Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
*{{u|Jtbobwaysf}}, thank you for your message here. This above might actually be nothing as it seems okay. But still, a prudent step forward will be to enter into discussions with the editor concerned on their talk page. I know you have left warnings to the editor, but a templated warning is not seen in the same way as a proper opened section (whether on the user's talk page or on the relevant article's talk page) where you can invite the editor and discuss your issues with their edits. Thanks, ] 06:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Revision as of 06:27, 13 July 2023
Notices of interest to administrators
Lua error in Module:Navbox at line 535: attempt to get length of local 'arg' (a number value).
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.
@Star Mississippi: How's the weather in the Magnolia State? I handled all the remaining June ones. If anyone thinks I closed with the wrong result feel free to correct it. NYC Guru (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment Could an admin check whether the closure for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Fishtank (series) is appropriate. It is closed as draftify by a NAC per above, despite it being clearly controversial and IMO requires an admin closure. Moreover, no one supported draftification in the AfD, so I'm very confused how that is a suitable conclusion to draw. Thanks. VickKiang(talk)22:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I've re-opened the discussion (per WP:NACD) since it was clearly not straightforward enough for a non-admin closure. NYC Guru, in future, please consider leaving "close calls and controversial decisions" for an administrator to close. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ if I'm not sure I'll usually extend it. The Fishtank article was a delete but I wanted to draftify so it can be reviewed and you could just delete the redirect which I forget to speedy tag. NYC Guru (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@VickKiang, the plot just thickened. The article was moved to to Fishtank_(web_series) and AFD retagged. While the consensus is indeed to delete can we just draftify it to keep the peace? NYC Guru (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
The reason is because that Extraordinary Writ also thought that your close was not a good NAC, so reverted it per instructions here in an individual admin capacity. This is a standard procedure that requires basically reverting your draftification and your removal of the AfD tag as a procedural step. Afterwards, the AfD is temporarily reopened before Rosguill closed it again as redirect. Thanks. VickKiang(talk)08:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, draftify as an alternative to deletion should only be considered if editors in the discussion are suggesting that as a solution. The sockpuppet presence, and a key question being an underarticulated divide over the need for deletion vs. redirect, further made this a bad discussion for an NAC. signed, Rosguill17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Happy to pitch in. If it helps, up my way it's been just as humid with a periodic mix of wildfire smoke. I don't know how anyone lives further south than my native Connecticut (though I know the feeling is mutual, as a lifelong resident I love the wild temperature swings that make my area so notorious), more power to all of you who manage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
An appeal for help
I came here to post a request about AFDs and since this is already open, I'll add it here rather than start a new section. About a month ago, I posted a plea on the Village Pump for editors and admins to return to AFD land if they once participated there because we really need more people to help out there. You can see by today's log, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 7 that next Friday, we'll have 127 discussions to close. This high number of discussions is partly due to the fact that we have to relist so many discussions due to a low level of editor participation or discussions seem deadlocked. We need more editors discussing and evaluating articles and admins and experienced editors to close discussions.
The alternative that I see are to stop relisting discussions that have 0 or 1 participant and close them on the basis of the nomination alone. Personally, I dislike doing that because I think deletion should be determined by a consensus of participating editors but often it becomes a matter of WP:NOQUORUM. So, if you once were an AFD regular participant or closer but you got burned out, please consider returning even in a limited capacity. Your help will be appreciated! Liz04:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
It's been quite a few years since I've been active in closing AfDs, but when I was, I always treated those AfDs as soft-deletes (effectively PRODs or endorsed PRODs), is that not a thing that is done anymore? ansh.66618:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I certainly did the same but have only closed a few AFDs recently and the poor participation in AFD doesn't help as I'd hate us to get to the point where nominations weren't subject to some form of checks and balances Spartaz18:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
An AfD with only a nominator's statement is essentially the same thing as an uncontested PROD, and is subject to the same check: the judgement of the closing admin. If the nominator's rationale is sound and you think it's a valid candidate for deletion, go ahead and delete. It got a week on a noticeboard for people to object--which is probably more scrutiny than it would have gotten as a PROD.
If the nominator's rationale is dubious, you're not obliged to do anything. But you could comment on the nom, and leave it for another admin. Realistically, if we have large numbers of deletion nominations that aren't getting any participation, clogging the process with relistings isn't going to help. Punting the decision to the following week should probably be more strongly discouraged. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
When I've looked a few of times over the last month I've only once found a backlog of the type that used to be endemic when I was doing lots of closures. Just what kind of backlogs are we getting concerned about? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
BBC presenter suspended
The BBC have suspended a male presentersuspended a male presenter over an allegation that he paid a teenager thousands of pounds for sexually explicit photographs. They have not named the presenter, but several names are being banded about on social media. Admins may want to keep a weather eye on our articles about those people to prevent BLP breaches. I note that at least one article affected has been recently semi-protected. This may be needed for other articles. Mjroots (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Including the BBC itself, which has included this in its news bulletins since it was announced today. I doubt that this will be out of reliable sources for long (I haven't looked for a few hours so it may already be there), so please let's just wait until then rather than announce the name in advance based on rumour. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Obviously, per BLP, "rumour" won't come anywhere near cutting it. Apparently, there's an injunction so unlikely that UK sources will report the name for the time being. Might come up via non-UK sources. DeCausa (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Just privacy law and defamation, according to BBC News at Ten tonight, is the reason for not naming the presenter. No mention of injunction. DeCausa (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
The BBC have an article which goes into the complexities surrounding naming the person etc . It notes that even The Sun have been somewhat limited in what details they have said about the allegations. The privacy case mentioned there appears to be this one . Nil Einne (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
To prevent confusion, it is well sourced, for example it's all over the BBC. Like others perhaps, I don't know what anyone's doing citing GB News. -- zzuuzz17:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Now that he has been named by many outlets the important thing is for us not to publish anything about Edwards or his alleged victims unless it is very well sourced, which I think needs more than GB News to report it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I'll stand behind this question as well. I don't know whether the use of that source at this noticeboard was an innocent mistake, or whether its use was intended to make a point, but I'm happy to AGF and assume the former. Let's be clear though: this is all covered by the BLP policy, and GB News is not an acceptable source in that ballpark. Mjroots - please acknowledge that you have taken the point. Girth Summit (blether)19:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I was unaware that GBNews wasn't considered reliable. As I said earlier, it was just one of many reporting the story. Point taken aboard. Mjroots (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
For anyone interested, Cullen328 p-blocked Martytanaki from Adom (artist) on the 7th, and Daniel Case (not Rift) protected the article on the 8th. The issue would appear to be a content dispute, if Martytanaki hadn't left a legal threat on Rift's talk page Diff. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
For failure to meet the conduct standards expected of an administrator, Scottywong's administrative user rights are removed. Scottywong may regain them at any time via a successful request for adminship.
Problem in the page "Patriarchate of Peć (monastery)"
I accidentally started an edit war. Peć is historically a Serbian city in Kosovo. In the page of Patriarchate of Peć (monastery) there was often only the Albanian name of the city, so I added the Serbian name. But, someone still cancel, annull, set aside my edit. I wrote him in the talk page and the User talk page too, but she/he continue to delete my edit. Bruno Romanin (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Consider reporting the issue at the edit warring noticeboard. Struck per comment by IP below and per the reasons why user's edits were reverted - I have apparently forgot to check said user's contributions prior to publishing said comment. Sorry for any subsequent disruption caused. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 14:22, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Prodraxis This is very very poor advice. No one on that article has broken 3RR, the op has been reverted by multiple other editors, and there were completely valid reasons for their edits to be reverted, such as the fact they deleted large chunks of the infobox and multiple paragraphs of information without explanation.
When a 20 edit newbie starts an ill-founded administrative noticeboard thread because they don't understand how dispute resolution works telling them to escalate to other administrative venues is a terrible next step - at best the edit warring thread is going to be closed as no action, at worst they are going to end up getting into more trouble. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry, I have forgot to check their contributions before publishing said comment. I reviewed their contributions and I now can see how they are disruptive and against WP:CONS. — Prodraxis {talk • contributions} (she/her) 15:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@Bruno Romanin This is a content dispute, please discuss your edit on the article talk page. You should base the arguments for making the edit in Misplaced Pages policy (e.g. the article titling policy, WP:AT, relevant portions of the manual of style, WP:MOS) and reliable sources, not vague complaints that the article is "unfair" or nationalistic quotes from tennis players as you did here.
Looking at your edits there are a number of issues that would have merited reversion, primary among them you that deleted a load of the infobox and multiple paragraphs about the early history of the monastery from the article without explanation. I also do not think "I added the Serbian name" is an honest way of describing your edit - You completely replaced the Albanian name in many places, in others you made the Serbian name primary and relegated the Albanian name to brackets. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
2 - I saw the "infobox" mistake and other similar mistakes, but this is only because I restored my version without seeing that there was new text added. I just wanted to improve the neutrality of the voice. I apologize for the mistakes I've made.
3 - I never completely replaced the Albanian name with the Serbian one
4 - I put the Serbian name primary because it is the original name.
According to this, this is the new name of this phylum, having been changed only a few months ago. I didn't find how to make a page move request (no particular page for such requests), so I try here. Thank you 193.54.167.164 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The closing instructions say that there is no minimum participation necessary. In fact, it says that If no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. So if your request goes completely ignored, the move will probably be done. Animal lover|666|07:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Rafybuma. Someone is creating throw-away accounts rapidly to add spam links to gambling sites. They are using proxies, and usually get a new IP for each account, which limits what I can do with CU/range blocks. The MO is to add a real-looking ref, and to sneak in a second link to the spam target as a second ref. Example diffs: here and here. Can someone clever see a way to prevent this with a filter, or by using the blacklist? Thanks Girth Summit (blether)14:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Just to be clear - the spam sites change frequentyly - it's not always that hitclub site, they're spamming lots of sites (none of which I'm prepared to click on). Girth Summit (blether)14:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I can take a crack at writing a filter that might catch this autogeneration style, but it's going to take some testing for specificity before it can be set to disallow. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@Girth Summit: I think we may need a tracker bot if we're to do this. There's not entirely a consistent pattern that I can think of that we could use as a preventative control (there's far too much randomness in the spam), but I do have an idea for a detective control. I'll send an email shortly. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Suspicious edits
Vacosea (talk·contribs) seems to be making suspicious edits with a focus on China subjects.
1. This edit the user marked as minor, clearly not being a minor edit.
2. This stated "(redundant information and sections, copyright, no citation)" but contained very large edits to a number of sections. I reverted this edit as it looked strange, asking the user to make individual edits.
3. The user then made individual edits (as I had hoped) again making strange edit summaries and removing sources.
4. Here the editor oddly strikes another editor's Estnot (talk·contribs) comments. Wondering was the editor logged into the wrong account and this should be at WP:SPI? Someone might want to look at the IP addresses as well. After doing this AN post I see that Estnot was blocked as sockpupet by RoySmith (talk·contribs).
Looks like WP:SOAP at best. I havent engaged with the editor except posting a note on their talk page just now, then looking more closely got an odd feeling about this.
Jtbobwaysf, thank you for your message here. This above might actually be nothing as it seems okay. But still, a prudent step forward will be to enter into discussions with the editor concerned on their talk page. I know you have left warnings to the editor, but a templated warning is not seen in the same way as a proper opened section (whether on the user's talk page or on the relevant article's talk page) where you can invite the editor and discuss your issues with their edits. Thanks, Lourdes06:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
