash to kickstart GamerGate 2 wish to establish. It's akin to how the original GamerGaters kept pushing the "ethics in journalism" mantra, despite almost all reliable sources on the movement describing it as primarily a vehicle for harassment. The large follower accounts on social media that have been directing people to the article and talk page have done so primarily because of the content of the article, and not because it is currently protected. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There are, however, new comments coming very close to the line of personal attacks against editors. ECP should limit that, but as when GG happened, extended confirmed accounts came out of the woodwork there. We'll see, but also just as a general alert that we have this vector of complaints happening. — Masem (t) 02:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion is veering into personal attacks. Right now, I think the remedy is blocks. If there is socking or brigading, protection may be warranted on the talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is true. I know one user has been warned for making personal attacks against me, and I've read the other comments you're describing and agree with your appraisal. I'm also worried about the exhaustion factor, since midnight UTC there have been roughly 60 comments added to the talk page, and 112 over all of yesterday. How much more will we see over the next day? I can see the wisdom in temporarily ECPing the talk page, I can also see the wisdom in blocking SPAs, and I've proposed adding another option to the admin toolkit for this content area at ARCA. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a contentious topic. It's been duly labeled as such on the talk page, reminders have been issued to practically every editor on the talk page, in-line reminder sections about behavior have been made; at this point liberal application of blocking is the appropriate strategy, IMO.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I will add that there ARE admins currently watching the page, I'm just worried about "mods are asleep, attack the page" mentality at least for now. Masem (t) 03:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: there was exactly one (1) message that was considered a personal attack towards you, while it wasn't an intention, I can see how one can interpret it this way. Cheers. Moon darker (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And now a certain billionaire with a love for the 24th letter has weighed in on his website, so I expect this to get much worse before this gets better, especially going by this thread here. Nate • (chatter) 20:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a particularly concerning tweet suggesting, if true, that an admin is participating in off-site coordination of disruption of the article and talk page. That's rather concerning, and if true, should probably merit emergency desysopping. Though, as best as I can tell from the edit log, and the user's subsequent tweets demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of how adminship works, I suspect it's not actually true.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw that tweet about twenty minutes ago, and after doing some checking of the article and talk page history, I don't think this is an admin. There's another tweet they made about an hour later where they said that It's primarily admins on this forum for SBI since they removed edit privileges for regular editors. I suspect this is a rather clueless auto-confirmed or extended-confirmed editor, and I have suspicions about who it is based on one other tweet they made but I'll not post them here cause WP:OUTING. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I just came across another followup from them from early March in which they mentioned their editing permissions had been removed; so I suspect you're right. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, just found that tweet, and neither of the two editors I thought this is were blocked at that time. Could be sock puppetry maybe, or could just be someone trying to sound important. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, seems they only added "Wikipedia Admin" to their Twitter desc. sometime after 12 Mar 2024 05:47:57 GMT (Google Cache: [16] *edit: cache updated). – 2804:F1...E9:12A8 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) *edited 10:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I see that ECP has been implemented at the SBI talkpage.The "unblock request" at User talk:2003:D8:8F3C:E000:D08:F9:2CCA:F920 is worth a look. Clearly if I deal with it, I must be part of a conspiracy, having declined their request at RFPP and blocked a different IP for harassment. Acroterion (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This is 100% repeats of the patterns from the Gamergate situation, with new users lacking good understanding of both our content and administrative policies, as well as the attitude that the apparent bias in the article is an afront to them they must correct. We've got many protections triggered but this type of activity is trying to route around that, which is again, a repeat from GG. Hence why I just urge continued monitoring of the situation. Masem (t) 03:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The behavior is almost word for word identical to GG. This time we have better mechanisms for dealing with editors that believe content is a direct personal affront. I hate to compare it to real life horrors like Ukraine or Gaza, but the level of personalized dudgeon is higher than those, with far less justification. Acroterion (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There had been a case pending at DRN, which I have closed because it is also pending in a conduct forum (this conduct forum, WP:AN). If the WP:AN thread there is closed after the off-wiki canvassing is sized up, and a content dispute remains, a new case can be opened at DRN. For now, I will not try to conduct mediation while there is another aspect of the dispute in process. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Steamboat Willie edit war

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

---

Ever since the beginning of 2024, the page on Steamboat Willie has had the category Category:Internet memes introduced in 2024 added and removed several times. I would appreciate it if there would be a consensus for whether this page should have the category, or if a section about the meme should be added. 108.21.221.8 (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Per Talk:Steamboat_Willie#On_the_question_of_if_Steamboat_Willie_became_a_meme_in_2024, current consensus is against. You can add your view there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Unpleasant behaviour

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

---

The anonymous user (42.200.20.68) repeatedly threatened other anonymous users with account blocking for no clear reason. This user accused edits made by other users as vandalism, notifying the alleged vandalism on the accused user's page, but when reversing the edit, did not include the reason that he considered the edit he was reversing as vandalism. Natsuikomin (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Discussion to make a change to CSD:G5

• I have started a discussion on the CSD talk page regarding non-EC editors creating articles that fall under EC restrictions. Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Floating_an_idea_about_G5._Creations_by_banned_or_blocked_users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Bakkafrost informative brand page

Bakkafrost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakkafrost made it's yearly update on its official Wikipedia page by Template:User110022. Template:Mean as custard who did not prove any industrial knowledge classified the page as "promotional" as keeps reverting to the old version, which is now factually outdated and incorrect, hence needs updating. Please review the version which was recorrected on 09:19, 13 March 2024 by User110022 and settle the argument if it classifies as promotional or not. User110022 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@User110022, it looks like you're edit-warring to insert a large amount of unsourced, promotional content. Also, your wording implies that you are editing on behalf of the company; please read WP:COI, particularly the parts that explain how to properly declare your conflict-of-interest and how to request edits to articles. Schazjmd (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I am a company employee, so I am editing on the behalf of the company. I'm happy to verify this if you could let me know the steps for that. User110022 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@User110022, verification isn't needed but a declaration by you is needed. Also, you should use the {{Edit COI}} template on Talk:Bakkafrost to request changes to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive user

hello,

I would like to report user Paper9oll. I have been trying to correct information on the Wikipedia page of deceased artist Moonbin surrounding rumours of his death. I am providing sources from his management's official platform FanCafe in which they posted a letter from his mother correcting rumours of his death. The user in question is continuously removing my edit with my valid source included, accusing me of defaming this artist, which is simply not true. I am simply trying to correct false information listed on his Wikipedia. JKJeonEuphoria (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Your source is not reliable, JKJeonEuphoria, and this is not the right forum: you need to discuss this matter, with the editor and perhaps on the article talk page, before you post in a forum like this. Your behavior on User talk:Paper9oll is not acceptable, by the way, and I will drop a note on your talk page. I think you should try harder and read all the relevant information--there is a big fat note in this very page which says "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page", another big fat note which says "his noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally", and you probably should have followed the links provided to you by Paper9oll. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Help! need someone to close a RM in a contentious area. Reward: Girl Scout Cookies.

(...if still available at time of closing) OK, please help out, admins: Talk:Bojana (river) has an interesting move request, one that may be longer than the actual river. I know which way I'm leaning, but I'm not comfortable enough in my knowledge of naming conventions. Your help is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove

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

---

@Vito Genovese is not active anywhere, including the local wiki, and he doesn't seem to need IP block exempt anymore. 176.216.246.13 (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

And it no longer requires reviewer rights. 176.216.246.13 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

What is your interest here? 331dot (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

@Xaosflux 176.216.246.13 (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

From time to time we clean certain old permissions up. It is a process that takes a while, and some requires rounds of notification. Unless there is misuse occurring, third party removal requests are generally only entertained in the more 'required' cases (like admins, intadmins, crats, and bots) or for special situations like deceased users. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. So I ask again, IP user, what is your interest here? 331dot (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I'm interested in is removing the rights of inactive users and paving the way for new users. 149.140.112.51 (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Emrahthehistorist17 mass edits to infoboxes

Emrahthehistorist17 (talk · contribs) has been engaging in mass edits to infoboxes which are inconsistent with many different guidelines on Wikipedia, including MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, {{Infobox military conflict}} |result= guidance, and unsourced additions to those infoboxes. When reverted, the user responds brusquely (eg Do not delete my additions) and instantly uses undo.

This behaviour has been consistent, with a long series of warnings from January 2024 to that effect on the user's talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I see no indication that the Emrahthehistorist17 has learnt anything from these discussions when replies therefrom can be generously characterised as emerging from a prosecutorial complex: As long as you delete my edits like this, your website will never improve. It's done., I don't even have an idea about what are you talking about. But you seem like someone with authority on Wikipedia, and restricting me just because of your authority is a sign of injustice. Edits of this character include the following articles:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fall_of_Constantinople&diff=prev&oldid=1210776403 r
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Persian_Wars&diff=1211069421&oldid=1210732707 r
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman%E2%80%93Seleucid_war&diff=1211101487&oldid=1193607582 r
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains&diff=prev&oldid=1210545883 r
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Gravia_Inn&diff=prev&oldid=1211181760 r
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_the_Ottoman_flagship_off_Chios&diff=prev&oldid=1209533110 r
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Constantinople&diff=prev&oldid=1209585624 r
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Rome_(1527)&diff=prev&oldid=1211053965 r
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Rome_(1084)&diff=prev&oldid=1211054955 r
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mithridatic_Wars&diff=1213687999&oldid=1195385904 r
11. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pyrrhic_War&diff=1213687451&oldid=1209447021 c
12. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Lycus&diff=1213505424&oldid=1136474359 c
13. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Syracuse_%28213%E2%80%93212_BC%29&diff=1213348990&oldid=1212984291 c
14. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sack_of_Amorium&diff=1213347461&oldid=1212450445 c
15. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Siege_of_Heraclea&diff=1213346517&oldid=1212907329 c
16. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=1213302248&oldid=1210923833 c
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_the_Persian_Gate&diff=prev&oldid=1213177830 c
18. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_War_(535%E2%80%93554)&action=history (1, 2) r
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Caucasus_campaign&diff=prev&oldid=1213129109 r
20. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russo-Turkish_War_%281735%E2%80%931739%29&diff=1213127193&oldid=1209365034 c
21. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fourth_Crusade&diff=1213037088&oldid=1211314336 r

These edits systematically disrupt the quality of these articles. I ask for a topic block – probably history of antiquity, the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey – with mass rollback. Pings follow for persons previously involved: @AirshipJungleman29, Kansas Bear, Padgriffin, and NebY. Ifly6 (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see much alternative to a topic block absent a change in behavior. Talk:Mithridatic Wars#Revert, March 2024 is not encouraging. Mackensen (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Slowking4

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Slowking4 who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2). Thank you. v/r - Seawolf35 ^T--C 19:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)