Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:08, 11 December 2021

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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

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

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

Open tasks

• 12 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 66 sockpuppet investigations
• 6 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 1 requests for RD1 redaction
• 103 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 22 requested closures
• 30 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 21 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

• Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
• The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections is open until 23:59, 06 December 2021 (UTC).
• The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, have been made permanent.

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by SecretName101

On that basis, thanks to the OP for bringing this here but consensus is that the appeal is declined. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Minor correction: appeals at AN require a clear consensus of uninvolved editors, not admins (the last section in this thread is misnamed). The consensus outcome remains the same. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

SecretName101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – SecretName101 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

an indefinite topic ban from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Threats being made to me

Administrator imposing the sanction

El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Statement by SecretName101

I have, over the course of my topic ban, made thousands of edits focusing on dead-subjects and other non-BLP articles, creating several of rather high-quality (such as Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson). I have greatly enhanced a number of articles on deceased subjects. I believe that my edits should demonstrate that I am an editor who continues to make edits of value, and that I am not a threat to the project. I will practice better judgement, and will be cautious about any new articles that lean negative, and will first submit any such articles for review as drafts before publication.

I had no intent of malfeasance in the article that triggered this ban. If anyone had asked me if I regretted it or was sorry, I would have immediately apologized. But instead of asking me to apologize, others jumped to put me on the defense by wrongly accusing me of having had a malicious intent behind my creation of that article, and being politically motivated.

I had believed, in creating the article, that the subject was a notable-enough figure for an article. When I see an individual who has notability, but no article, I often have the impulse to remedy this. This same impulse has resulted in some of my best articles.

I wrote the (stub/start-type) article on what information was readily available on the subject. Much of that happened to skew negative, which is why the article ended up skewing negative. However, I made a poor decision in publishing the article directly, rather than submitting it for review. I should have recognized that a negative-skewing article on a marginally notable individual at least needed a second set of eyes before publication.

I see errant choices in writing the article (such as attempting to emulate the lead style that I had seen often used for politicians with criminal records), that led to an overemphasis of the negative.

I apologize for any face that I may have cost the project. SecretName101 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El C

SecretName101, I'm sorry, though it ticks some of the boxes, I find your appeal too vague, with a WP:NOTTHEM sandwiched in the middle. To recap: Bill Stevenson, Jill Biden's former husband, experienced legal troubles of a criminal nature between the years of 1982-1986, resulting in a couple of convictions and suspended sentences. Four years, then, yet ~70 percent of SecretName101's article (AfD) was dedicated to these events, and whose lead sentence read: William W. Stevenson III is an American businessman and convicted fraudster (admins-only).

It just feels like this appeal sidetracks/avoids this obvious crux — not merely "negative" but overwhelmingly so. Also, SecretName101, you mention politicians with criminal records as having served as a sort of template for you, but the article didn't mention that Bill Stevenson was at any point a politician — politician as in having been entrusted with the authority of government at some point, holding office, etc. Vocally supporting Trump and opposing Biden obviously wouldn't make him one.

Personally, I think a better template would be Martha Stewart whose lead sentence descriptor doesn't call her a 'convicted felon,' nor is her conviction and incarceration mentioned in the rest of the first paragraph. The second paragraph is, however, devoted to it and its subsequent impact. Which makes sense to me. Finally, the problem for me is also that SecretName101, at times, responded to the dispute in a troubling and disconcerting way, like, reading discrimination against neurodivergent persons where there was none (diff). So, for me, this appeal ultimately falls short. El_C 01:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Just noting the new section that SecretName101 just added to my talk page: User_talk:El_C#Disappointing_of_you. It came across as confusing and a bit hostile to me (towards me), but whatever, I don't see a need to press the matter further beyond noting it here. That said, I'm not sure why SecretName101 still keeps splitting discussions rather than stick to a venue. Oh well. El_C 03:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay, a user subject to WP:ACDS may appeal their sanction either here at WP:AN or WP:AE or WP:ARCA (or should I say ARCA with love). El_C 03:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, paragraph breaks = El_C 04:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by involved editor Yngvadottir

I consider myself involved here since I entered the AN/I discussion to suggest the Stevenson article should be deleted. I did not see the AfD in time to participate, but would have argued for deletion there; I had hoped it could be deleted under WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and therefore found the speedy deletion appropriate, although the paper was not 100% an attack. If the AfD had continued to run, I planned to research the college bar and draft a rewrite as an article on that topic, to be considered as an alternative, but I am relieved I did not have to attempt to meet WP:N on what appears to have been an only locally notable joint with overtones of WP:NOTINHERITED as a rock venue.

I'm posting here because SecretName101's appeal is supported by a claim of excellent editing focused on dead people, and I haven't been impressed with the quality of their work that I've run into recently. In late November, they made a string of edits expanding Richard H. Austin. This work shows the heavy reliance on newspapers.com that I recall from the sourcing of the Stevenson article. Unlike SecretName101, I don't have a subscription, so I can't check the accuracy of their use of these sources, but although in that edit they did add Austin's run for mayor of Detroit, they failed to give any sense of the man's achievements, partly because they used only spot news and missed several sources reviewing his life and career (including an AP obituary), and the entirety of his legacy including a Lansing government building renamed for him that dominates a simple search; the "Death and legacy" section contained nothing but his death, with an unreferenced cause of death—I would have thought both citing the cause of death and finding something about the legacy would have been obvious steps in search after deciding to expand the article. As an illustration of the result of a search beyond spot news, and full use of available sources, here's my edit (I apologize for the fact it's all one edit; and for full disclosure I'll also note that I researched his loss in 1994, and it was too sad and I couldn't find a sufficiently dispassionate source, like a reliable report of the actual percentage, so I didn't add anything on that.) One thing SecretName101 did do is add a link to 1969 Detroit mayoral election, but they did not think to look for and link 1976 United States Senate election in Michigan and 1994 Michigan Secretary of State election. It's probably the 1969 Detroit mayoral election article that brought them to the Richard H. Austin article; they created it a day or two earlier. This is their final version of that article. Again, it's heavily reliant on newspapers.com (with the odd effect that whereas most of the refs have newspapers.com as the source website and the newspaper in question unitalicized, as publisher, the reference to the New York Times, since it's from the NYT's own website, has the newspaper italicized, but I may be being over-sensitive there, I work hard to suborn the citation templates to give full credit to reporters and newspapers as well as wire services where applicable, note original dates as well as revised dates, and so on). I think this is the reason for the article being a bit unintegrated, with short, choppy paragraphs and elements such as the race question not put together in a coherent narrative. I tried to make it better in my edit. I think SecretName101 makes diligent use of their newspapers.com subscription, but myopically, not thinking enough about making a coherent article that covers the topic, and as a result they didn't much improve our article on Richard H. Austin, which was pretty shabby when they started working on it, so I appreciate their effort ... but they need to look at the big picture and not just put in whatever their search on newspapers.com turns up as top results, and that appears to have been a significant part of the problem in the Stevenson article.

Their recent editing shows diligence, but I don't think it shows the awareness of context or the depth and breadth of research to indicate they won't go down a news bulletin rabbit hole on another BLP if the restriction is lifted. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by SecretName101

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Comment by GoodDay

Shouldn't this be held at WP:ARCA? -- GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I see, cool. GoodDay (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by User:力

I'm not convinced BLP issues will not reoccur, particularly on article creations. Also, SecretName101 complaining You also have reignited a micro aggression towards me on El C's talk page in response to the comments here speaks for itself. However, perhaps a partial measure is appropriate - changing the sanction to merely preventing the creation of BLP articles. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by SecretName101

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• As I said at the original ANI, I don't think someone who puts together an article which is an obvious coatrack for an attack on the US President, and who sources said BLP violation using this website (sample quote "the man with dementia in the White House") should be anywhere near BLPs. Black Kite (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Black Kite and Yngvadottir above; there are just too many red flags to lift the TBAN at this time. Miniapolis 00:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the above and see nothing in the appeal to believe that removing the topic ban would have a good outcome. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• In my opinion, this appeal comes much too soon, and so I must oppose. This editor seems to think that a BLP of a person who was married half a century ago to someone who later married a famous politician is somehow comparable to a BLP of a politician. That, in itself, is deeply troubling, and the appeal does not address that issue. The early versions of the article are an obvious coatrack to publicize a minor figure at the outermost periphery of the Biden orbit, complete with salacious and unverified gossip. I want to see a much longer history of uncontentious edits. Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Conduct of David Eppstein

David Eppstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A Misplaced Pages administrstor has been uncivil to other editors saying Are you totally illiterate or just willfully obtuse here. Later he added unveriafable content first saying I can't find that claim in the source he added here and then saying that another source: strongly implied exactly what I said here. And now he edit wars the result of the AFD here. Infinity Knight (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 4 December 2021‎ (UTC)

Please notify them about this thread.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Infinity Knight failed to nofify me before someone else got there. The issue centers around Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Si.427, which had a very dubious close by User:Randykitty saying to redirect to Plimpton 322 despite the redirect target not containing any content about Si.427, clear consensus against merging any of the deleted content there, and only one comment suggesting a non-merge redirect. Subsequent discussion on Talk:Si.427 identified better redirect targets where Si.427 was already mentioned, including both Istanbul Archaeology Museums (my suggestion) and the eventual redirect target from that discussion, Sippar. Infinity Knight and another fringe-pusher from the same discussion, SelfStudier, have pointedly refused to go along with the delete close and the later retarget of the redirect, and continue to try to push fringe content about Si.427 into Plimpton 322 and to try to justify that content by redirecting Si.427 there (where it is still not mentioned). I reverted one such attempt by SelfStudier some three weeks ago and another one today, and somehow these three-weeks-apart edits are called edit-warring and brought here with much older diffs brought in as one-sided evidence that the debate was at times heated. I think the history, the AfD discussion, and the Si.427 talk page discussion speak for themselves and that trying to turn this into a user-behavior issue against me is just an attempt at setting aside any opposition to their continued fringe-pushing. In any case as an WP:INVOLVED editor on this topic I have taken no administrative action. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The forceful comments in question were made about a month and a half ago, so this dispute seems pretty stale. That being said, David Eppstein, surely you can choose better words to express your disagreement. C'mon. Cullen328 (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Trout accepted. The quoted text above has been separated from its context (reacting to a previous edit summary that claimed the exact opposite of the truth about what a disputed source contained) but didn't really add anything but heat to the omitted context, and could better have been cut instead of posted. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Infinity Knight. I don't think any action can be taken here. If you wish to re-target the redirect, I suggest you begin a discussion at WP:RFD. DrKay (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, a little bit of tact will go a long way towards a productive discussion, however the last diff edit comment dated 00:47, 4 December 2021 is not perfect either. The more serious issue is pushing unverifiable content. Infinity Knight (talk) 09:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Pushing"? Aren't we talking about one edit? That was then discussed? – Joe (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Diff for "pushing". Is unrelated source that strongly implied exactly what I said is enough? Infinity Knight (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about this particular topic but have interacted with David Eppstein intermittently for nearly 15 years. He is an editor of exceptional integrity. If he did become impatient, which we all do from time to time, I am sure he meant no ill-will. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Wholly agree. Impatience is hardly the same as wilful personal attack. A trout has already been acknowledged and accepted. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

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

• Steverci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lachin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Shusha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Zabux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like to appeal my recently reinstated topic ban for Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 topics. The topic ban was primarily reinstated for my edits on the Lachin article. In the time since I have been banned, there has been a consensus among uninvolved users agreeing with removing most of the content I had been removing for much of the same reasons, such as being original research and excessive details used for POV pushing. I feel that my topic ban was reinstated a little too eagerly. The imposing admin Future Perfect at Sunrise said my edits were "clearly a return to the old pattern of tendentious editing". However, the same claim had been made against me not only once but twice since my original ban had been removed, and was refuted in both cases. This also ignores the attempts I've made to solve content disputes with talk page discussions, RfCs, and noticeboard reports (this discussion never even got a reply despite the user pushing unsourced material). What should really be clear, is that my reverts weren't deserving of a topic ban, or at least an indefinite topic ban is excessively harsh. --Steverci (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

For completeness, this is an unsuccessful appeal from two weeks ago.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, there is an ongoing discussion and RFC on talk of Lachin, and no consensus has been reached so far. Unfortunately, there is very little interest in this RFC from the Misplaced Pages community. More outside opinions would be helpful. And what is being discussed there is how to better summarize the sources on burning and looting of the town. That is not what Steverci was doing, he was simply deleting content with no discussion at talk. He only joined the talk after I initiated the discussion. I don't think that there is a consensus of uninvolved editors that my edits constituted an original research or POV pushing, like Steverci claims. And repeated removal of Armenia as an occupying party , despite the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, see Chiragov and Others v. Armenia, and Armenia signing 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement and agreeing to withdraw its army from the territory of Azerbaijan, is a clear example of tendentious editing by Steverci. It was one of the reasons for his topic ban. Grandmaster 16:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added an RFC template. That should get it more attention & thus more editor participation. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure that it is accurate to say that the topic ban was the result of Steverci's edits to Lachin. I became aware of the contention of Steverci's edits with regard to Shusha (a different town in the same war zone). So I wonder whether Steverci is mentioning Lachin in order to distract attention from the previous contention about Shusha. I would also say that, by appealing a topic-ban twice within a month after it was imposed, User:Steverci is being a vexatious litigant. I haven't researched the content of the edits, but the pattern is problematic. There should be some response to this request beyond denying it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Procedurally, to your point about the double appeal: in fairness, I wouldn't hold this against Steverci in the present instance, since the previous appeal was cut short and closed speedily on procedural grounds, before receiving a definite consensus response on its merits, so I don't think we should deny him the chance of trying a second time (although from the existing responses to the last attempt it looked clear that it was unlikely to get much traction). I agree with your point about the different articles. Yes, Lachin was by no means the only page or even the most significant page involved. He was engaged in parallel fights across several similar articles (all about towns or villages in the Nagorno-Karabakh warzone, and all about how to handle the mutual wartime atrocities happening in them). For Lachin, I also find Steverci's current argument specious: yes, it may be true that he was removing material that others have in the meantime also objected to as being "excessive detail" – but that was not "much the same" as the reasons for his own actions, because the first thing he did was not to discuss that material as being undue, but to exchange it against other material of pretty much the same nature and the same degree of excessive detail, only turning around the roles of victims and perpetrators . As for other articles, I have to say the edits that made the most negative impression on me were those in Zabux. This edit, all by itself, would have been enough to justify sanctions, in my view. Because saying that one village was destroyed "because" the other side had previously pillaged others, is injecting the logic of wartime ethnic retribution and nationalist tit-for-tat right into Misplaced Pages's own voice. This one word alone, "because", would warrant a topic ban as far as I'm concerned, if nothing else did. I would certainly recommend declining this appeal, again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't really have any way of knowing what you considered the biggest issues, because they were all generalized as "old patterns" and my statement explaining my actions was hardly addressed before the ban was quickly reinstated. I mentioned Lachin because I do admit I screwed up with it by not starting a talk discussion sooner (even though it was technically Grandmaster's responsibility because he was the one changing consensus) and because I allowed myself to be baited into 3RR (albeit on different days). However, I strongly believe my changes had only improved Lachin and Zabux from their previous state, even if there may have been still room for more improvement. I made a resource request for the sources because Grandmaster's edits were so incredibly biased that I suspected there was info he was leaving out, and I was exactly right. Grandmaster selectively excluded everything from the sources that made Azeris look bad, from the supplies being used to replace what the Azeris looted to the presence of Stepanakert shelling victims. On the other hand, I had never actually tried to remove mention of the looting in it's entirety; I tried to create an equal weight summary of the sources. If my wording could've been improved, I wouldn't have stopped anyone from doing so. But it was an immediate improvement from the previous state (of changes Grandmaster had made just a day ago) because I was including information that Grandmaster had neglected. I wasn't "justifying" anything by writing the supplies were going to help villages the Azeris had looted, I was just citing what the journalist had stated. Unlike Grandmaster, who included MOS:ALLEGED wording like "claimed"; the journalists didn't write anything casting doubt on what they were told. Or MOS:PUFFERY writing like "and showed no sign of embarrassment at the sight of trucks taking away looted property". Maybe "because" sounds like wartime ethnic retribution out of context, but was simply about including the entirety of the source information. --Steverci (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

What exactly was wrong with my edits on the Shushi article? There weren't any on the AE request. In fact, it was Grandmaster who failed to get a consensus for most of the contentious changes he kept pushing for. His WP:EXCEPTIONAL/MOS:LEAD addition was removed, Nersesov isn't considered an Armenian source, there were no sources for organized destruction of Azeri monuments, etc. Grandmaster even tried to pass off photographs as sources.

And what is wrong with me appealing the topic ban when the last one was closed prematurely, Fut.Pref told me I was still entitled to make an appeal, and I even made the changes Fut.Pref suggested but didn't require by not even mentioning Grandmaster. In the first appeal, I pointed out that Grandmaster had been running an Azeri meatpuppet mailing list on the Russian Misplaced Pages, and that in the mailing list he had instructed on how to WP:GAME the system to get Armenian users blocked and mass-vote for new admins he thought would help them. My first appeal wasn't a sanction request for Grandmaster, it was to show the AE request was an example of him still gaming the system to eliminate the competition. Grandmaster has never shown any proof of changing his old behavior; he and his mailing list got their indefinite block removed because our own Ymblanter, also a Russian wiki admin, accepted a large money bribe (Yaroslav Blanter is Ymblanter) to unblock them. But somehow I'm the only one being held to their past despite earning my topic ban being removed the honest way. Nonetheless, I left it out of my appeal to try being constructive. So exactly what kind of "response" is needed for me doing precisely what I was asked to? --Steverci (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Been trying to add an RFC template to the RFC-in-question. But, legobot keeps deleting it. Don't know if legobot's got a glitch.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodDay (talk • contribs)

Because the discussion started on 4 December 2020, not 2021. The bot sees that it is one year old.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Embarrassingly, I thought it read 4 December 2021. Middle-age effects, no doubt. GoodDay (talk) 06:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose because of the diff provided by Future Perfect at Sunrise which reveals a shocking insertion of an enthnonationalist POV in Misplaced Pages's voice, and the user's record of "flipping the record" in these ugly wars between nationalities. Accusing Ymblanter of accepting a bribe based on that editor saying they were offered a bribe (jokingly or not) is beyond the pale. Cullen328 (talk) 06:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• I see that above I am being implicated in a criminal offence. For the record, I have never accepted a bribe in my life, as a matter of principle, and I have never received any monetary reimbursement for my Wikimedia participation. This is libel. Could an uninvolved admin please decide whether the revision-deletion (and possibly an oversight is needed), and whether there is any reason not to block Steverci indef now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

We were offered a large amount of money. So far, what the other side has proposed is only enough for an unlimited blocking of five participants, or blocking ten for a year. To block all 26 indefinitely, the amount will need to be increased by at least five times. The 26th, if a contract is concluded, will be permanently blocked free of charge .-- Yaroslav Blanter 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... Okay... I have no idea what's happening. A joke probably...? I mean, I doubt an admin could get away with bribery on a major Wikimedia project, just out in the open. Something like that would reverberate, and yet it hasn't (I don't think). I suspect that Steverci knows this. Still, Ymblanter, maybe give us a hint, just a little hint, about what's going on? Like, how are there 26 users facing a un/block on the 26th (26th of what, what?) as part of a "contract"? Anyway, I'm leaning indef, probably for the bribery accusation, but also because, in my view, appealing 2 weeks after an unsuccessful previous appeal is an abuse of process. Which is unfortunate, because I vaguely (vaguely) recall supporting easing Steverci's sanctions in the not too distant past. Ultimately, though, all of this is just challenging to follow. And I'm far from a novice when it comes to WP:AA2 arbitration enforcement, so I can only imagine how confusing this is to the average AN reviewer. El_C 09:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

It was indeed a joke. As I mentioned on a number of previous occasions, I was a drafting arbitrator on that decision (note it was in 2010), and "we" here means the Russian Misplaced Pages Arbcom (more specifically, these seven people). This was a difficult case, and in this episode an Armenian user was unhappy with what she thought was too mild (for the Azeri side) outcome of the case, and she thought that the Arbcom suddenly has changed their stance without no reason. I responded by the sentence cited above, and from the context is is very clear it is a joke. Everybody, including the user who asked the question, understood it in this way, there was no ambiguity. Of course if someone starts to take it out of context and to add details which are not there it might sound differently.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, if I remember correctly, there were 26 users who were party to the case, but I would need to look up the details. Not that they are important now.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the comment by Ymblanter was a joke as he has confirmed, some context is included here: (again, courtesy of Google translate):

Changes in weather

Judging by the cheering tone of the responses of the members of the group of 26,the consideration of the claim has moved to a new level and the issue of blocking for coordinated actions is no longer being considered. Those. the function of arbitration has smoothly transformed into the function of an arbitration court. I would be very grateful to someone if they could explain how such a transformation took place and for what reason. Thanks in advance for the replies, - Zara-arush 09:56 7 Jun 2010 (UTC)

We were offered a large amount of money. So far, what the other side has proposed is only enough for an unlimited blocking of five participants, or blocking ten for a year. To block all 26 indefinitely, the amount will need to be increased by at least five times. The 26th, if a contract is concluded, will be permanently blocked free of charge .-- Yaroslav Blanter 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yaroslav, you wrote the funniest remark in the entire discussion of the case of the 26 commissars! - Ds02006 10:28 June 7, 2010 (UTC)

What black humor! But our time also costs money .-- Zara-arush 10:31 Jun 7, 2010 (UTC)

It's at least strange that the money you were offered was huge, but for such a sum you can send half of the Misplaced Pages participants in all its language sections for an indefinite period. Hmm, it means someone chopped off more ... sort it out among your money listed :-)))) - Lori-m Ր Ե Վ 10:34, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

So yeah, a joke (quite a good one actually). BTW Steverci don't go and pull an out of context diff, because anyone can just find the context and see that you are not being entirely honest. I'll be interested to see how long you end up blocked for. Mako001 (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time to put an end to abuse of 2010 Russian arbitration case in en:wiki. The arbitration committee of en:wiki was aware of that ru:wiki case 12 years ago, and did not find it actionable here. And that ru:wiki case is being repeatedly used here to harass other users, and even admins, as one can see. This should stop. Grandmaster 10:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Steverci blocked indef

User_talk:Steverci#Indefinite_block. El_C 09:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed community ban for User:Steverci

In view of Steverci's continued I didnt hear that and not me, now with useless block appeals, I propose that we formalize the indefinite block into a community ban that only the community can lift. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Well, given the useless UB requests, it's unlikely they'd be unblocked soon. If they are unblocked, it's possible it would be brought to AN for review anyway. If not, it's likely some conditions would need to be agreed to. If not, the AE topic ban is still in force. If they continue with useless UB requests, TP access would be removed & they would have to go the UTRS route, which would be posted here anyway I think. So I guess that may explain the lack of participation. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

About Pulse Hobart and Draft:Pulse Hobart

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

Hi all,

Somehow the creation of this now this WP:DRAFTIFY-'d article has been attributed to me in articlespace

I must admit I am puzzled how this happened.

• The (now) draft was created 18:44, November 26, 2021‎
• I added some comments to its (former) articlespace version 19:04, November 26, 2021‎

If the draft is accepted, its creation will be incorrectly attributed to me, instead of Kiwiradio

If the draft is not accepted, its creation will be incorrectly attributed to me, instead of Kiwiradio

What should the best outcome here? A WP:MERGE? Some other resolution?

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the article was moved to draft space without leaving a redirect while you were editing, so when you then saved the article a new version was created. I think the histories need to be merged. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I merged the histories, should be good now. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate snow close of Afd by non-admin User:RandomCanadian

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

Please see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carlsen versus Nepomniachtchi, World Chess Championship 2021, Game 6. It is far too early for a non-admin snow close, a clear consensus has not emerged, many of the "votes" are by IPs or simply "per (user)" and there are a several editors arguing for a merge. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If you want to contest an AfD closure, deletion review is the place for it. There's nothing for AN to do here. (I'm not too fond of the closure – "nearly a 2-1 ratio" is definitely not what the snowball clause is referring to – but it's really quite unlikely that further discussion will result in anything other than the same "keep" result.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

But I'm not contesting a deletion, I'm contesting an inappropriate closure. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:DRV is a two way street you can contest keeps as well. Amortias (T)(C) 00:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

A keep doesn't preclude a merge. Mackensen (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

IP vandalizing tons of Weather articles.

Please block User talk:2603:6080:EA40:7D9:611A:7DAF:F32E:C19E ASAP as they are vandalizing tons of weather articles. I have reverted at least 9 vandalizations and they are continuing. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Johnuniq (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I have got a third reminder to donate. Wrong! My bank paid you on 28November. Please tighten up your admin reminder process

Umm yes, not nice to receive reminders in error - and even after logging in I couldn't see how to relay this info to wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geebs46 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Geebs46: Your donations are to the Wikimedia Foundation. The English Misplaced Pages editing community and its administrators have no control over any reminders. Please direct any questions to donate@wikimedia.org. – Joe (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Geebs46: You can opt out of seeing donation banners in your preferences. This will only be effective while you are logged in. Rummskartoffel 15:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Dubious content in Philippines–Ukraine relations

I've reverted that page a couple of times but the fact that no sysop has stepped in makes me think that I'm in the wrong there. Can someone please have a look? Thanks in advance. --Fytcha (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Xavierdmr has been indef blocked. Hopefully that fixes the problem. Fences&Windows 22:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. If you are an administrator, you may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if an administrator wishes to self-assign they may do so now. When the change goes live, I will note it here. Additionally, there is some agreement among those discussing implementation to mass message admins a version of this message. I will be doing so soon and including a link to this thread for questions/discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:RIGHTS should probably be updated to reflect this change. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:32, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Well there's a page I didn't know existed. Looks like Joe has updated it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

For some reason, the notice that went out didn't have your username on it. So, I was left wondering who or what committee was sending out this news. But it directs people here so I found out. Looks like another discussion I heard about after it was over! This should probably be added to the next Admin's Newsletter for (oh, my) January. 2022, here already. Liz 21:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Liz yeah I intentionally signed it with five tildes. That said, if you edit there is an html comment showing who sent an MMS if you're ever curious. As for the newsletter I believe someone Tol already took care of that. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been (re)-granted it at WP:PERM/A, there may be others like me who don't feel comfortable self-assigning, so I would recommend that that page be given a little extra attention as there may be an elevated volume of requests related to sysops. Unless, of course, there's not many besides me with qualms about self-assigning. Hog Farm _Talk 21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I will note that I granted it to people on this list of admins who had autopatrol before +sysop who hadn't already self-granted. I figured you and Eddie would not be the only two reluctant to self-grant. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Personally I had no qualms at all about self-granting this, and I see that many others on my watchlist also did not. I'd imagine that most of us, and especially Hog Farm, are competent enough at writing articles that this really isn't controversial.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd also point out that for all current sysops, the community already considered and granted the flag as part of the toolkit, and the discussion doesn't show that the community has lost that trust. I view this change as similar to how we handle edit filter manager for sysops. It's a powerful tool that some people want and some people don't. Not granting by default but letting admins self-assign lets sysops customize their toolkit to fit their needs. If you think you need it, grant it, if you don't want it, don't; I don't think the considerations need to be more complicated than that. Fro myself, I plan to use it similar to a m:flood flag. If I'm going to be making a ton of project pages or doing a lot of housekeeping, I'll add autopatrolled so that I don't flood the NPQ with junk. But if I'm going to be creating a bunch of biography stubs or redirect, I would actually appreciate the second set of eyes as it could help point out areas for further improvement or catch silly mistakes I might have missed. I understand why some might be hesitant to self-grant, but if the community didn't trust admins to grant it, we wouldn't have kept self-assignment as an option. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrolled should exist solely to mitigate the impact of high-volume article creation on the NPP process, but there's been an unfortunate tendency to see it as just a badge of honour for "trusted" users. We constantly try to explain this to people at WP:PERM/A, but it has always felt a little hypocritical with it being automatically given to admins. So I'm glad that I no longer have autopatrolled, and while the vast majority of admins can of course be trusted with the right, if you choose not to give it to yourself, I think that sets a good example: having another person check your edits is normal in every other area of the project and nothing to worry about. Unless you're creating multiple articles a week or more, you will not have a noticeable effect on the size of the NPP backlog. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The opposite is true, of course, if you know that you do, in fact, make a lot of pages, it's a good example to have the perm. Whether you want another administrator to grant it, or self-assigning as if you are already an admin, then you have an RfA that suggests the community does agree with you having that perm. FWIW, I always thought autopatrolled isn't a big deal. It shines pretty brightly if an experienced editor that made admin would make poor creations, especially if they have been given a perm that shows we trust them to do exactly that. There is certainly admins that don't make articles, who wouldn't want the tool, which is fine. It's pretty dependant on how many you make, whether it makes sense to have it. Even experienced editors who make an article every blue moon is unlikely to need the perm. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 09:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The standard for patrolled is just "It's not vandalism" and "It shouldn't be speedy deleted for some reason", right? It kinda shocks me that we can't trust administrators to be able to do this. Did the RFC introduce significant numbers of articles created by admins that should not have been considered to be patrolled? I've self-assigned the right. I don't see any reason that every admin shouldn't self-assign the right. --B (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@B: - IIRC, the two instances brought up were the Neelix situation with the thousands of useless redirects, and then the Carlossuarez46 arbcase, where an admin mass-created 10,000+ stubs based on a mistranslation of Iranian sources, suggested that there was nothing wrong with such behavior, and then rage quit and called everyone racist when a bulk-deletion request was opened at AN. Both are cases I guess where you could argue that being able to pull autopatrolled flag would have helped (it might have been able to defuse the Carlos situation before things wound up where they did), but you can probably also argue that both incidents indicated a temperament unsuited to adminship. Hog Farm _Talk 14:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the bar is a bit higher than that - it's expected that newly created articles will be referenced, categorized, MOS compliant etc. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The File:NPP_flowchart.svg that many of us NPPs follow includes CSD check, copyright check, notability check, duplicate article check, title fixing, adding categories or tagging {{uncategorized}} or {{improve categories}}, tagging as stub if needed, adding maintenance tags, and adding WikiProject rating tags. Some would argue that all NPPs and autopatrolled folks should be following this checklist when creating articles. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If someone with autopatrol is needing to check their own work for COPYVIO or needing to apply tags then they're really not at a point where autopatrol is appropriate, in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Coming up on 20 years as an admin

I just got my 20 year editor badge, and I'll be coming up on 20 years as an admin in Feb next year. I was one of the admins who just got appointed by Jimbo, there was no RFA process back then (RFA emerged around 2004), There were no admins before Feb 2002 because the software didn't support it. (If we needed to delete something, Tim Shell would write a SQL script against the database. It was a different time, that's for sure.) Anyway, you'd be surprised how little has changed - the software improved, procedures were tightened, but the arguing, the debates... yeah, all basically the same. Anyway, here's to another 20 years. Manning (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! –MJL ‐Talk‐ 07:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from me as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The arguments surely just had less policies being quoted! 20 years is ridiculous. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 09:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Congrats for the 20 years! — Golden 09:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's to the next twenty! ϢereSpielChequers 09:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations, and all the best.Keep up the good work :). Lectonar (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Congrats. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Congrats! Just out of curiosity, how did you learn about Misplaced Pages that early on? I had never even heard of it until several years later. (A now-banished former bureaucrat told me about some of the work he was doing on here.) --B (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone mentioned it on a Usenet group. (Kids, ask your parents about Usenet). Manning (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! What will you do for your silver admin anniversary party in five years?

Indeed many arguments are very similar. The very old (2001) history of Misplaced Pages:Administrators already has debates on whether everybody sane ("one month and three good pages") should be an admin (). I'm starting to wonder how many of us admins have been here forever (I'm at 17 years as editor, 15 years as admin myself). Is there something like the "seniority" graph at User:NoSeptember/The NoSeptember Admin Project anywhere just not twelve years out of date? —Kusma (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Three more years for moi! El_C 14:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

18 more for me! Nosebagbear (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Congratulations, and thank you for your participation. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow! 20 years! A very exclusive club. Congratulations! Cecropia (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Bipin Rawat

Please put semi protection. RFPP request pending. Large amount of vandalism on a high visibility page. Venkat TL (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Venkat TL:  Done, thanks. I went with three days, I hope things will have quieted down by then. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for the quick response. Hope so. Venkat TL (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Close review of the latest RfC about Jacobin's reliability

As I wrote here at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and as I was suggested to by Tayi Arajakate, I am asking with no prejudice that an admin review the RfC, and a close review for a reclose/amendment. As I wrote there, I am not sure that "ditors achieved a strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable. , and in general did not seem to account for Option 1 and/or Option 1/2 comments when stating that "there is strong consensus that Jacobin is no better than marginally reliable" — e.g. it appears to be there was no clear or strong consensus on whether it was 1 or 2, with a minority supporting 3. I think both sides gave good arguments for either 'green'-rating (with bias and attribution like The Intercept and Reason) and 'yellow'-rating (no consensus).

It is not so easy to tell which colour better reflects consensus, and if a review would change that; however, my main issue is with the closure's wording that should be revised and/or improved, and if so, also amend on the same grounds the current (RSP entry), which appears to be too wordy and could be further improved, perhaps due to the similarly too wordy closure that may be, at least in part, due to being closed by a non-admin. Thank you. Davide King (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass deletion of approved articles

Hello, I noticed there was a mass deletion of articles from User:Athaenara I worked on that went through the standard AfC process, and I'm confused what the reasoning behind that might be? As far as I can see, none of the deleted articles underwent the AfD process (and they met Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines). I also see drafts that I was actively trying to improve were deleted as well, and one was moved to a published article without me submitting for review:

Deleted articles (as of now, the list seems to be growing), which again went through the standard AfC process, were well established before my involvement, or weren't otherwise flagged before:

• Jacob Sartorius
• Smokeasac
• Salem Ilese
• All Things Go Fall Classic
• Corbu (band)
• Luc Van den Hove
• Jorge Pelicano (I wasn't even paid for this one + it was created at a Misplaced Pages hackathon with guidance).

Please help me understand how any of this is constructive for Misplaced Pages Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yes (whatever "approved" actually means to you), I've been going through your contribs after reading your massive "paid for writing article " listings on your user page. You may not have noticed that over half, literally dozens, were redirects to the Sartorius page. – Athaenara ✉ 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Athaenara I don't know what you mean by redirects to the Sartorius page? I properly disclosed using the Misplaced Pages template. I've been through this process before where I've been singled out for being a paid editor, but it was agreed that I would operate in this way of going through the proper channels (which I have). Again, I don't know how deleting these articles is helpful for the community + they were approved by other editors independent of myself. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• That's...not a deletion argument. Also, have you just been using the admin tools on your own to singlehandedly delete articles on your own whim? Without going through any of the actual deletion processes? You're not allowed to be both judge and jury when it comes to deleting things. Silverseren 21:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  The pages were deleted as G8 and/or G11, which is a proper deletion process (no idea whether it applied to these pages). --Ymblanter (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Are admins allowed to both tag and delete the same page entirely on their own? Because that seems massively inappropriate. Were the pages even tagged or did Athaenara just unilaterally delete them and just listed the G8 and G11 as reasons? Silverseren 21:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

As has been prominently displayed on my user talk page for over a year, "ANY reliable administrator is free to reverse ANY administrative action I have taken, whether page protection, page deletion, user block, or anything else." – Athaenara ✉ 21:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Is that a yes on you unilaterally deleting the pages on your own? Did you even tag them first or just delete them and use the speedy deletion arguments in the log after the fact? Silverseren 21:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Silver seren: If it was applying a speedy deletion criterion, then yes: speedy deletions are meant to be "unilateral". That's why they are called "speedy". Any administrator can apply a CSD at any time, on their own initiative and in their own responsibility. That's the whole point of having "speedy" criteria. (Just like Ymblanter above: I haven't checked whether those criteria were applied properly here; just commenting on the process as such.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

That seems like a problem. As is shown here, such as with the now restored Jacob Sartorius, that is not at all promotional and looks like a normal article. Why isn't there any oversight for deletion? I always thought someone else had to be involved in the tagging and couldn't just delete on their own accord. The only exception that would make sense are copyvios. But, otherwise, an admin could just go around deleting a ton of articles and have no oversight over their actions if the creators of the articles don't speak up as they did here. Silverseren 21:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I spend much of the day on CSD pages, Silver seren and I've found that admin behavior here varies. Admins who don't work much with pages tagged for speedy deletion usually tag but don't delete. Admins who regularly patrol CSD categories, like Athaenara and myself, will delete pages without tagging since we are so familiar with the criteria. For example, I delete hundreds of stale drafts each day and it seems counter-productive to me to tag all of these pages and then have a separate admin do the deletion when the criteria are clearly met when I'd do the tagging. However, if I have any questions about my judgement, usually with G11s and A7s, I will tag the pages and let another admin evaluate whether I made the right call.

My concern is not whether admins go straight to deletion rather than tagging but I've found that admins who delete will sometimes not notify the page creator of the deletion. That is my primary concern as I don't think this step should ever be skipped. And I've noticed that skipping the notification step has to do with the method of page deletion the admin uses...those admins who use the drop down Page menu don't post notices while those who use Twinkle to delete pages do. Liz 00:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Stale drafts are their own separate topic, however, and much more standardized of an action regardless of the articles in question. That's quite different from going out of one's way to attempt to delete all the content an editor has ever been involved in and directly stating that the reason of doing so was because of a negative bias against the editor in question because of their transparency about their paid editing. I do fully agree on the notification end of things, as that doesn't appear to have been done. Not even for the original creators for articles like Sartorius. Silverseren 01:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is allowed. Any admin can delete something under the CSD criteria (the policy says 'at their discretion'), they just note that in the log entry. There's no requirement that any page be tagged in advance. The templates are just a way for non-admins to draw attention to stuff that ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at the deleted history of Jacob Sartorius as well as the pages that Athaenara linked in the edit summary for the page, I see clear evidence that the page has repeatedly been edited by both properly disclosed and UPE editors. Given the amount of different editors that have contributed to the article, and that its copy is reasonably neutral as of its last revision, I'm going to go ahead and restore it, with no prejudice to further discussion on the talk page, at AfD, COIN, etc. _signed, Rosguill 21:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Smokeasac, however, is much more flimsy and is not a great look coming from a paid editor. I probably wouldn't have unilaterally G11'd it myself, but I'm disinclined to restore it unless there's a consensus that we need more process here. _signed, Rosguill 21:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  Since at least one has been shown to completely not meet the claimed speedy deletion requirements, I think all of them should be restored and then nominated at AfD if there is indeed a question of non-notability. Or is the issue of Smokeasac not notability, but just article structure/wording and sourcing? Silverseren 21:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think that there's both notability and promotional issues there, and we can add Salem Ilese to the list of articles that make me go "meh". We're at 2/3 of the one's I've looked at. _signed, Rosguill 22:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW, Salem Ilese does meet the Misplaced Pages:Notability (music) requirements for achieving RIAA certified gold status, along with charting nationally. I'm aware of the content issue, and didn't intentionally write it in reverse order. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If all went through AFC, I think more process is in order for a deletion with only a G11 rationale. Even more so now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Some did, some didn't, some had (now retired) reviewers that I wouldn't put much stock in, others were reviewed by editors in good standing. At this point, keeping them deleted interferes with our ability to assess the articles both for their own sake and for their relevance to COI issues, so I'm going to go ahead and reverse the rest of them. _signed, Rosguill 22:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm adding in these (which I didn't even work on, but were connected to Jacob Sartorius)

• Sweatshirt (song)
• The Last Text
• Hit or Miss (Jacob Sartorius song)

There's also a bunch of other Jacob Sartorius album and EP articles which were deleted (and, again, I wasn't involved in any of them). Jacobmcpherson (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Those appear to all be redirects pointing at the deleted articles, FWIW. _signed, Rosguill 22:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, would it be better if I listed each deleted article by Athaenara during this time or is there a way you can see that internally? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 22:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You can find them with a Special:Logs search. Given that they're all either redirects or defunct drafts, I don't think there's a need to go through all the effort of restoring them until the merits of the deletion of actual articles has been decided. _signed, Rosguill 22:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Jacobmcpherson (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Aren't some of these deleted talk pages useful for context? Jacobmcpherson (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think you need the full list (it's actually unhelpful to have such a long list posted here), since redirects can just be remade yourself once the core article is back. Though I do notice that The Last Text EP was only deleted because Sartorius was deleted. Was that a full article? Since the album charted in multiple countries, it definitely meets notability requirements. And you can have albums even if the performer doesn't have an article. So, why was that one deleted at all? Was it just a redirect too? Silverseren 22:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I was intending to separate the ones that were linked to this particular incident, as I saw the admin deleted a lot of articles today (some of which don't have to do with this discussion). Jacobmcpherson (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have restored The Last Text EP as it clearly meets criteria #2 of WP:NALBUMS. I also do not see the unambiguous promotion. What information is there that makes the article irredeemably promotional? For disclosure, I was heavily involved early on when Jacob Sartorius was created, deleted it, and even protected its re-creation at one point. However, notability was established, and it became a magnet for promotional editing as well as serious BLP violations. I took it off my watchlist a couple years ago. That said, given the long editing history including those of long-established editors in good standing and the long discussions involving notability including multiple AfD discussions, is deleting rather than looking for the last good version a good idea? I think if we deleted articles on basis of some UPE (or even disclosed paid) adding garbage we could be harming the encyclopedia in the long run. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What I didn't say above, but meant to: I think it is good to have additional eyes on these articles, and I restored the one page because I think it clearly meets notability guidelines, but I hope others look at it and if they believe I am mistaken, should therefore nominate it for a full deletion discussion. Also, Athaenara, it is good to have you back in the active administrator ranks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought all articles had to go through an AfD or Prodding, to be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

See: CAT:SPEEDY. There are several good reasons to delete things immediately without full community review. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't read through the whole discussion yet, but I believe it is not directly against policy for an admin to delete an article that unambiguously meets a CSD criteria without tagging. Specifically, anything obviously meeting WP:G3, WP:G10 or WP:G12 should be deleted immediately and without waiting for discussion; I would not expect anyone to wait for a tag before deleting I know where Ritchie333 lives and want to kill him. For other criteria, particularly WP:G4 and WP:G11, I find it is best practice to tag and get a second opinion. In the specific case of Carowinds, it superficially looked like a copyvio and gave a "violating likely" score of about 90% on the tool, but I wasn't entirely sure this was correct, so I tagged instead of deleting. I was right to be suspicious, as the tag was reverted when it was pointed out it was a reverse copyvio instead. Like others, I make no comment here about whether Athaenara's actions were optimal or the best cause of action for the project, simply that it doesn't seem to be an egregious policy violation. Ritchie333 13:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft deletion

Why did you delete Draft:Bill Dorfman, Athaenara? There's plenty of drafts that are promotional and need to be improved over time and the point of drafts as a whole are to improve them so they meet mainspace requirements. Also, considering some of the other articles you deleted, I don't exactly trust your application of G11 as accurate in the first place. Silverseren 23:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the leading questions are particularly productive here. _signed, Rosguill 23:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the final question, but the initial question remains. Silverseren 23:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

SilverSeren, have you considered how hostile your phrasing above is? I for one trust Athaenara implicitly. That's not to say that I think her judgment is beyond reproach - we are all fallible - but we are seeing in this thread the application of the checks and balances that apply to admins' decisions. I don't see any reason to start questioning trust - please step back. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not questioning trust, I'm questioning their capability to properly judge speedy deletion criteria, especially when it seems they applied them uniformly to a bunch of articles without bothering to actually consider if the articles met the criteria. If anything, it seems like a vendetta against an editor for being an open and transparent paid editor. Silverseren 00:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Under the "we're not perfect" spirit, it should be possible to, in a friendly way, discuss a possible weakness in one particular area. For example, with the pervasive vague hostility towards paid editing, and the well-founded hostility to undeclared paid editing, it would be be easy to fall prey to hostility towards declared paid editing.North8000 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

And that has impaired their capability to judge the merits of the articles in question. Silverseren 01:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You are questioning her capability to make decisions, based on one set of decisions you disagree with? Doesn't that seem hasty to you? Wouldn't it be better just to say that you disagree, rather than immediately start questioning someone's competence? Is there a back story here? Girth Summit _(blether) 01:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Their initial response to this thread after it was posted directly acknowledged the biased reasons for their actions against OP. It was this and the restoration of the Sartorius and EP articles, showing them to be completely innocuous articles on notable subjects with no promotional text or anything, that gave me the opinion that their judgement of the articles was impaired and that it was indeed an action taken against OP in particular because of them being transparent about their paid editing.

@Silver seren: Why? Because I agreed with Justlettersandnumbers, who tagged it {{db-g11}} at 17:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC). – Athaenara ✉ 01:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

For which I thank you, Athaenara! I've just looked at the draft again, and I can see not one word there that is not intended to promote the subject (though it pales in comparison with that person's own promotional materials). It is an advertisement (a text written for the express purpose of promoting something) and it reads as an advertisement. I indeffed the OP on 11 March 2021 as a spam/advertising-only account; that was changed (with my agreement) to a partial block from mainspace by Xeno, but I'm afraid I don't see that that has solved the problem or that it brings any benefit to our project. In theory, Misplaced Pages does not tolerate WP:PROMOTION of any kind; I've never been able to see any reason to exempt from that those who are lining their pockets off our hard work, whether or not they're doing so in line with our guidance. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with in part with nearly everyone here. But a quick set of thoughts:

We should not be speedying articles that don't meet a CSD criteria. In particular, being created by a declared paid editor is not the same as the article being promotional.

While these deletions seem quite problematic, there is little harm in being polite.

If not all of these that were deleted get restored here, the right place for this is WP:DRV.

Hobit (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How do I request the undeletion of drafts so I can keep improving them? I didn’t see it on WP:DRV. I’m also confused as to why Draft:Bill Dorfman was flagged for deletion, as I was still working on it and didn’t yet submit it for review.Jacobmcpherson (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Basically just pick one of the deleted articles and follow the directions at DRV. And then list the rest of them that you want back. I'd suggest not listing the redirects--just mention them and indicate that your intent is to restore them if the article they were pointing to gets restored. Though I'd suggest waiting another 24 or 48 hours and seeing if your issues are resolved here first. And yes, DRV can also handle deleted drafts. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Got it. I'm listing the deleted drafts here, as they weren't included above. Aside from the already mentioned Draft:Bill Dorfman, these ones were also impacted:

Draft:ALDAE & Draft talk:ALDAE (this one is interesting, because Athaenera noted that I'm a blocked spammer in the comment, which wasn't/isn't true at the time of deletion, as I'm partially blocked. Also, I had just started the draft, and didn't abandon it).

Draft:Kim Anh & Draft talk:Kim Anh (I had been trying to work through this with the WikiProject LGBT studies community).

Draft:Tamara Deike & Draft talk:Tamara Deike

Draft:Emile Ghantous & Draft talk:Emile Ghantous (there's a discussion around this one on my talk page, where I received useful feedback and was intending on implementing it).

I was intending to improve these articles. Jacobmcpherson (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

We absolutely should not be speeding articles which do not meet CSD criteria (this is actually one bit of admin discretion which makes RfA so problematic). But I do not think anybody argues here that any creation of declared paid editor is by definition a promotional article amenable for speedy. We should be discussing (and I assume we will be discussing at an appropriate venue) whether G8 and G11 criteria apply to a specific set of articles listed above.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The opening sentence of Draft:Bill Dorfman reads "Dr. Bill Dorfman (born September 16, 1958) in Los Angeles, California is a Century City-based American cosmetic dentist, New York Times bestselling author, television co-host, founder of the LEAP (Leadership, Excellence, and Accelerating Your Potential) Foundation, and former co-founder of Discus Dental (acquired by Philips)." I've put the bits in bold that are problematic - given that appears to be indicative of the draft, I'm going to endorse the G11 deletion as an uninvolved admin (and somebody who is not exactly unknown for challenging CSD tags). Ritchie333 13:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

WRONG INFORMATION

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

I was just reading about Santiago Cabrera and his wife Anna Marcea. All references to Anna are as a he/man. ANNA is not a he. And it would be Wonderful if Someone at Wikiprojecttopics.org would CORRECT ALL REFERENCES TO ANNA. IT IS INSULTING TO HAVE INFORMATION WRONG AND MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO CORRECT IT. THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CA81:1310:A457:950D:F6C7:DAA (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well I cant see any reference to his wife apart from one stating he's married and they have a son. 2601:602:CA81:1310:A457:950D:F6C7:DAA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) can you provide a link to where youve seen this as I cant see any evidence its here. Amortias (T)(C) 22:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

(e/c)You are posting to the English Misplaced Pages. The referenced Wikiprojecttopics.org does not exist.

In the Santiago Cabrera article, Anna is never described as he/him. There is no Anna Marcea article.

Are you are the right website?

Are you at the right language?

Stop yelling, no one here is responsible for whatever errors you think you found.

Is this a troll, or just seriously confused? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Found what they were talking about . They seem to be lost. This can be closed. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

DriedGrape AE block appeal

Earlier today, I was informed that DriedGrape (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had violated their WP:AA2 TBAN again. Previously, on Oct 26, I had blocked them for 48 hours for this, so this being the second AE block, it was set for 2 weeks this time. DriedGrape asked for me to copy their AE block appeal to this noticeboard, so here it is:

Hello El_C or whoever is reviewing my appeal. If you were to check my edit history and the edits themselves, you would see they are not subject to my arbitration block. I have been updating population info on the provinces of Turkey going alphabetically and fixing minor mistakes, grammar or structural oddities: , , , , . During my works, I have done a minor restructering on the Ağrı Province to combine relevant paragraphs in the lead while updating the population info, specifically the first lead paragraph with the last, latter of which included general info like the provincial capital, and the current governer: It was a minor edit and did not in any way change the meaning of the article.

I have just now saw what I was also accused of, the Azeri name I have added on Kars was already existent in the stable version and was recently mistakenly removed by another editor: as I mentioned in the edit reason. Which while probably was a honest mistake on the other editors part, would be vandalism, correcting of which is within WP:BANEX. I have simply added it back: . And like I said, I did not remove any info relating to Armenia on Ağrı but rather combined the relevant paragraphs together, as the editor who reported me has admitted in your talk page later as a reply. I do not think that is in any way a violation of my sanction. It didn't even cross my mind at the time and I was pretty appalled when I saw I was blocked. I hope you reconsider and let me get back to it. Thanks. DriedGrape (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

My response is essentially that the AA2 topic area encompasses edits that pertain to Azerbaijanis/Armenians demography data or language usage in cities and provinces of Turkey, as was the case here, not just in Azerbaijan or Armenia. And that these need not involve major changes, because minor modifications are themselves a slippery slope. El_C 03:12, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

On the one hand, I can see how a good-faith editor would think that edits like are not subject to AA2 discretionary sanctions. On the other hand, an editor subject to an AA2 topic ban probably should probably avoid that type of edit. And DriedGrape's edit history is almost entirely moderate disruption in that general area. If DriedGrape would agree to avoid edits on geopolitics in the entire region (including Turkey and Kurdistan) I don't think the full block would be necessary. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Cookie clearing and the autoblock system: block evasion potential?

While reading through the autoblock page out of boredom, I discovered a potential flaw - deleting cookies (which the autoblock feature depends on) allows one to bypass an autoblock entirely. Is there any way that administrators can deal with possible block evasion potential like this? And additionally, was this accounted for? 172.112.210.32 (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It's best not to think of blocks as a security measure; there are always ways around. The question is, how much effort will each vandal put into evading the block? If even (making up a number here) 30% never think to clear cookies, well that's 30% you don't have to deal with, and more free time to spend dealing with the higher-effort vandals. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Closure of Edit war without breaking the 3RR clause

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

Request

I'm requesting to review early closure of the said thread per $ Challenging a closing and poor reasoning. I've talked to the user who have closed the discussion here: Edit war without breaking the 3RR clause closure. The RfC is basically about repealing ambigous portion of the WP:WAR which conflicts with WP:POLICY#Content.

Closure diffs

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

09:06, Dec 9, 2021 - «Restored revision 1059330603 by JBchrch talk): The way to go would be WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This proposal just wasting time.»

08:57, Dec 9, 2021 - «Undid revision 1059330603 by JBchrch talk) WP:GOODFAITH closure; give more time and let more input; see Edit war without breaking the 3RR clause closure.»

20:59, Dec 8, 2021 - «‎Edit war without breaking the 3RR clause: Early close per WP:SNOW. After 2 days of discussion and 10 !votes, there is unanimous opposition to the proposal.»

AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think a WP:BOOMERANG block may be needed if this editor continues with such timewasting. The result of the discussion was crystal-clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• The proposal was motivated by personal pique and was frivolous. It should have been ignored, but Wikipedians cannot resist a discussion about policy, regardless of its merits.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• Following Phil Bridger's comment I'm expecting soon to see Alexander Davronov launch an RfC into the applicability of WP:BOOMERANG. Because the repeated pattern with this editor is that when they suffer some perceived setback they embark on a camapign to try and change the "rules" for retrospective vindication. Currently there is a tedious push at WT:BMI where they're arguing that the effect of (recreational) drugs on the human body somehow isn't biomedical, because of some tortured interpretation they're advancing for WP:BMI. It's all becoming a bit of a time sink. Alexbrn (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• I was previously unaware that this discussion existed so I responded to Alexander Davronov's challenge on my talk page here. JBchrch talk 16:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
• The closure was fine - there was unanimous opposition, consisting of well-reasoned arguments that were in-line with established policy and practice. The proposal did not have any chance of gaining consensus, and leaving it open for longer would simply have wasted more people's time. Alexander Davronov would be well advised to drop this stick completely and go do something productive. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Raw head counting and pile-on never been "fine". Users are also free to go past something they don't want to waste time on. That's how it works. And I'm sure that the "well-reasoned arguments" is not the right phrasing for rumbling (save to, probably two opinions in the original RfC). AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 16:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  Just saying that this was based on raw head counting and pile-on rather than well-reasoned arguments does not make it so. Consensus is that it was not. Nobody can force you to take advice from experienced editors, but don't be surprised if failing to do so leads to a block. People don't want to waste time on proposals that have little chance of being implemented, but also don't want such proposals to go through because of a lack of opposition. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think the summary of the RfC was pretty clear on head counting. I won't even go to discuss the rest. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 18:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

  You came here asking for uninvolved admins to review the closure. I have just done that for you - I read through the discussion, and in my view the closure was fine. I didn't expect you to like my conclusion, but you got what you came here for. Please don't try to waste yet more time turning this into a back-and-forth discussion - drop this and go do something else before someone makes a proposal to implement a topic ban. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:15, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

• As another uninvolved admin, the WP:SNOW close seems perfectly reasonable. As a long-standing policy with wide, almost daily use it was very unlikely to have such a sweeping change made; and the well-reasoned responses from a number of active Wikipedians with a sound grasp of policy and its application only confirms that. Which is not to say that any policy could not use periodic revisiting and updating. The OP was within their rights to ask for that discussion, they got a sufficient response, and it was unlikely that leaving the discussion open further would have led to a different end result. It was a good close. --Jayron32 19:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Offer to "rent" admin account

Got a message through LinkedIn:

"Hi, Tim! My name is Anna and want to ask you about cooperation with your wiki account TimVickers. I can rent your[REDACTED] account or pay for some tasks"

(Redacted) Isolated incident that I should just ignore? Should I connect with the account and find out what they're trying to do, or just block them? Tim Vickers (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How much is she offering? Perhaps you should get an agent.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You could take this to the WMF. There's some evidence that higher wages can help reduce corruption. Whatever they're paying you admins, they should double it. Firefangledfeathers 14:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Chat copied from LinkedIn

Hi, Tim! My name is (Redacted) and want to ask you about cooperation with your wiki account TimVickers. I can rent your[REDACTED] account or pay for some tasks

Tim Vickers sent the following message at 8:43 AM

What do you need done?

<redacted> sent the following message at 8:46 AM

It can be some small edits, information update, article publication, removal discussion, article defense If you don't like the article on which I give the task, you can always refuse it)

Tim Vickers sent the following message at 8:50 AM

Article defence may need more than one account to close a discussion, are there any other accounts I can contact for help if I need somebody to back up a decision?

<redacted> sent the following message at 8:53 AM

For now there are not But it can be also tasks with edits or publication where you don't need other people

Tim Vickers sent the following message at 8:54 AM

What topics where you interested in? I'm a scientist, so that's most of what I edit.

<redacted> sent the following message at 8:55 AM

If you are interested in cooparation i'll form task on this week or next and let you know)

Tim Vickers sent the following message at 9:00 AM

Yes, please give me a list of what you're wanting done. All the best!

I guess assuming good faith she may just be confused about how[REDACTED] works, or needing things written in English (seems to be based in Ukraine) I'll see what comes out of this. OK, cheers! Tim Vickers (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

This is probably a part of the Russian-Ukrainian information war. I, however, can't find the (Redacted) among Ukranian names. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

My guess is probably not. Ukrainian government indeed expressed very explicit interest in re-writing Misplaced Pages, but we have so many users who would do it for free just to support the national idea (and in fact we have plenty of users who are only doing this and nothing else) that I do not see why paying for an admin account is needed. Seems more likely some commercial promotion, not necessarily Ukraine-related.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

(Redacted) is an undoubtedly Ukrainian name.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have serious doubts that someone would want to have administrator privileges simply for promotional purposes. Let's see what happen. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You never know, since autopatrolled (was) admin toolkit and NPR still is; could be used to slip spam through. I don't remember an incident involving an admin account being used for spamming, although I do remember a couple incidents involving autopatrolled/new page reviewer. Hog Farm _Talk 15:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I think they are most interested in AfD closing.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

They might not realise I'm an admin, they didn't mention using the tools in that chat discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Following her links on that homepage, she seems to be part of https://www.linkedin.com/company/wikibusinescom/ Tim Vickers (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The FAQ of that company is making steam come out of my ears. Bunch of @!#$%* underhanded parasites. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I got this request to "rent your[REDACTED] account" as well, sent by email earlier today. The initial request was more or less the same vague wording as Tim's - unsurprised to see I'm not the only one she approached, and I suspect it probably went out to quite a few people. I think the suggestion they want an admin account to close AFDs seems very plausible. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

If a good number of Admins have been approached, I have an idea for a fundraiser! :) Tim Vickers (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How about adapting it into a Broadway musical?? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Might be associated with Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bodiadub/Archive since they list Nova_Poshta as a client and that page was created by one of those sockpuppets. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Given the screenshot of a sock tag on https://www.wikibusines.com/en/news/tpost/heo7uydt41-lets-talk-about-paid-edits-on-wikipedia, fairly sure that's who we're dealing with. -- TNT (talk • she/they) 18:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Bodiadub is Wikibusines. It's great that they provided an official confirmation. See m:Wikiproject:Antispam/Archives/2021/Wikibusiness for more information. MarioGom (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Parimatch looks like one of theirs. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Did they mention how much they're willing to pay? Would they pay extra for +CU? Asking for a friend... _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 17:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How much would you charge to block a few people I don't get on well with? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Surely the price will depend on whom... 😏 -- TNT (talk • she/they) 20:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Would anybody be surprised to discover that unblock.me is already registered? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

As a note, the company website claims that it works in "partnership" with Wikimedia Ukraine. Is this true? I'd be somewhat suspicious that the WMF would willingly allow for a group to use its trademarked logo in a manner that indicates an endorsement of the group's paid editing. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban Wikibusines and its affiliates

It appears that Wikibusines has no intent to follow community guidelines related to paid editing. Taking inspiration from the community response to Wiki-PR editing of Misplaced Pages, I propose that the following be enacted:

Employees, contractors, owners, and any person or company who derives financial benefit from editing the English Misplaced Pages on behalf of Wikibusines, its founders, its subsidiaries, its successors, its parent corporation, or any employee, contractor, consultant, and/or sub-contractor thereof, are banned from editing the English Misplaced Pages. This ban has been enacted because Wikibusines has, as an organization, proven itself to be flagrantly unwilling to adhere to our basic community standards regarding paid editing.

This ban as a whole may be appealed at WP:AN at any time that Wikibuisines as an organization is willing to:

1. divulge a complete list of all past and current accounts that have been created and/or used to perform any edits on behalf of Wikibusines;
2. divulge a complete list of all articles that any employee, contractor, sub-contractor, owner, or other paid individual has edited on behalf of Wikibusines; and
3. pledge to, in the future, only edit with properly disclosed accounts and adhere as closely as they are able to all of Misplaced Pages’s content policies.

Individual accounts blocked under this ban may be unblocked by any uninvolved checkuser who believes that it is more likely than not that the individual account in question is not connected to Wikibusines.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: Ban Wikibusines and its affiliates

• Support as proposer. Undisclosed paid editing cannot be tolerated and being so flagrant about their intent to do so makes a formal ban worthwhile. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Pretty sure they are banned, given that Wikiproject:Antispam/Archives/2021/Wikibusiness on Meta-Wiki says Ukrainian Misplaced Pages spamming company banned by the WMF? Pinging MarioGom who may have more info ✨ -- TNT (talk • she/they) 02:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  TIL of meta-wiki's anti-spam project. My reading of that page is that two accounts are banned by the WMF, though I'm not entirely sure of the extent of the WMF ban's scope. The text above is much broader than a narrowly tailored WMF ban, but a broad WMF ban that basically applies to the business would also serve the same purpose. I suppose a local ban would not hurt, unless the terms of the ban would allow for behavior that the WMF ban would not. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Oxford High School shooting – discussion closure request

Hi, can an uninvolved admin evaluate and close the discussion currently being held at Talk:Oxford High School shooting#Names_of_victims? We're looking to close it by December 16th at the earliest, with the qualification that if there appears to be constructive discussion still ongoing, the closure can be delayed to allow that to play out. Asking now so if an uninvolved admin wishes to get started reading the lengthy discussion they can get a headstart. Thank you! —Locke Cole • t • c 15:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

A reminder that this is a perennial problem. As I noted on my talk page yesterday (and the day before), it's pretty much the same debate with every mass shooting event: list the victims or not. To break this cycle of repetition, there needs to be a decision on what to do, a criteria, etc. (like updating WP:NOTAMEMORIAL, WP:BLP, or even a new policy/guideline). But most of the parties to these disputes are too entrenched in their positions, even though I do think there's a compromise to be found. Each camp even has its own essay on this: the exclusion side has Misplaced Pages:Victim lists and the inclusion one has Misplaced Pages:Casualty lists. What is needed most of all, then, are new participants who would be open to compromise, and then go from there. El_C 12:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

May be someone should open a RfC on whether (otherwise non-notable) victims of mass-murder events or catastrophes must be included or not and see what comes out of it.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Where would be a correct venue for such a discussion? --JBL (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Village pump (proposals) would be ideal, since it's a proposal and it's in a centralised location. CENT might be needed if there's a desire to draw in more neutral-minded folk. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Please don't. There were a few discussions about this several years ago. There was no consensus to do anything different than the status quo: each individual article should be considered on its own merits, and that discussion should happen on article talk pages to reach consensus on whether to include it or not. See here and here. I doubt a new discussion would produce any new consensus. --Jayron32 14:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"Several years," you say? That's... time. And a good time as any to give up, I suppose. I know I have. But, again, with some new blood maybe the cycle of repetition can be broken. I, for one, am a hopeless optimist (except when I'm not). El_C 15:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, feel free. COnsensus can change. However, I'm not sure it's a good idea. I generally oppose creating sweeping rules designed to avoid consensus-building at the granular article level. Misplaced Pages works best when every article is allowed to reach its own best state without falling back on rules that may or may not be useful for that one article. --Jayron32 15:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gonna do it. But viewing the continued repetition of these same arguments over and over and over again as some sort of positive page agency or whatever, I argue that this does not reflect the reality of what is actually happening. El_C 15:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, a simpler solution than amending NOTMEMORIAL, BLP, etc. would be to simply enforce NPOV's "not negotiable" provision (which is right at the top, before the TOC). We already have enough instruction creep which is why I'm reluctant to propose anything new/different, we just need editors to understand that NOTMEMORIAL does not apply to this situation, and that NPOV does. Simply following what our sources say should not be this complicated but I believe personal motivations are tainting these discussions. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This should be at WP:CR not AN. Levivich 18:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree. @Locke Cole: would you consider posting at WP:CR and partially withdrawing your request here? This discussion has mostly focused on a broader question anyway. Firefangledfeathers 18:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyright Violation on Image

Hello, I see this image - https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Salem_Ilese.jpg has been flagged for a copyright violation, but it's incorrectly tagged, as I didn't take it from the website listed. The photographer's agent provided it to me directly, and I instructed them to have the photographer send the proper form via VRT. The claim made here https://commons.wikimedia.org/User_talk:Jacobmcpherson isn't representative of how the image was sourced and uploaded. This seems to be related to my other issue on the administrators' noticeboard, found here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Mass deletion of approved articles Jacobmcpherson (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You would need to contact commons:Commons:OTRS. The image will likely be deleted in the meanwhile, if the OTRS would accept your evidence they will undelete the image.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Understood, thanks for your response Jacobmcpherson (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Épine unblocked

Following a successful appeal to the Arbitration Committee, Épine (talk · contribs) is unblocked, subject to a one-account restriction. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Épine unblocked

Are school/university assignments involving editing Misplaced Pages pages allowed?

I've just spent quite a bit of time cleaning up low-quality edits to Apollonius of Perga that were apparently made as part of a university assignment: WP:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Oklahoma/History_of_Science_to_Newton_(Fall_2021)

Are such assignments in accordance with WP policy? It seems this introduces a flood of low-quality edits. It might be appropriate for instructors to be more actively involved to assure the quality of such edits. I'm not here to complain about specific editors, just trying to find out what the policy is. Please advise if this is not the right place to ask. Thanks. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

In general, Misplaced Pages:Student assignments#Advice for editors is how you should approach it, if there are no specific problems you want to address here. User:Ian (Wiki Ed) is the contact for this assignment, so you can ask on their talk page. If you still need assistance, try Misplaced Pages:Education noticeboard. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Flix11 has been banned

Per the advice in the banning policy, this section is created to notify that Flix11 has been community banned under 3X for repeated confirmed block evasion. Flix11 was banned following two separate confirmations of sockpuppetry post their first indef block in the SPI case. Dreamy Jazz 00:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Log redaction concern

Hello. I recently encountered a few instances of log redaction. I have carefully reviewed the criteria for both revision deletion and oversight, and, given the type of log action and the field(s) redacted, I have come to the conclusion that these instances of log redaction were very likely inappropriate. I'm hesitant to mention exactly which logs I'm talking about, because I trust that the administrator or oversighter who did this did it for good reason (although I don't think it was within policy, I don't want to bring it to wider attention, particularly in case the redaction was appropriate). Is there somewhere I could request review of these redactions? Thanks, Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Difficult to review such actions, if we don't know who did them. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tol: I suggest you privately submit your concern to oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org; this will engage the oversight team to look in to the matter, this includes arbcom. Sometimes when performing a redaction or an suppression an error can be made, so checking in to it is worthwhile. Keep in mind, that with removed content - sometimes the details of why it was removed are unable to be shared. — xaosflux 04:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, @Xaosflux. I'll write an email. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, an earlier step you may take would be to privately contact the admin using wikimail and ask them directly (if you know who it is) - but the escalation from there would be best to to the private mailing list above. — xaosflux 04:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Due to this being a log redaction, I'm not sure if it was RevDel or oversight, and I don't see anything obvious on the RevDel log. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tol: understood, os's will be able to find it and may contact the acting admin or oversighter directly. — xaosflux 04:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, revision deletions of log entries appear on Log Deletion log, not the Revision Deletion log (which is what you imply you looked at). —Cryptic 05:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cryptic: Sorry! I did check the log deletion log, not the revision deletion log. I thought log deletions were also done by RevDel, and must have mixed them up. Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I've sent an email to the oversight team. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Reporting 2601:48:8100:B6A0:28A9:9060:BA38:FE13

2601:48:8100:B6A0:28A9:9060:BA38:FE13 (talk · contribs)

This editor is using multiple accounts for edit warring in the articles Cheek to Cheek, Chromatica, and Joanne.

Cheek to Cheek

.

Chromatica

Joanne

The editor has been reverted by other editors SNUGGUMS, Ronherry, Sricsi, and Tbhotch, but keep restoring their edits. The editor has admitted in my talk page that they will reinstate their edits . This editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Right, let’s tell it like it really is. No one, absolutely no one, is here to build an encyclopedia. Everyone is here to put their own opinions and biases into an already existing database of information. You are simply trying to get rid of someone whose opinions you disagree with, so that you can continue having your opinions be put on this site. People like you remind me why humanity was a mistake. 2601:48:8100:B6A0:28A9:9060:BA38:FE13 (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

And another thing; you told me that the reason that you were reverting my edits was because I didn’t provide a source, however, when I brought it to your attention that other users had done literally the same thing as me on another page, not only did you ignore that message, but you deleted it. This shows that you simply aren’t interested in looking into things as much as you are in discriminating against newer users here. Any reasonable person would have looked into the Cheek to Cheek issue I brought up, since you cared so much about it when it came to me. But you inexplicably ignored it and deleted the message. I believe this shows that you are WP:NOTHERE. 2601:48:8100:B6A0:28A9:9060:BA38:FE13 (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards