Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
    CfD 0 0 5 8 13
    TfD 0 0 1 7 8
    MfD 0 0 1 4 5
    FfD 0 0 1 2 3
    RfD 0 0 0 68 68
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    "Twitter under Elon Musk" edit notice

    I have just added a comment at Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk and I was greeted by the edit notice Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. Yes, I get that there have been several move requests and that it is a controversial discussion, but does it need to be so big and disruptive? Can someone make it a bit less flashy? Cambalachero (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging InfiniteNexus for input as they created the edit notice. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The usual answer to the question "can someone do something?" is "who do you expect to do anything if not you?" If you don't have the technical skills needed can you at least suggest something better? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understood that editnotices can only be edited by admins, that's why I ask here Cambalachero (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I now see (it was pretty obvious in fact) that edit notices can only be edited by admins, template editors, or page movers. In such a niche area that only applies to one or two articles I would still do most of the work myself, only asking an admin or page mover to perform the final move. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Cambalachero said, edit notices cannot be edited by most users: "This is the page notice for Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk. This editnotice can only be created or edited by administrators, template editors, and page movers."
    The only recommendation that I can make is that the third line of the system message says "To request a change be made to the page, please submit an edit request, ensure you include a description of your requested change and the reason for the change" which did not occur. However, had it been done at Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk, then it might have been missed as Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter is the primary edit notice that the other one transcludes to. (In any case, this discussion seems to have become the edit request by default.) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (non-admin page mover) I can do it if there's consensus, although it could be good to put an alert at the relevant pages (Talk:Twitter, Talk:Twitter under Elon Musk and Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Twitter) to get a wider consensus on what's the best way to write the editnotice. (Edit: Relevant alerts have been sent) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus is on the result of the move discussions, that the edit notice informs about, and which I'm not discussing. Making a big and disruptive edit notice a bit more discrete, without changing its purpose, should be a simple thing and not require big discussions. As said, I would have done it myself if it wasn't for the detail that editnotices can only be edited by certain users. Cambalachero (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes it disruptive? Also for the record were you supportive or opposed to that consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus is on the result of the move discussions, that the edit notice informs about, and which I'm not discussing.
    I understand, I was talking about getting consensus for changing the editnotice styling. A much more minor thing, but I preferred to make sure that there wasn't any opposition to it before going ahead, as there might have been support for the current styling. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, the notice isn't big enough considering the volume of move requests. Cortador (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The flashiness of the editnotice was due to the various RMs (we're currently at 10) that had been repeatedly opened and closed without consensus for a move, which at that point was becoming disruptive, tiring, and repetitive (WP:DEADHORSE). Hopefully, if the proposed moratorium for future move requests passes, it will ensure stability and allow the editnotice to be more subdued. (Speaking of which, that discussion needs a close; if anyone here would like to volunteer, they are welcome to do so — there's a posting at WP:CR.) Editors are free to discuss the style of the editnotice on Talk:Twitter, or edit the embedded FAQ page directly. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    To be fair, as this discussion was said above to have become the edit request by default and I've sent a notice on the relevant pages to participate here, it makes sense that the discussion on the style of the editnotice could continue here rather than move again. Although, if it's preferable to continue the discussion on Talk:Twitter, I am not categorically opposed to it either. I'm not sure the embedded FAQ page was even a point of contention, the issue is really about the font size on the editnotice itself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about this notice but there have been concerns raised in the past that people tend to ignore notices. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Banner blindness? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC closure review request at Talk:United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#RfC_for_United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Syria

    While it's possible for an RfC that at least has some of the essence of an RfC to be procedurally improper in some regard and liable to procedural closure, this was not an RfC. It did not even resemble one. It was a manifestly inadequate attempt at starting an RfC. There is no prospect of success in achieving any kind of "result" here vis-a-vis "overturning": As the "RfC" was not an RfC, this was not an RfC review. A non-productive and time-wasting talk section was archived by Serial Number 54129. No one among the responding editors thinks that that was anything but helpful on his part. The starter of this discussion can start an RfC after determining that an RfC is the correct course of action, which may be the case when other, more lightweight, methods of dispute resolution have been tried (see WP:RFCBEFORE). (non-admin closure)—Alalch E. 14:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Talk:United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#RfC_for_United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Syria (Discussion with closer)

    Closer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Notified: diff

    Reasoning: This is a request to review the RfC close at United States and state-sponsored terrorism, to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly and closed RfC with wrong procedural close. There were five editors in this discussion, two editors thought this was not a RFC, then User: Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) reworded question to make it intelligible and grammatical. Two editors thought editorial synthesis of published material implied a new conclusion. One editor did not express its opinion clearly. Obviously, no consensus was achieved at this RfC. However, the closing comments were: "A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Procedural close for RfC that is not an RfC: N and RFC apply." I tried to discuss this with the closer, but there is no respond in 5 days. Kof2102966 (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Closer

    Non-participants

    Participants

    • Endorse - The closer was right in closing the RFC as malformed. The RFC was rewritten twice after posting, and any substantive close would have involved the closer comparing statements to versions of the RFC. The original version of the RFC was a statement. The Original Poster than rewrote it as an ungrammatical question. Another editor then reworked it to be a grammatical question. The RFC was inherently flawed, which is one of the reasons it had no useful answers. The Original Poster has two options, to leave it alone and unanswered, or to develop a new RFC that asks a question, and leave it unchanged for 30 days to get real answers. Closing the RFC as malformed was the right action. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse This was not an RFC. There was no proposal and the text under the RFC heading was a verbose argument, not even trying to be neutral. This was pointed out to the editor by multiple others. The close as "not an RfC" is appropriate. Cambial — foliar❧ 05:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    @Kof2102966: you don't need a closure review. You just need to discuss at the talk page and develop a new, better RfC question. The experienced users there, including RMC and WAID, can probably help you craft a neutral opening question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm sorry that @Kof2102966: felt it necessary to waste everyone's time with this 'report'. Noting that they haven't edited since, so this was by way of being a WP:GRENADE (albeit one in the guise of a damp squib), which states that When you make a report on a noticeboard, you're expected to stick around. The admins' noticeboards aren't places where you can fire and forget; they're places where you have to discuss what the problem you're having that's escalated so quickly you had to bring it there is about. Perhaps an admin could leave them a message as to expectations. Which do not generally include, when one has been effectively editing for only six weeks, to spend most of one's time on the talk page of a contentious topic, pushing something ideological, lots of bin Ladin and misunderstandings of original research, POV commentary and editing, as well as having to be warned by Cambial Yellowing for personal attacks—which was responded to with some belligerence—and now tying multiple editors up not only on the talk page, but at Dispute Resolution (a failure "at the start" noted the moderator), and now here. They have already been advised to read WP:BOOMERANG; they have chosen, unfortunately, not to follow that advice. So now I suspect we are in the realms of WP:CIR or WP:RGW or both, and neither of which is conducive to collaborative consensus building in an already-difficult topic. SerialNumber54129 14:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1RR and current events articles

    This is a bit of a perennial discussion, but I'm not sure if it's been discussed, at least recently, in a centralized location, and I'd like to solicit admins' views on how 1RR is supposed to work on a current events article.

    I recently made an edit to a high-profile current events article. That edit was a revert. I later went to make another edit to correct some incorrect information, and it occurred to me that changing what someone else just wrote would be a second revert, and I would be violating 1RR.

    What am I supposed to do? Wait until tomorrow to make any further edits to the article? Limit myself to only adding new information and not changing any existing information? Make edit requests for the rest of the day? Just keep editing until someone complains about my crossing 1RR and asks me to self-revert (and hope I don't catch a no-warning block)?

    These questions also apply to non-current-events articles, but with current-events articles, the articles become outdated and incorrect rather quickly as new sources are constantly being published (which is not the case for non-current-events articles).

    So what is the best practice here? How do I edit a current events article without crossing 1RR? Levivich (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If editing anything would touch the same text that was included in a revert (even if fixing/addressing new issues) I would consider that a partial revert. Better to discuss on talk page, so that it doesn’t escalate or feel like a tit-for-tat. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A month later, Telegraph RfC hasn't been reclosed

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 444 § RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues was reöpened (correctly, IMO) on 18 August. Well, less reöpened and more un-closed, since it's sitting in an archive. An edit just came across my watchlist citing The Telegraph on a gender article, and given all the work people put in to expressing their opinions on the matter (including me, full disclosure), it would be nice to have something to point to as the current community consensus, even if it's just an admin-approved finding of no consensus. A key issue in both the original close and the original overturn was that they were unilateral non-admin closes. Could we maybe get a panel of two or three admins to finally put this to bed? Otherwise I fear all that discussion will have been for naught and we'll be doomed to repeat it all in 6 to 12 months. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 18:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to mention, this is listed at closure requests, but CR has a backlog of 44 discussions currently. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not surprised. With close challenges becoming de rigueur and people pushing for the broadest possible interpretation of WP:INVOLVED, closing complex discussions is becoming an even more thankless task. – Joe (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean putting aside the general problems with closing, that Telegraph RfC is very long (68k words from a simplistic counter) and an extremely fraught issue in recent times. The re-opening happened after it spawned a 50k+ word review. (For clarity I mention the review not because anyone closing has to read it, but because it indicates the mess anyone closing probably fear awaits.) So I'm not particularly surprised anyone looking at closing who's even vaguely aware of the background goes "no way!" perhaps with some swear words thrown in. Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The irony of it is that it should be closed as generally reliable, which I suppose is the status quo, but it's such a sprawling swamp of a discussion—not counting the review referenced above!—that everyone will demand a panel* and/or a 5,000-word closing statement to feel justice has been done, and more importantly, seen to be done—writ large. And then there will be another massive discussion about the reclose of the reopening of the close. SerialNumber54129 14:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    * Present company excepted; I didn't spot that Tamzin had already mentioned a panel  :) SerialNumber54129 14:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey S Marshall, please reclose it. SerialNumber54129 18:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    S Marshall's point is a good one, to clarify: we have a situation in which those who took part in an RfC appear to have decided (with some room for dispute, of course) that X is a reliable publication on Y issue, but the broader community, when presented with the same issue, appears not to. Does the broader community (here) take precedence over the attendees of an RfC? Not necessarily; but who's got the appetite for another RfC?! SerialNumber54129 19:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe your third crack at this will be funny. Believe in yourself! Parabolist (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A person should not believe in an "ism". He should believe in himself. John Lennon said it on his first solo album. "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." A good point there. After all, he was the Walrus...

    User:Parabolist, are you the walrus? SerialNumber54129 18:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we not have another discussion here on the issue please? Until and unless someone closes the RfC in an unchallenged way, editor are free to believe what they want about what the RfC found be that the Telegraph is generally reliable on trans issues or not or that there was no consensus or whatever else. But from the community point of view let's stick with 'we don't know' or just don't talk about. Of course if you think you have have read the discussion well enough that you can be certain what the consensus was, are sufficiently uninvolved that no one will be able to reasonably complain about you closing the discussion, and have sufficient experience that you can close the discussion in such a way that enough of the community will accept you properly closed the discussion; well then feel free to answer Tazmin's request. Otherwise your opinion of what the discussion found doesn't seem to be something we need to hear about at this time. Nil Einne (talk) 10:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I very much agree. I actually don't have an opinion on what the consensus was, having only participated long enough to make a few comments. I'm just hoping someone will close it—for, against, no consensus, narrow consensus, whatever—and hope we can use this space to find some closers, and not to re(re(re))litigate the subject. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      +1. This debate has already spiraled badly out of control between the RfC and close review, the last thing we need is yet another discussion. The Kip (contribs) 19:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should've remained closed under the original closure. It's obvious the revert of the closure was done out of process. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LilianaUwU: For the love of G-d, could you please not? I'm here asking for a few brave volunteers to step up and close this mess, and I and two others have just begged everyone to not relitigate, and you want to, what, challenge the validity of the second close of the challenge of the close, a month after the fact, for being vaguely "out of process"? For heavens' sake. Please go write an article or something. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please go write an article or something. Challenge accepted. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe this one just doesn't need a formal close. It seems obvious that based on the arguments in the RFC and subsequent discussions, the community is not able to agree on any course of action right now. The safe course would be to pretend this drama never happened, and maybe start a fresh discussion (without all the baggage) to see if things have changed in 6 months or so. This just doesn't seem like a problem that can be solved right now. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On some topics, I'd like that solution. If there's, say, a heated and convoluted RfC about how to describe some aspect of the Hamas–Israel war, there's a good chance that scrapping the thing and waiting 6-12 months will yield better results. Here, though, I'm not convinced. This was a contentious issue in the first RfC in Jan. '23, it was contentious when this RfC started in June, and it's contentious now in September. I don't see a reason to think that that trend will have broken in six months. It's possible that there could be some deus ex machina in that time, The Telegraph fucking up on a gender matter to the degree of Dominion v. Fox; but if the facts are roughly the same in March, I think the consensus (or lack thereof) will be as well.
    What I do think might work would be for someone to do a fairly broad close finding no consensus or only rough consensus (I shan't presuppose which, but I think it's clear this is not a slam-dunk in either direction), but primarily concerned with highlighting the main points that should be discussed in any subsequent RfC. That way we could have some sort of incremental progress. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I largely agree with you, I just don't think we can even agree what goal we should have incremental progress towards (at least not without a ton more drama than we've already had). I think the Wikipedia equivalent of a mistrial due to a hung jury is the only way we'll move forward. That way, next time the opposing factions will hopefully have a better grip on what they need to prove and what arguments their opponents are likely to raise, so we can get past the blocker of "did X really refute point Y or not". I don't think there's much daylight between my suggestion and a fairly broad close finding no consensus; there's no chance we won't be back here in a few months so we might as well skip the intermediate steps of the close-review-review-review and the close-review-review-review-review. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Finding that there's no consensus is trivially easy, and any of our regular closers could tell you that there's no consensus about whether the Telegraph is reliable on trans issues. That's not even controversial. What's getting people so angry is the decision about what RSN should say in the absence of a consensus.—S Marshall T/C 07:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    IP address 89.243.60.161

    Vandalism bot just reverted an anti-Semitic edit by this IP to Theophilus Freeman. I spot checked and three of their five edits are similarly unhinged and/or horrifically racist. jengod (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP account has been blocked. I'll look into their edits to see if revision deletion is called for. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TY.
    Resolved
    jengod (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Technics SL-1200 Slow Edit Warring

    Djrichie t blocked by Bbb23 Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Djrichie t has been adding overly detailed pictures and descriptions to the Technics SL-1200 page. Multiple reversions have happened over a long period of time. I feel that this user is trying to promote their own personal business rather than add encyclopedic content, but they continue to undo my removal of their edits. I would appreciate some more eyes on this so that we can figure out how to move forward. hbent (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not promoting my own personal business. That claim is fully disputed. I am the copyright owner of the specific part mentioned, which I have provided citations including UK government website link to my intellectual property. It must be said that there are a number of jealous people on Wikipedia who have constantly tried to vandalise my contributions regarding this. There is no need to undo any of my contributions whatsoever as the basis is factual. Djrichie t (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Djrichie t:, you are editing with a conflict of interest when you do this, as you own the copyright to the parts. While you may not intend to promote your interests, it is generally advised that editors with a conflict of interest request edits using the talk page. Furthermore, calling the revisions of your edits vandalism is not helpful and is not the case.
    Could this be discussed on talk page of the article first? That is usually the first step of dispute resolution. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would disagree that there is a conflict of interest if the contribution has valid citations. You cannot get more valid than a UK Government link. So your claim is void. Djrichie t (talk) 23:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indefinitely blocked Djrichie for thumbing their nose at our policies and for continuing to edit-war at the article today.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Bbb23 using privileges for misconduct

    No merit to report,user directed elsewhere for their sandbox. Star Mississippi 02:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    If he had checked the edit history of MY personal sandbox, he would know it's fictional, plus, it doesn:t matter if it's a hoax, that's why it's a personal sandbox, i'm not gonna upload it ZZenyx (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review WP:FAKEARTICLE. Creating hoax articles, even in your personal sandbox, is not allowed. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are also eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G3. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never knew that may move to HHO instead ZZenyx (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is HHO? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they might mean HHW, Hypothetical Hurricanes Wiki. I linked them there, since it seemed like that's what they wanted to write about. -- asilvering (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    • Blocked User is creating more hoax content and making malicious edits. In one article, he changed "three" to "almost four" for no reason. He's clearly not here and I've sent him on his way.--v/r - TP 15:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks by IP

    This IP 199.119.233.223 (who is almost certainly the blocked editor Kelownatopdog) has engaged in a number of personal attacks in his edit summaries, see here [1] and [2]. This is clearly a case of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Thank you for your time. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked for a year given the previous block record and likely block evasion. Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ymblanter! --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

    Resolved

    Backlog Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Moxy🍁 15:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been cleared.--v/r - TP 16:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect....thank you all.Moxy🍁 16:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    YM Gud

    I have improved the Women in the Bangladesh Army article, and I have added information from here, I have copied the all news from this link, please see the article. YM Gud (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While I appreciate your efforts to contribute, you cannot simply copy content from news articles into Wikipedia. That is a violation of copyright - see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details on our policy. All contributions need to be written in your own words. I have removed the content and deleted the revisions. Please do not re-copy them, and please do not copy content from news articles into Wikipedia again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have added information about hijab and underwear policy in the Women in the Bangladesh Army article, please see the article, the article has also been improved better from before. YM Gud (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've indeffed the YM Gud for pagemove vandalism and clearly not being here to improve WP. Nthep (talk) 06:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They are back, as Yunus MIAH (talk · contribs). See this. --bonadea contributions talk 09:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now in the sock drawer. Nthep (talk) 09:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If any admin at commons is seeing this, please delete this image too. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Helper201

    User:Helper201 has engaged in disruptive editing on articles of political parties, and engaging in edit wars. Has been notified very recently to stop. here is an example of his removal of information 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 17:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to provide some more evidence. The example you gave was of this editor removing unsourced information, and, at a quick look, which is all I am prepared to do given your lack of evidence here, other edits seem similar. I can not find anything which is not a content issue that should be discussed on the talk page of the relevant article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    here he removed several ideologies from an infobox for "not political ideologies" (including Anti Zionism and Islamic democracy, which ARE ideologies or political beliefs. here it is again, same article i linked initially. and here it is AGAIN. He mostly just removes infobox information that he thinks aren't ideologies, even though they overwhelming consensus for YEARS is that they should be at least included in that section of the infobox. He removes swaths of information with vague summaries that seem to imply his personal opinion and/or what looks good format-wise. 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 18:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    off-topic
    You know, WeaponizingArchitecture, it's hard for me to pay attention to your argument when your signature is so obnoxious and it feels like it is "screaming" at the rest of us. It doesn't make me well disposed to listen to whatever point you are trying to make. Could you tone the signature down so it is just your username and a link to your talk page, like the standard editor signature? This is not a situation where bigger and louder is better. Thank you for considering the suggestion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    why are you being so condescending about my signature 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 11:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The 🤓🤓🤓 emojis appear like they are directed at whoever's reading your signature. I recommend removing them to avoid any misunderstandings. Ca talk to me! 13:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ok fair but barging into an AN discussion to complain about my signature is incredibly rude 🤓 WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 🤓 15:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WeaponizingArchitecture, those are examples of what I was talking about in my last post: content issues that should be discussed on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The words "mistress" and "affair"

    On Wikipedia, mistress and affair are defined exclusively in the modern pejorative sense. These words did not always automatically carry the connotation of infidelity or someone being a third party.

    Up until about 60 years ago, mistress was commonly used as a synonym for longtime lover (it's since been replaced with "partner" or what have you) and affair was synonymous for romance between an unmarried couple (now we call it a "relationship").

    There are folks of a certain age who still talk this way. I also know a lady who refers to her best friend as "My girlfriend" and younger people who hear it think she's queer. As Bill Maher said on The View recently, words migrate.

    Anyway, the respective Wiki pages must be edited by a skilled writer so past understandings of these words are acknowledged. Who's up to the task? Yours6700 (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is absolutely not a matter for WP:AN. This should be discussed on the talk pages of the respective articles. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if you feel the need to make changes, be bold and do it. Asking others to make edits for you almost never works. We're all volunteers here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place to right great wrongs. It feels like you have issues with evolving language and you should learn to work with others equally, whether they be 14, 47, and 74, and like the English language, we evolve too. Nate • (chatter) 23:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    involvement of admin in ARBPIA area

    User:Valereee has recently informed me of a formal warning to me on my talk page. She may have some good points, which I would be happy to consider as the friendly warning of a collegial editor, but she says it is a formal warning. Said admin has created and written the vast majority of the article Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict which goes into detail about exactly that topic: Israeli and Palestinian nationalism and so on, and not in a minor or trivial way. In light of the recent discussion above (higher up on the page), which found that WP:INVOLVED does include even fairly small edits, and this is no small edit, I would like to find out if WP:INVOLVED applies to ARBPIA here. The article in question is not simply about food but includes such topics as Israeli history, cultural appropriation, and national identity, which is a similar topic of dispute at Talk:Zionism. Is this admin INVOLVED? Andre🚐 21:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's remiss not to mention this part: If the community believes I'm involved, it's a friendly collegial editor warning about behavioral concerns, which really you should take just as seriously. -- asilvering (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't quote any part of the talk discussion but linked to the whole thing. And yes, as I just said and said in that conversation as well, a friendly collegial warning would be heeded, but she insists she is not involved and that this is a formal warning, which seems off to me. Andre🚐 21:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I do think @Valereee is involved, but the result of this objection is WP:POINTY. I'd recommend trouting yourself (from an uninvolved region perhaps in the Atlantic) and call it day. You could have thanked Valereee for the advice (as you did) and left it at that. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    POINT requires disruption, I am simply seeking clarification. As I said to her, she is INVOLVED, but she disputes this, and insists it is a formal warning, I did offer not to have to do this, but essentially my hand was forced by her insistence that she is not INVOLVED. Andre🚐 22:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, if she would just agree to abide by the plain meaning of INVOLVED (read, that she is), I will close and withdraw the thread, as I'm not seeking any action other than such a finding. She also, I didn't mention, created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli pita. Andre🚐 22:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And this is why we need to be careful about how we define involved. Nominating an article about a dish for deletion isn't a political act. The dish is apparently not independently notable. Valereee (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not disagreeing with the nomination. But compare this with the discussion of RTH above. RTH also made a bunch of RMs that he thought were relatively minor and didn't express a POV, but the community found that was involvement, because admins and editors should wear different hats in the area. I don't think this is so controversial that it needs to be litigated. Andre🚐 22:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea whether the current WP definition of INVOLVED applies here or not. And I have no intention of reading the linked section higher up on this page about RTH to look for similarities and differences in the two cases. But just as a reality check, I don't really see how writing that article on an example of food nationalism makes her involved in the entire ARBPIA area in general, or in the Zionism article. And the AFD is even weaker sauce. I don't think this is a POINT violation, but I also don't really think this clarification is productive. That said, I also don't see how your comment about preferring incremental editing warranted a formal warning about disruption (maybe the other stuff she referenced later, I don't know, but not the initial comment). Maybe this isn't helpful, but can I just gently ask both of you to do better, without pissing either one of you off? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine by me, you know I love ya and your ways, Floq. I'm tryin' here. Andre🚐 22:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's more. Valereee (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why I'm at AN, I tried to extend an olive branch, but we're stuck here. How is it fair, then, therefore, that this thread is out of order? I offered a de-escalation path, and it isn't being taken. Andre🚐 23:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I know, that's what I said. But you brought that up 4 1/2 hours later... your intial warning was only about the incremental changes comment. You mentioned the other stuff only when A pushed back. You probably know I don't touch ARBPIA stuff for this very reason, but it just seems like you're both being a little bit suboptimal here. I guess maybe the topic forces people to be suboptimal? Floquenbeam (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Floq, my initial warning was on the article talk page, about all the accusations of cherrypicking, before I came to their talk with the second warning. It's a really long talk page. 75K words. Valereee (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. I do not have a positive or negative thing to say about that warning on the article talk page. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no additional activity by me between those two messages, was there? Andre🚐 23:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll accept it if the community thinks I'm involved, but I edit around food. I seldom get into anything political except for the intersection of food and nationalism. I created Politics of food in the Arab-Israeli conflict because Falafel was turning into Politics of falafel, and I was arguing that falafel is a food, and even if it's being used politically it should still be treated as a food, and it was clear an article was needed so that all these politics didn't need to be dealt with primarily at the food articles. I created Gastronationalism for the same reason. As far as I can remember I've demonstrated no interest in working in PIA separate from food.
    If we are going to consider admins involved for a single foray into a CT that happens to intersect with their primary editing focus, we are going to have no admins who can work at CT. Valereee (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good article, but it's also extensively about politics and issues of potential dispute. Andre🚐 22:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, lest anyone invoke POINT again, I made a few edits to said article, and I left a note on the talk there. I think this move thread clearly shows there are many fraught political issues of identity and cultural appropriation which are hardly clear-cut. Andre🚐 23:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the slippery slope that myself and others tried to warn about in the recent discussion. Ultimately, Valereee has edited much more significantly on the topic area - creating a whole article - while the only evidence presented against RTH above consisted of a few wording changes that ultimately were not that significant of contributions to the topic area. Yet, the community apparently clearly showed that they believe an administrator making minor wording changes or participating in a discussion about specific sections of a page makes them involved. As such, there is no choice here but to consider Valereee involved because of the parallel.
    The question then becomes with respect to what is Valereee involved. My opinion would be that Valereee is not involved - unless the actual on-wiki dispute they are commenting in or taking administrator action on is related to that article or to a virtually identical topic/information on another page. However, Valereee's contributions to that article include (correctly so) many crossovers to the actual social conflict itself. Unlike RTH's situation above where they made relatively minor edits that basically only dealt with things that have happened over about the last year, Valereee has created a quite decent article that covers the topic (politics of food/identity) over the entire history of the conflict. It covers from After the creation of Israel, Jews migrated from many parts of the world to modern day developments (ex: the section Israeli couscous).
    I can't in good faith argue that Valereee should only be involved with respect to food/society based on the RTH discussion above where it was found that, regardless of the exact content/topic of the edits, RTH was involved with respect to the entire 2023-present war. That would be unfair to RTH and others. I would be okay with Valereee considering themselves involved with the topic of society/culture (but not with respect to military action, for example), but the problem is that over the history of Israel the military actions were all taken because of or had significant crossover with the societal conflict. As such I think Valereee would do best to consider themselves involved with respect to the societal conflict similar to how RTH was advised to do above. And ideally, to prevent people from having to have more discussions on this, they may do good to just choose to not act as an administrator in the entire Arab/Israeli topic area.
    To make it abundantly clear, I don't like where this is right now as a whole. I firmly believe that the discussion above dramatically changed the "norm" as to involvement - expanding it to entire topics rather than specifically the edits/content dispute/editors in question. However, as WP:PAG says, Technically, the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors. So while WP:INVOLVED should be updated to discuss involvement in a topic area (rather than in specific disputes), the current norm as defined by the RTH discussion above should be equally applied here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the only evidence presented against RTH above consisted of a few wording changes that ultimately were not that significant of contributions to the topic area is a very false statement. Levivich (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I argued that it was one primary dispute including 1917 Balfour declaration, Zionism up to present, but the community did not find consensus for that. From the community consensus, RTH would be free to admin about the nature of Zionism, despite their extensive editing history, since it is not the same topic as the Israel–Hamas war. RTH argued his creation of Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (27 Oct 2023) had nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war (7 Oct–Present) which the community disagreed with. If there was a Nationalistic humus food-fight I would agree we are in comparable territory then with current question here. This whole conversation is making me hungry now. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 07:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just made hummus last night. There are nationalistic (and subnationalistic) food fights everywhere there are people in conflict with someone who eats some of the same things they do. Which is pretty much anyone who is in conflict with a neighboring nation. Shopska salad is claimed by Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, North Macedonia, and Serbia. There's conflict at Hainanese chicken rice over whether it was invented in Malaysia or Singapore. There's conflict at Borscht over whether it's Russian or Ukrainian. Both India and Pakistan claim Basmati rice. Every west African nation thinks their Jollof rice is the authentic version. Taiwan thinks its cuisine is the only true remaining traditional Chinese cuisine. Armenia and Azerbaijan both claim Dolma. South Korea and North Korea both claim Kimchi. The list goes on and on, and I've at least touched most of these dishes, often writing about the conflicts over them. If I'm involved not only at the dishes themselves but also at the area of conflict, I'm pretty much involved anywhere people eat food. Which seems a bit silly, as I have zero interest in editing about (and often embarrassingly little understanding of) the conflicts themselves, but if I'm involved anywhere people eat, I might as well take AE off my watch. Threaten me with a good time. :D Valereee (talk) 10:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not just places! Gender & sexuality, GMOs, Pseudoscience, Climate change, Complementary & alternative medicine, and COVID are all food related. We'll ping you back to AE for any gun control stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, people hunt venison and such with guns. Valereee (talk) 13:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Damn! Abortion? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There, I actually am involved. :D Valereee (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Double damn! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Shushugah: I read your claim that RTH argued his creation of Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (27 Oct 2023) had nothing to do with the Israel-Hamas war (7 Oct–Present). I would appreciate that you link to the diff where I did so, because I don't think that I have. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have provided a diff proactively before publishing. I would have phrased it differently as a result. In the linked diff, you argued that you are involved in certain aspects of the war, but not others. Whereas community consensus found that you are involved in Israel–Hamas war broadly construed. My earlier comment regretfully implies something you didn't say. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 18:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 re this point This is exactly the slippery slope that myself and others tried to warn about in the recent discussion. But, I disagree that the RTH discussion should be viewed as some sort of precedent. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's a word we're overlooking here in WP:INVOLVED, which is "disputes". In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. ... Involvement is construed broadly by the community to include ... disputes on topics (emphasis added; parts not relevant to complaint elided). Has there been a dispute regarding Valereee's Israel/Palestine-and-food editing that resulted in her taking a side in a dispute that can be generalized to the topic area more broadly? If so, then she's probably involved. If not, then no, merely editing in a topic area does not automatically constitute involvement, with ARBPIA or with anything else. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute. While the outcomes of the article move discussion appear to be settled, there was clearly a move discussion that attracted support and oppose on that article talk, generalizable to a view on whether Israeli food is appropriating Arab food. Pretty contentious topic in this area, with duelling narratives. Andre🚐 01:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Valereee is involved with respect to the question of whether Israelis have appropriated Arab food. Is that what she warned you about? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current discussion is about sources for the lead of Zionism and whether it fairly describes it as colonization. You can see that the article she wrote includes this text, trategy has prompted accusations of colonization of Arab and Middle Eastern culture and cultural appropriation by Israel. Not food related but it does touch on the larger topic. Andre🚐 01:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, no, she is not acting as an administrator regarding something she has been in a dispute over, even broadly construed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Broadly construed, she was involved in a dispute about an article about Israeli national identity construction (ie, Zionism). Andre🚐 01:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, she's involved with a given topic if she was in a dispute over it. You can slice it or dice it however you want, but you're not going to convince me, or I think most people, that a veteran culinary editor having an opinion about whether "politicization of food" or "Israeli appropriation of Arab food" is a better summary of sources is the same dispute as whether Zionism is colonialist. Loosely related, sure. But "broadly construed" is not infinite. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the evidence provided so far, I don't think RTH Valereee has edited extensively enough in the topic area to be considered involved in everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I do think there's evidence that he she is involved with Israel–Hamas war disputes over Arab/Israeli food and closely related articles. In general, I think that contentious topic areas were identified and delimited by either ArbCom or the community to encompass broad areas in which disruptive editors were editing disruptively. The extant contentious topic areas have lasted because there are still disruptive actors. It is valuable to the community to be able to topic ban disruptive users from these broad areas. I don't think it is sensible to use these categories—ones built specifically to counter disruption—to limit the participation of non-disruptive admins. I'd feel different about the very narrow topic areas (I'm remembering the Shakespeare authorship question topic area). If this keeps happening, I'll make this a template, I swear. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're quoting our comments from the last thread, mine now feels a bit too on the nose: There's very few things in PIA that don't tie in to the current war. It's not true in the opposite direction: I don't think a lot of edits to conflict-related parts of hummus, Bar Refaeli, and You Don't Mess with the Zohan would necessarily disqualify someone from adminning ARBPIA. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've reminded me again that I'm hungry and impressed with Turturro's career turnaround. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had topic banned me from the ARBPIA, and then I added some stuff to hummus about cultural appropriation, that'd be a violation, correct? Andre🚐 01:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. However, if I (or rather some current admin) topic-banned you from hummus, it would not be a violation to edit about Zionism. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These two situations are not comparable. Let's review:
    • RTH
      • Talk:Israel–Hamas war is their all-time #3 most-edited article talk page
      • Voted in 4 RMs on that page and an RM moratorium
      • Created Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip, an article about a major event in the war
      • #1 author of Kfar Aza massacre, an article about a major event in the war
      • #6 by edits at Re'im music festival massacre, an article about a major event in the war
      • The four articles listed above are all among RTH's top 30 most-edited articles all time
      • RESULT: involved in "the topic of the 2023- Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... no consensus that this involvement spreads to all of the WP:ARBPIA topic area"
    • Valereee
    Obviously not. Not even close. Levivich (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why was the Andrevan account indefinitely blocked by Arbcom, and why was the account unblocked?Dan Murphy (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only is that not relevant, but it can't be discussed. But I can say it was unrelated to this topic above, ie not for an ARBPIA topic ban or involvement. Andre🚐 04:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dan Murphy: Entirely irrelevant and I encourage you to focus on the discussion at hand. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that feels relevant to at least ask. I was curious about it as well given the whole backstory. So no problem in checking. PackMecEng (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I see a few people misinterpreting my close of the RTH thread and how that precedent (if it even is one) would be applied here. If the arguments made here were identical, the rough equivalent would be WP:INVOLVED in the topic of food as it relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, no consensus that it spreads to all of WP:ARBPIA. Note that I haven't evaluated the actual edits made by Valeree so I'm not saying this is or isn't what the result should be here. I also think WP:INVOLVED is in need of a refresh to determine what the rule should be, since a lot of the language and culture has shifted since it was written. Topics with Discretionary Sanctions were often tightly defined, such as Liancourt rocks or Cold fusion. If the edits are confined to one narrow piece of an incredibly broad topic area, then involvement should also be narrow where that's reasonably possible. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Valereee is clearly not involved in ARBPIA. I hope this doesn't become a trend where people start coming here to get admins declared involved when they have a dispute with them. Pinguinn 🐧 05:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment The RTH matter transpired while I was on wiki-break. If I had seen it I'd have opined against RTH being viewed as involved because of precisely this kind of situation taking place. Andrevan was right to raise the issue. He can't be blamed for that, whatever the outcome here. So now, yes people are going to claim that admins are involved and it is going to be litigated, and they are acting in good faith because of the RTH decision. We can hair-split as to why X is involved and Y is not, but a perception lingers that we're in a mess of our own creation. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If I'm wrong I'm wrong and I apologize. But it would seem that the article is not about food, it's about politics. If Valereee were just editing about hummus' reception and its recipes, I wouldn't say a word. But I myself have edited about the topic of the politics of falafel [4] prior to Valeree's edits [5] and subsequent creation of the politics article, which again is about Israeli cultural identity formation, and not especially about culinary matters. So it would seem the two of us edited the same article about the same topics which are subtopics of ARBPIA. At the least, while she may not be involved in everything about the conflict, the two of us have become involved due to similar edits. Andre🚐 20:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're arguing an admin should be considered involved with an editor at an entire CTOP if the two ever edited the same article barely within that topic, even if they didn't have any interaction, much less dispute, at that article? Valereee (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm arguing that your edits imply a perspective on the topics and therefore neutrality and impartiality, or the appearance thereof, are lacking. Again, if I'm wrong, I apologize, but that was what I determined from the RTH thing, which perhaps I misinterpreted. Andre🚐 21:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The RTH discussion involved an admin viewed as being involved with the topic area. As I understand it neither this discussion nor the RTH discussion deals with involvement with any particular editor. We have RTH considered involved due to his edits in the topic area. I don't agree with the arguments made here that you haven't been editing in the topic area. So my position is that either you both are involved or neither is involved. I'd have preferred for both you and RTH to not be considered involved, but the RTH matter has already been determined. And btw I don't believe it's a question of partiality or impartiality. One can be impartial and involved. One can be biased and uninvolved. That's not the issue. Coretheapple (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Dispute between User:Symphony Regalia and User:Xslyq

    Although not violating 3RR, Symphony Regalia has been actively trying to censor Assassin's Creed Shadows in a manner that is controversial.

    1. Ignore existing discussions and attempt to delete large amounts of text without any discussion. 2. removed the reminder from the user talk page and marked it as a Minor edit 3. Ignore the compromises that have been reached and insist that they are controversial 4. Because of the previous point, I initiated the RfC and informed Symphony Regalia. 5. Still trying to remove text in an actively ongoing RfC. Xslyq (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a frivolous posting that is retaliation over me reporting the user's edit warring[6] on AN3 (note: user was warned by multiple people). User registered in 2017, and then made their first edit a week ago to strong-arm poorly sourced nationalist POVs/WP:FRINGE in the Assassin's Creed Shadows article, using a website that denies the Nanking Massacre.
    Pretty clear WP:NOTHERE IMO, so proposing a WP:BOOMERANG. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You have not denied any of the accusations.Xslyq (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a content dispute that should be, and is being, resolved on the article talk page. Why has it been brought here? The article content will be decided by the RFC, so it doesn't matter what version we display currently. User talk pages are an exception to the general rule and are (for most purposes including this one) owned by the user concerned, so point two is a nothingburger. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough, an IP user (62.34.248.94) who has never edited anything seems to have referenced the noticeboard discussion in Reverting.This is coupled with the coincidence of geographical location and Familiarity with French sources,.Especially considering that Symphony Regalia has been Blocked indefinitely on the Japanese Wikipedia for Sockpuppet behavior.Xslyq (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already been rebuked over this false implication and your contentious behavior by another editor[7].

    Given that the game is from Ubisoft, it's not really special that french IPs edit it. Also if you read the japanese block discussion it wasn't on technical grounds but on behaviour and the behaviour of the IP isn't exactly the same as Regalias. Just because 2 editors revert your contentious edit, doesn't mean there's puppetry involved.

    Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no doubt that you did engage in Sockpuppet behavior before. I hope any decision will take this discussion and the Japanese Wikipedia's RfC into consideration.Xslyq (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For someone who made their first edit a week ago[8], you are oddly familiar with the intracities of Japanese wikipedia, SpecialAuth, and so on. If there is a sock here it is likely you.
    I did not. A CheckUser was performed and the sock puppet allegations were not substantiated because they aren't true. I was blocked based on a comment request[9] where only 3 people gave input, but I believe that to be for reasons of offending Japanese sensibilities. On Japanese Wikipedia I have had a target on my back for a while for attempting to bring the Nanking Massacre article in line with the English counterpart
    None of this is relevant as I haven't edited on Japanese Wikipedia in a while. Symphony Regalia (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are permanently banned so of course you cannot edit Japanese Wikipedia with this account.This is the page that records your Sockpuppet behavior, which is the reason for your ban.
    Xslyq (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your account was added to the Sockpuppeter on August 31, 2024, so what does it mean that I haven't edited on Japanese Wikipedia in a while?Xslyq (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is false. It was not the reason for my block, which is why the CheckUser did not block. As mentioned above, I was blocked based on very vague RfC where only 3 editors gave input[10], with clear political considerations at play (Nanking Massacre article involvement).
    You are demonstrating unusual behavior even beyond being a clear WP:SPA.
    • Your first edit was a week ago, and yet you are also demonstrating knowledge of things like SpecialAuth, RfCs, archived discussions on separate wikis, and so on. Why?
    • Why are you intimately familiar with how Japanese Wikipedia works?
    Symphony Regalia (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your account was added to the Sockpuppeter on August 31, 2024 and I have no intention of tangling with your misconduct on the Japanese Wikipedia, as I have been informed that the actions of the Japanese Wikipedia have no effect on the English Wikipedia.
    1.This is not true, my first edit was at 19:47, 1 December 2021.
    2.Because there is a magic page where you can see the global account, and I know some Japanese.Xslyq (talk) 15:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, WP:SPA is an essay.It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. WP:SPA is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.I don't think WP:SPA alone is grounds for any sanctions on the account.Xslyq (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Xslyqs edits show clear SPA behaviour I'd say a page block from Assassin's Creed Shadows could become necessary. As for Symphony Regalia: Since basically all of their edits, since the TBAN from WP:GENSEX at AE (which they called harassment), have been about the topic of Assassin's Creed Shadows and Yasuke (which currently has an open arbitration case request). It's likely that another TBAN could be coming their direction, as their behaviour is sometimes disruptive (See WP:ARC). Nobody (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The panel has my full support. Frankly the ArbCom case couldn't have come soon enough. Yasuke and Assassin's Creed Shadows have undergone an abusrd amount of vandalism and blatant WP:SPA-type behavior (Xslyps is a good example) from the Gamergate crowd since the release of the trailer for said video game[11].
    They certainly both need CT designation and perhaps EC protection. My recommendation to the panel is in the case request, but I do think a CT desgination for culture war targets based on perceived DEI is appropriate. Symphony Regalia (talk) 10:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to point out that Symphony Regalia's behavior is inappropriate for a controversial topic. Not only the recent editorial behavior, but also mentioned repeatedly in the RfC consensus in Japanese Wikipedia. Symphony Regalia should also at least follow 0RR too.Xslyq (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xslyq while this is not the first time that the Japanese discussion is brought up here, what happened on jawiki stays on jawiki, especially if there is no conclusive device information to tie the accounts together. You are welcome to bring up new sock puppet allegations that happened on enwiki at WP:SPI if any. Otherwise, don't bring this up again or repeatedly. It does not look good on you. – robertsky (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. As a way of cooling off, I won't be editing Assassin's Creed Shadows main page indefinitely. If that's okay, I'm now looking to continue the discussion on the talk page.Still think 0RR should be applied to Symphony Regalia as well.Xslyq (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Community Wishlist: Please check out these groups of wishes

    Hello Admins,

    Community Tech has grouped some related wishes we received in the past 2 months at the Community Wishlist into problem areas (which we call focus areas).

    The focus areas look to:

    We intend to share these areas with the Moderator Tools Team for their consideration.

    You are invited to review and give feedback or support by voting. –– STei (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Transgender issues in Southeast Asia

    Would an admin who feels competent to deal with the topic listed please contact me privately via email? I can't say I always know when I'm out of my league, but I sometimes do. Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent vandalism of UK constituency pages by user LawNerd123

    User LawNerd123 is persistently removing notional results from UK constituency pages, contrary to usual practice on both Wikipedia and all major news sources. From previous discussion on the talk page this appears to be an issue they have with notional put together by ‘academics’, expressed somewhat conspiratorially, and they are now refusing to engage in discussion. Icc27 (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide diffs showing (1) vandalis; (2) refusal to engage in discussion; and (3) "conspiratorial[]" ideas. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are also required to notify this editor of the discussion here on their talk page per the instructions at the top of this page. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect this is what the filing editor was trying to achieve here, but that's obviously the wrong place to be writing to messages to people. Daniel (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical_elections_closed. Daniel (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Backlog at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list

    Per the instructions at the top of that page, MediaWiki talk:Bad image list has an unanswered request from 10 days ago and my request has been sitting for a week. Thanks, Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 00:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thev instructions on that page say to mark the requests with a {{edit fully-protected}} tag. I just did that with both unresponded requests. I doubt many administrators keep a close eye on that page; the tag categorizes the page in a much more viewed category. Animal lover |666| 07:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of page protection request

    Is there a formal procedure or place to go to have a review of a protection request? Moxy🍁 03:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about protection requests specificially, but Wikipedia:Administrative action review is a general place for reviews. Ca talk to me! 04:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not appropriate for a decline of a request of protection. @Moxy: The rationale for the decline is sound but I'll watch Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perfect thank you. Moxy🍁 19:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    trout Trout @Moxy: There is an ongoing discussion over editing the MOS trivia guideline and good faith editors who are making edits for concision and clarity. Moxy swooped in, reverted one of those edits, accused others of violating 1RR and 3RR without evidence, was told that this discussion is ongoing and productive, and has now sought page protection and is forum shopping to stop editing to the page. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotection

    Hello administrators,
    I wanted to move a newly accepted article Jishnu Raghavan (actor) to Jishnu Raghavan and subsequently to Jishnu (actor). However, I noticed that Jishnu Raghavan is admin protected. Welp, after taking a look at the past move logs (including today's userfication) and the relevant AFD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jishnu (Actor), I'm not focused on the article's past issues or its creation by SPA (although I suspect the recent creator may also be one), but considering potential conflicts of interest or paid editing, we usually recommend AFC process, and so, I see no opposition to unprotect. Additionally, if the article is SIMILAR to the previously deleted one via AFD, it can be speedily deleted and a sockpuppet investigation initiated. Your opinion matters too. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @SafariScribe: the article is quite similar, yes, and the account that created it, Nayab Shareyar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been globally locked for "lock evasion". So it's almost certainly a recreation by a sock. Given this, do you want the article to be deleted, or would you like to take responsibility for it and make sure it's in a good state? Elli (talk | contribs) 16:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just another recreation by another sock now globally locked for block evasion.-- Ponyobons mots 16:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Elli, delete it then. I have many works to do, but may look at it or request the material when writing articles. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 16:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SafariScribe: Done. Thanks for bringing this up, and for your work at AfC in general :) Elli (talk | contribs) 16:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1247948032"