Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks[edit]

    XFD backlog
    V Jan Feb Mar Apr Total
    CfD 0 0 0 33 33
    TfD 0 0 0 1 1
    MfD 0 0 0 1 1
    FfD 0 0 0 3 3
    RfD 0 0 0 56 56
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 7632 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Cliff Cash 2024-04-29 15:24 2024-06-04 12:22 move Persistent sockpuppetry: extending Ohnoitsjamie
    Michael D. Aeschliman 2024-04-29 06:44 2024-05-13 06:44 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy Anachronist
    Wikipedia:Free encyclopedia 2024-04-29 03:24 indefinite edit,move Drop prot Pppery
    White Colombians 2024-04-29 03:17 2024-05-20 03:17 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: straight to WP:ECP due to involvement also of several confirmed accounts El C
    Government of Iran 2024-04-28 20:25 2025-04-28 20:25 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/IRP ToBeFree
    Everyone Knows That (Ulterior Motives) 2024-04-28 17:30 2024-04-30 15:20 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: increase requested at WP:RFPP Favonian
    Draft:The Car Accident Lawyer Group 2024-04-28 08:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Jimfbleak
    Battle of Ajmer 2024-04-28 06:42 2024-05-05 06:42 move Don't move an article being discussed at an AFD discussion Liz
    Khymani James 2024-04-27 21:35 2025-04-27 21:35 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Minouche Shafik 2024-04-27 18:35 indefinite edit,move oops, accidentally full-protected Daniel Case
    User:Travism121212/Privacy law - Group D 2024-04-27 06:36 2024-05-04 06:36 move Stop moving this article around. Submit to WP:AFC for review Liz
    Travism121212/Privacy law 2024-04-26 22:17 2024-05-03 22:17 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Connecting Humanity 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    Mirna El Helbawi 2024-04-26 19:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    User:Samory Loukakou/Erin Meyer 2024-04-26 18:29 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD
    24 Oras 2024-04-26 18:25 2024-06-26 18:25 move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD
    Nasimi Aghayev 2024-04-26 17:17 indefinite edit Community sanctions enforcement: sorry, WP:GS/AA, that is (so many AAs!) El C
    Atrocity propaganda 2024-04-26 17:09 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR, WP:PIA and others, I'm sure El C
    Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 April 2024 – present) 2024-04-26 16:49 indefinite edit,move and it continues... Robertsky
    Beit Hanoun 2024-04-26 14:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AELOG/2024#PIA Malinaccier
    Rangiya Municipal Board 2024-04-26 13:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by sock of Rang HD Dennis Brown
    Siege of Chernihiv 2024-04-26 12:40 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR Filelakeshoe
    Bed Bath & Beyond (online retailer) 2024-04-26 03:31 indefinite move Repeated article moves despite recent RM discussion Liz
    Carlos Handy 2024-04-26 00:14 2025-04-26 00:14 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/BLP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States 2024-04-25 22:17 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Israa University (Palestine) 2024-04-25 17:35 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Blu del Barrio 2024-04-25 17:14 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Daniel Case
    Gaza Strip mass graves 2024-04-25 17:03 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Red Phoenix

    RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss[edit]

    WP:RSN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question)
    (Discussion with closer)

    Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Notified: [1]

    Reasoning: The following is copied and modified from my post at Chetsford's talk page. I think that Chetsford's close was generally correct, but I think that this aspect is an incorrect assessment of consensus: A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for WP:BLPs. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted. I searched the RfC and "BLP" was used six times in the discussion. Only two of those mentions are in relation to the reliability of the source, and as Chetsford noted, neither provided any direct reasoning:

    • In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best.
    • Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond WP:BIAS and regularly WP:Fringe. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order.

    The only indirect reference to policy is to BIAS (as FRINGE is a guideline), and Chetsford discounted that argument in another part of the close. I can't really divine[] what other policies these editors may or may not have been thinking about. I'm not sure what past statements the first commenter is thinking about, and without more reasoning, I wouldn't say that this single argument is strong enough to establish a consensus that Mondoweiss should not be used for BLPs just because nobody happened to rebut it in a long discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uninvolved[edit]

    • Endorse close Amend While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt that statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. Buffs (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Amended: This sounds like a WPian hearing what they want to hear. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance Buffs (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement to claim that we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP. Obviously, it ended up in RSN again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a left-field supervote and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend per M.Bitton and Wordsmith. We already treat BLP with caution, and this issue was not discussed enough to reach consensus. If needed, a new discussion on how to use MW with regard to BLP can be made. Meanwhile, I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6 to conclude that option 3 should be reached. Note that since option 2 is essentially the middle ground, option 1 and 3 have the same weight, but option 4 has twice the weight of option 1 when skewing option 2. This doesn’t seem very fair, and then rounding 2.6 to 3 because of this is increasing the unfairness, leading to essentially 13 editors overruling 21 editors. starship.paint (RUN) 03:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      A-men Buffs (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Two minor points of clarification: I have zero problem with amending per above and, while I can't -- objectively -- read the RfC that way, I would personally be glad to see this outcome.
      That said, I am concerned that some editors are reading the aggressive and misinformed arguments of two relatively new editors on the "anti-" MW side who have attempted, very poorly, to summarize my close and assuming those summaries accurately represent the close. The only closing statements I wrote are this one and this explanatory comment, both of which are much more modest than the way in which two editors are summarizing them to make sweeping changes across multiple articles. To avoid the further spread of this misinformation, I would ask, as a personal favor, that editors attempting to describe my close (regardless of where you land on it) reflect only on the source material, and not the apocrypha it's spawned. To wit:
    • "I’m wary of using the ‘average’ value of 2.6" The "average" of 2.6 was never used for anything (and, yes, I realize the incidental appearance of this meaningless number in the close has been fixated upon by the aforementioned editors to make major changes to articles). As per the text of the close rationale, the number 2.6 was simply noted as "indicative but not definitive as per WP:NOTAVOTE" and then immediately discarded as "not clearly learning toward either option" before the narrative analysis began.
    • "to conclude that option 3 should be reached" The RfC close reached no such conclusion in any dimension of time or space; in this reality or any parallel reality that the mind of man can conceive or imagine. It stated that no "consensus as to its underlying reliability" emerged which, if anything at all, was a "2" close (but, actually, no consensus).
    To summarize, this was a "no consensus" close with a relatively modest (and not proscriptive) BLP corollary described by Buffs in this first (now stricken) comment. The fact my loquacious reasoning, intended to promote transparency, instead provided an opening to wedge in battleground behavior is beyond both my control and mandate (RfC closers are not RfC enforcers). Chetsford (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarity...I think... :-) Buffs (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Chetsford: - perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, you quoted from me, but I was not referring to your RfC close. I was referring to the below analysis by FortunateSons. I apologise for my vagueness having caused confusion. starship.paint (RUN) 08:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Involved[edit]

    • I've archived my discussion with Voorts here for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with Voorts that review of the close is appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend close to read "and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsford per the arguments made by @Chess and @BilledMammal, which were not sufficiently addressed; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @Chetsford for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made here, @Bobfrombrockley here and as a compromise: used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be content marked as activism and similar would be appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).
      I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      When giving a list of options (1. Action A 2. Action B 3. Action C 4. Action D and 5. Action E), saying "the average is 2.6 so we should choose option 3" is a horrible misunderstanding of statistics. You are heavily weighting all other actions other than #1 (Example, 20 people !vote 1, 2 people !vote 2, and 3 people !vote 5, the "average" is 2 despite an overwhelming preponderance of people !voting 1...in other words, a 5 is worth 5x a 1). Rounding up only further exacerbates the issue. Buffs (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:
      The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.
      Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed" They were addressed. You just didn't agree. Buffs (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Amend per The Wordsmith. My own views on the source aside, the issue of BLP use was barely discussed - there was no consensus on it one way or another, so to assert one in the closure seems odd. The Kip 19:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion[edit]

    Could you please use this translation?[edit]

    I translated this page from Portuguese to English (https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Tavares_(administrador)) given that the existing English version of the page was very limited. Could you help me posting the translation? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fgvwiki07/Rodrigo_Tavares I havent found the correct way of doing it. Thanks! Fgvwiki07 (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fgvwiki07: I have moved your userpage into draft space and submitted it into the Articles for Creation program. It is now Draft:Rodrigo Tavares. Be advised, it is unlikely to be accepted at first attempt, if at all; for a biography, there are far too many unsourced and possibly poorly sourced statements.
    I note the discussion on your talk where it seems that—five years ago?!—you admitted a conflict of interest with the topic. Have you been in breach of the terms of use and multiple policies ever since? Posting here, rather than moving it yourself, is a start, but I do not see the necessary declarations made anywhere. ——Serial Number 54129 11:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for your reply. The English translation mimics the original version in Portuguese. It is just a translation of an article that has been active for many years now. I have actually done my best to add additional sources and references. I will keep adding. Regarding the conflict of interest, well, I can not even recall that. I have no contact with the person if that was the case. Fgvwiki07 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fgvwiki07 The talk page needs a template attributing it. I think it's at Help:Translation Doug Weller talk 06:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A question about edit warring[edit]

    Hello, I'm unsure if this is the right forum, but I have a question regarding some behavior I've seen from an experienced user that seems to violate Wikipedia policies.

    In those two cases (one and two), on two different dates, the same editor (@Selfstudier) has restored a new addition that was reverted twice, sending everyone to "discuss it", when there is no consenus for their re-revert. But from reading WP:ONUS, WP:EDITWAR and WP:BRD, that seems to be against the rules.

    In both cases, I contacted the editor and asked him to explain their behavior, but they sent me away.

    • On the first time, he answered: "I have made precisely one revert so am not edit warring, nor have I any interest in your irrelevant commentaries."
    • On the second time, he answered: "Discuss it at the article talk page.", and then wrote on my wall that I'm harrassing him.

    On the editor's user page I see more problematic conduct, such as telling someone their edit was "lazy, POV, bad faith". The same editor has also labelled me and other editors who voted different from him on an RFC an ""a pro-Israeli POV blockade," but when someone asked them to withdraw their words, their answered "Your edit comment a couple sections above is also inaccurate, I put this down to your being a relative newcomer to WP." To be honest, this feels a bit like bullying.

    I'm seeking advice on how to address this issue. Can someone intervene or offer guidance? Thank you.

    P.S. I originally posted this on the edit war noticeboard. If this still isn't the right place, please point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance! ElLuzDelSur (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @ElLuzDelSur: Although this is framed as a question, it is really a complaint again Selfstudier, whom you are required to notify per the instructions at the top of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it sounded like a complaint, it wasn't meant to be, but I do think some of those actions might violate Wikipedia rules. I just want some advice on what's acceptable here, and what's not. I'll let them know of the discussion. Thanks for the help! ElLuzDelSur (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm aware, Bbb23 pinged me. Selfstudier (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In both the instances you cited Selfstudier (who I don't believe you notified of this discussion) only made a single revert - both to very large additions of controversial material to articles in contentious topic areas. Per WP:ONUS the onus lies on a person who is adding text to justify it. A single revert, asking for discussion at article talk, isn't edit warring. It's actually pretty much standard practice. Simonm223 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223, in both cases the editor re-added new content that was reverted before. In other words, reinstating a new addition that was reverted twice. From what I read, if someone did an edit that was reverted, others are not supposed to re-revert it. So what I am asking here is if editors can restore an edit that was reverted several times before them. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If multiple editors are going back and forth regarding an edit on a page in a contentious issue it's probably indicative of a risk of an edit war. However that generally indicates it would be a good idea to take the dispute to article talk and thresh out the problems there. And, in such cases, you can hardly isolate the last editor and say, "see that is the one who is edit warring" - especially when they are the one saying, "let's take this dispute to talk." Simonm223 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ElLuzDelSur Let's look at the history leading up to one of the questioned reverts here: [2]
    • April 11 you added in this edit. Which you called a revert despite being substantially different from the removal immediately before it.
    • David A reverted you here saying it looked POV, also April 11 [3]. In an ideal scenario this would be the point the discussion would have gone to article talk. It's not policy but WP:BRD is generally treated as culturally appropriate and we see B and R there.
    • OliveTree39 restores your version calling it consensus. Based on edit history (and please note I've never edited this page myself) I'd question that statement. [4]
    • Selfstudier then reverts this [5] and, quite rightly, suggests taking up the issue at talk. This is all happening in short succession - so while it is indicative of a risk of edit warring nobody is actually breaking WP:1RR here and, frankly, Selfstudier looks correct in their judgment. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another interesting way of phrasing "OliveTree39 restores your version calling it consensus." is to write "OliveTree39, who registered their account at 2023-12-27T08:53:38, restored the version of ElLuzDelSur, who registered their account 29 minutes, and 28 seconds earlier at 2023-12-27T08:24:10, calling it consensus." Given the vast size of Wikipedia this is an impressive example of a highly improbable event. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta say, I was trying hard not to bite the newbie but, looking at their edit history in greater depth, this isn't surprising. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus for your revert either, so instead of accusing them of edit warring, you should have started a discussion on the article's talk page. You "asking them to explain their behaviour", even if framed as an innocent request, is in fact an unsubstantiated accusation of bad behaviour that they certainly don't have to entertain or respond to. Doing it twice, could easily be seen as a form of harassment. M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fully protected the article for a week, less than the time this has been edit warred over, which should be plenty of time to get an RFC going on how to frame the lead. Feel free to poke me when the protection expires so I can restore ECP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 'edit warring' on Tom Aspinall's page[edit]

    Two other editors, one of whom engaged in personal attacks on my talk page after I reverted a couple of his changes and the other of whom appears to be an admin, keep restoring the claim that Tom Aspinall is of Polish heritage on his Wikipedia page and when I provided a source with the names of Aspinall's parents they reverted it, claiming it was an unreliable source, and the admin then blocked me from further editing the page for edit warring, when both of them arguably started it and never made any attempt to guide the discussion to a talk page. There was no warning for this and neither of them has been able to explain why my source is unreliable and theirs isn't. If some other Wikipedia people could weigh in on this that would be appreciated. 164.39.154.22 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse pageblock, brightline edit-warring, and you weren't personally attacked. A warning is not obligatory. Reliable sources are required. Acroterion (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is 'I get it. You're British, its very important to you that Aspinall is as British as you are.' not a personal attack? He also accused me of googling random sites in pursuit of confirmation bias in the history section of the Tom Aspinall Wikipedia page. Also, what makes the source I provided unreliable?164.39.154.22 (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a personal attack. You're being disagreed with. You are still able to edit the article talkpage, where you can provide appropriate sources for consideration. Belief that you're right is not a justification for edit-warring. Editors are not your opponents, they just expect you to get sourcing right when challenged. Acroterion (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "its very important to you that Aspinall is as British as you are" is absolutely a personal attack, it's a blatant accusation of nationalist bias. Try substituting "British" for something like "Black" or "gay" or "Jewish," and I think you'll see how inappropriate that kind of comment is. Levivich (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is very much a personal attack, in addition to being a dumb strawman. Bad faith assumptions about the other editor's motives are a poor way of handling a content dispute. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed Zanahary (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (from AIV) "Edit warring" is a suboptimal block reason when the blocking administrator made three reverts themselves. Of the default reason dropdown, Persistent addition of unsourced content and especially Violations of the biographies of living persons policy make a less involved impression and clarify the actual justification for the block. Also, unless the situation is really clear, the response to the BLP violations should ideally be limited to removal of the challenged content, without restoring any previously-present material, as that's not covered by WP:3RRNO #7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the central issue is one of conflicting sources. The edit-warring violation is a bright line, but such a justification should be used by someone who hasn't reverted. All that said, Talk:Tom Aspinall is thataway, and a much more productive use of volunteer time, including that of the IP's. Acroterion (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a separate, but related matter, I wonder if we should have a templated pageblock notice that in the clearest possible terms tells new editors to go to the article talkpage to work it out. The pageblock notice isn't much help, and editors who have been p-blocked end up complaining, rather than being helped into productive problem-solving. Acroterion (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What am I supposed to do if they just ignore me though? I've asked on my talk page why the source I provided is any less reliable than the one they use and have yet to receive an answer and it looks like both users have moved on to other discussions judging from their edit histories.164.39.154.22 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did answer you on your talk page. ... discospinster talk 00:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't respond to my follow-up question though, and speaking a language from a different country doesn't necessarily make you from that country. In this case for example Tom could just speak Polish because his wife is Polish, a fact which I'm pretty sure is easy enough to find so I won't bother posting any references for that fact here.164.39.154.22 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article said his mother is Polish, and he speaks some Polish. It's not a leap. Also here he is on Instagram saying that his family are Polish-English (yes I do understand some Polish to answer your follow-up question). He is not from Poland but he is of Polish descent.... discospinster talk 00:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article did say that but that doesn't make it true and could very easily just be wishful thinking on the part of the Polish authors and if the reference I provided can be believed his parents at the very least have English names. I've never seen a source with a direct quote from Aspinall or anyone related to him stating that his mother is Polish. Like I said before, his wife is Polish and he's stated he has a lot of respect for the country of Poland so it's not a leap to assume he simply learnt Polish to please his wife. References to his having a Polish family could also just be a reference to his wife's side of his family rather than him being of Polish descent (which is also not true as I know for a fact his father was English which is also quite easy to find and therefore not worth referencing here and so is at most of partial Polish descent).164.39.154.22 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    could very easily just be wishful thinking on the part of the Polish authors
    is an inappropriate aspersion cast on Polish authors. Zanahary (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, the same exact type of personal attack as the British one quoted above. Levivich (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Open a discussion (a polite one) on the article's talkpage, listing sources. Your talkpage isn't a good place to work that out, it should be where people now and later on can see what was discussed. Be patient, these things take a little time - that's one issue with edit-warring, the urge to make it stick right now. Also, WP:BLPN is a good venue for getting speedier discussion. Acroterion (talk)
    The OP clearly violated WP:3RR so should be blocked according to that policy whether right or wrong. Others may have violated it - I haven't checked. The content dispute should be settled at Talk:Tom Aspinall with nobody mentioning the irrelevant nationality of editors. If there are no clear reliable sources then the descent should be omitted. I would add that the name and the ability to speak a language are not indicators of nationality. I speak fluent Polish myself but, as far as I know, I have no Polish ancestors, and I know several people with "foreign-sounding" names who are in fact British. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits from The Banner[edit]

    I would like to request another perspective on edits made by TheBanner. I am uncertain about their intentions, as they seem to be consistently reverting many edits, often citing WP:CIR, I know my edits are not perfet however I have seen problems. For instance, my addition of a military service module on Chuck Norris's page—similar to those on Morgan Freeman and Elvis Presley—was removed with the rationale that Norris is "not known for his military service." Although this is true, the inclusion of such a module can be informative. Furthermore, there have been issues regarding WP:Civility; TheBanner has described my edits as "cringe" and made sarcastic remarks, asserting that competence supersedes civility. This focus on my contributions has been puzzling, and I would appreciate an external review. My editing history is publicly accessible, and I anticipate that TheBanner might respond to this discussion. I am simply seeking additional opinions on this matter. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In fact, I have a severe concern about the competency of User:LuxembourgLover to edit wikipedia. The main problem is his failure to judge the due weight of many items, resulting in him writing articles about tiny events. I just point to Talk:Luxembourg rebellions, Talk:Morrisite War, Draft:Battle of Amalienborg and USCG Auxiliary Flotilla 6-9 (and related Talk:United States Coast Guard Auxiliary). The Banner talk 00:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Banner, that response would have been so much better if you'd but the first sentence and a half. You're probably right in suggesting (?) (the diff above must be off) that competence supersedes civility, but that doesn't mean that a lack of civility isn't problematic. I don't think the comments here rise to a blockable level or I wouldn't be commenting, I'd just block, but I wish you'd think twice before pushing "Publish changes". Drmies (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BeauSuzanne[edit]

    This user BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) quietly drafting BLPs of non-notable Pakistani actresses, then moving them to the main namespace without even attracting any attention. Even though their contributions focus on a less scrutinized area, it's concerning that they've managed to fly under the radar. I stumbled upon this user when I noticed they added WP:OR using a dummy reference to a BLP. Dummy in the sense that upon checking the reference—a 90 minutes-long interview video—I found it did not support the claims made in the BLP, and this is consistent across other BLPs created by this user. They've even cited references that may not even exist, which further adds to the concern regarding the accuracy and reliability of their contributions. For example, see this, this and this. When questioned, they disappeared without explanation. Upon some investigation, I discovered that many of the BLPs they created had previously been deleted via AfD. Most of the BLPs this user re-created were formerly created by a confirmed sock puppet (Dramanrama (talk · contribs)) associated with Pakistanpedia. For example, Amna Malik, Ghazala Butt, Humaira Bano, Humaira Zaheer, Farah Nadeem, Madiha Rizvi, Natasha Ali, Maryam Noor etc. Not a coincidence. And there are similarities in editing patterns between this user and serial sock users like Pakistanpedia or maybe even Bttowadch. It might be worth investigating this user further, possibly through behavioral evidence, as the socks of Pakistanpedia seem adept at evading detection via technical means. I'm uncertain where else to report this issue, as I lack sufficient evidence to conclusively prove that this user is a sockpuppet of Pakistanpedia or Bttowadch. However, their behavior strongly suggests a connection to someone accounts. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if you believe the new articles are "substantially identical" to the versions that were deleted via AFD, you could tag them for CSD G4. These tagged articles usually take a little longer to evaluate because the admins patrolling CSD categories have to compare new and old versions of the article and examine the sources used. Be sure to link the the AFD discussion involved because some times the page titles differ in some aspect. The larger question about whether they are a sockpuppet or not would have to go through an SPI complaint. Since you already have identified the sockmaster (which is often the hardest step), I don't think this should be a big problem as long as you list articles that both parties have created. However, know that there are many editors interested in writing articles on pop culture, like films and actors, so editing tastes might have little relation to whether or not the editors are connected. If you have other concerns, such about the quality of the sourcing or OR, then this discussion here might well continue. But is there a reason you posted this complaint at AN rather than ANI? Just wondering. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see you have already nominated 5 articles they created for AFD discussions so more information might emerge during those discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 21:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz - I didn't tag them for speedy deletion because I wasn't sure what the versions looked like before they were thrashed. And yes this discussion should continue because if I can't produce enough evidence linking this user to a serial sockpuppet, a warning or even a block may still be necessary becuase as I highlighted the user creating BLPs on non-notable actresses, then adding blatant WP:OR and in some cases adding promotional content using dummy references which suggests possible paid editing. And these are prohibited, especially since BLPs fall under contentious topics. Fyi, Pakistani pop culture articles, especially BLPs, are infested with serial sockpuppets. I originally posted this on ANI, but I moved the discussion here because I believe ANI requires cases that need imidiate attention. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 23:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I see you are mentioning my style is similar to the sock puppets you mentioned but I have no connection with any of them. I was once confused with sock puppet but I told them I don't have any connection or nor I am a paid contributer. I am just contributing to wikipedia. Yes. Some of the articles were deleted when i started writing on them back then I was new and I didn't knew much. I started at Wikipedia in 2020. And for sources I add usually from their interview videos in which they discuss their backgroud back then i didn't add their previous interviews in which they talked now i tried to find it but I didn't found it maybe it was deleted now when I am adding a video interview I try to archive it. I admit I don't explain stuff when I do editing. And about cited references I take it from books which I find in wikipedia in books section.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    • Now that the user has somewhat admitted above as well on their talk page to adding WP:OR, I leave it to the community to decide on the appropriate course of action. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am honest here. That I don't have any connection and I haven't copied any style. I leave the rest to the community to decide.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
        • The OR issues aside, I can confirm that there is no technical connection that I see that links the editor to a sock master. What I will say, BeauSuzanne, is that you should really stop editing while logged out, esp. if it involves collusion. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Drmies: Not even with Insight 3 (talk · contribs)? And by the way this isn't just a matter of adding WP:OR. The user has been consistently creating BLPs for non-notable actors, many of which were previously deleted through AfDs. Their approach of creating drafts and then moving them to the main namespace raises concerns. They've been using references that don't support the claims made in the BLPs. They've been citing lengthy videos in Urdu language, making it difficult for others to detect the WP:OR. This behavior warrants investigation as it is unacceptable. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • User:Saqib, if you think there's socking, you should start an SPI; I'm just telling you what I found, from a technical point of view. Drmies (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Cleanup for an import booboo[edit]

    Hi all. After a mentee had uploaded a non-free file to Commons, I made a request to Explicit (because he is an admin both here and at Commons) to Special:import the file to enwiki and delete the copy at Commons. However, he made {{trout}}-worthy mistake and also imported the templates associated with the file. Some of these files existed locally, in which case we have a WP:PARALLEL history mess, in which case we should probably delete the imported history. Others which did not exist locally should just be deleted per G6 as obviously created in error.

    It is currently 12:30 in the morning for Explicit, and judging by his timecard he is probably asleep. Would an admin or two be able to help clean up?

    I will be notifying Explicit, but I absolutely do not think he should be sanctioned with anything more than a seafood dinner. Humans, mistakes, etc..

    Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 15:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    TODO LIST:

    I've done all of the history splits. Any other admin is welcome to delete the accidentally-created templates. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the first time someone has made this mistake, and it won't be the last. Filed phab:T363740 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Icon on speedy deletion template[edit]

    Hello, I've proposed adding a clickable icon to the speedy deletion tags. Please visit Template talk:Db-meta#Add clickable icon to participate in the proposal. Nyttend (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Phase I of RFA2024 has concluded[edit]

    Hi there! We've reached the end of the first phase of the 2024 requests for adminship review, where consensus was achieved for a ton of significant changes to the RfA process. The following proposals have achieved consensus to be implemented outright:

    And the following proposals have achieved consensus, but will undergo further refinement in phase II before implementation:

    Phase II will start soon, most likely with open discussion to start. Thanks to everyone who helped move mountains on this, and stay tuned! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1221443895"