Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	0	0	0	0
TfD	0	0	8	0	8
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	15	0	15
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 1 user-reported username for administrator attention
• 1 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 12 sockpuppet investigations
• 20 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 16 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 5 requests for RD1 redaction
• 41 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 8 requested closures
• 93 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 26 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (39 out of 8769 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin 2024 Tyre airstrikes 2024-11-01 02:48 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Mahmoud Bakr Hijazi 2024-11-01 01:52 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade 0404 News 2024-11-01 01:50 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh 2024-11-01 01:47 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Rashad Abu Sakhila 2024-11-01 00:09 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade Israeli airstrikes on Al Qard Al Hasan 2024-10-31 23:51 indefinite edit,move WP:CT/A-I Significa liberdade List of best-selling boy bands 2024-10-31 22:12 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter Sporting CP 2024-10-31 20:23 2025-05-01 12:37 edit,move Well, that didn't take long. Black Kite October surprise 2024-10-31 18:52 2025-10-31 18:52 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement of WP:CT/AP; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Sadh 2024-10-31 18:22 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Kamala 2024-10-31 17:02 2024-11-14 17:02 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Hebraization of Palestinian place names 2024-10-31 09:45 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Beit Hanoun wedge 2024-10-31 09:39 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction Johnuniq Baalbek 2024-10-30 22:09 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Ada and Abere 2024-10-30 21:55 2024-11-03 21:55 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Susanna Gibson 2024-10-30 19:58 indefinite edit,move WP:BLP issues. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson (2nd nomination). Asilvering 29 October 2024 Beit Lahia airstrike 2024-10-30 19:00 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Ganesha811 Hwang Hyun-jin 2024-10-30 13:09 2024-11-06 13:09 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Goodnightmush Khushali Kumar 2024-10-29 21:30 indefinite edit,move Restoring some protection after creating redirect Liz Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 20:05 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP Ingenuity Orakzai 2024-10-29 19:32 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Bangash 2024-10-29 19:29 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Bengalis 2024-10-29 19:24 indefinite edit Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Zaher Jabarin 2024-10-29 19:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Killing of Shaban al-Dalou 2024-10-29 18:36 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:MusicBrainz release group 2024-10-29 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, My Life for Iran 2024-10-29 17:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Palestine and the United Nations 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Israel won't exist in 25 years 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Down with Israel 2024-10-29 17:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Donald Trump and fascism 2024-10-29 17:20 2025-01-29 20:05 edit,move Persistent vandalism; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Tim Sheehy (businessman) 2024-10-29 17:03 2024-11-12 17:03 edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: restrict BLP violations from non-XC until after the election OwenX Mykolas Majauskas 2024-10-29 16:25 2025-04-29 13:09 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/BLP -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Tony Hinchcliffe 2024-10-29 01:19 2025-01-29 01:14 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP ToBeFree Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon 2024-10-28 20:37 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Kurdish–Turkish conflict 2024-10-28 19:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/KURD; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Macrobiotic diet 2024-10-28 16:00 2024-11-28 16:00 edit,move Persistent spamming: Per a complaint at WP:AN3 EdJohnston User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 34 2024-10-28 13:58 indefinite edit,move Fish and karate Fusion power 2024-10-28 03:46 2024-11-04 03:46 move Liz

Potentially involved block by AlisonW

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

---

Note: This matter is now being discussed at ARBCOM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I have just accepted an unblock request by Veverve, after AlisonW (not to be confused with Alison) blocked him for Disruptive editing: Regular massive deletions of content the editor feels are irrelevant over many articles. See my comments at User talk:Veverve § Unblock request - June 2023 for my reasoning in accepting the request. An unjustified block in itself would not merit an AN post—most admins make bad blocks from time to time—but there is a particular aspect that I think needs community review, specifically the question of WP:INVOLVED. (To be clear, I saw grounds to reverse the block, in line with the norms established at WP:RAAA, regardless of whether it qualified as involved.) The sequence of events here is:

1. 00:56, 19 January 2023: Veverve removes the "In popular culture" section from Metatron per WP:TRIVIA
2. 16:40, 8 June 2023: AlisonW reverts with summary whole section removed without explanation. Content is relevant and encyclopaedic so reinstated. Discuss on talk page if you consider it necessary.
3. 05:44, 9 June 2023: Veverve reverts with summary I have explained each and every removal. Read my edit summaries and do not act as if I did not explain myself
4. 05:46, 9 June 2023: Veverve comments on AlisonW's talk that what is WP:TRIVIA is not encyclopedic.
5. 14:31, 9 June 2023: AlisonW reverts with default rollback summary (misusing rollback)
6. 14:33–41, 9 June 2023: AlisonW comments on Veverve's talk that I can see that you have strong views about religion, however removing an entire section, "in popular culture" is unacceptable and is far from the 'trivia' you suggested on my talk page. This is not a religious text, it is a place to discover information, as such the section is entirely appropriate (emphasis original). She also requests he take down his {{retired}} banner.
7. 14:47–52, 9 June 2023: AlisonW reverts 3 more Veverve edits on other pages.
8. 14:55, 9 June 2023: AlisonW blocks Veverve (without block notice)
9. 14:57–59, 9 June 2023: 2 more reverts, one by rollback

The INVOLVED line can be a bit blurry sometimes when dealing with content-based disruption (for instance, admins are allowed to revert users they've blocked for NPOV violations), but to me this seems to cross that line, and looks more like a case of an admin blocking someone for reverting them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is an utterly appalling block. Indefensible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Not too surprising when considering the fact that, apart from Veverve's block, AlisonW has blocked only two users since 2012, both in 2021. The majority of their blocks have taken place between 2006–2009. —Nythar (💬-🍀) 01:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Ouch. As a result of my questionable life choices, I like to try to examine others' actions in the most favorable possible light. Even doing so here, every interpretation boils down to "this was wildly wrong." Dumuzid (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Compare and contrast Veverve's and AlisonW's contribution history. [1][2] It is simply absurd that an out-of-touch legacy admin should have the power to behave in such a peremptory manner. As for the disputed 'in popular culture' section in Metatron, the removal was entirely in accord with current practice, and I'd have done the same if I'd seen it. Much of it is trivial fancruft, with nothing remotely approaching the sort of independently sourced commentary necessary to justify inclusion. This might have ben acceptable in 2005, but Wikipedia has moved on since then, and an admin unwilling to accept that things have changed should not be permitted to continue in that position. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

A legacy admin doesn't understand widely accepted standards for admin actions? Must be a day that ends in y. Given how much scrutiny new RfA candidates can go through, it's surprising there's never been a real effort to apply the same scrutiny to admins that were chosen when it was given out like candy before ~2005. Unless someone want to try and convince me that someone with less than 2,000 edits in the last 10 years (and only a few thousand at the height of their activity) would pass an RfA reconfirmation today. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Endorse Unblock I'm having a hard time seeing anything that could be described as reasonable justification for that block. This was a poor judgement call. An apology is in order along with a nice big seafood dinner served with the community's compliments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is more than a 'poor judgement call', it is an unequivocal abuse of admin tools. We can and do desysop for that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree. This doesn't look malicious to me. It looks like an exceptionally poor judgement call. A formal caution and a trouting are probably called for. I'm not seeing a need for more unless a pattern of similar bad judgement calls can be found. All of which said, I'm not a fan of people hanging onto the tools who aren't planning to use them. But that's a topic for another discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Non-admin but peripherally involved comment Endorse unblock with prejudice: I've known Veverve for around two years on-project and I'm familiar with the justified blocks and sanctions against them. However, V has been a broadly good-faith contributor during this time with occasional bouts of excessive deletionism. A block executed with the purpose of defeating an arguably justified series of deletions is wholly unacceptable in of itself. This is accentuated by the legacy admin's irregular use of their tools over the course of the last decade. I think that a reconsideration of whether AlisonW can be trusted with the mop might be suitable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Thinking further on this in light of what others have said, my current feeling is that this was probably not intentionally abusive, but shows a troubling disconnect with current norms. If AlisonW were under the (very mistaken) impression that removing "in popular culture" sections is widely considered disruptive, then she would have seen her actions as resolving a conduct issue, not a content dispute, same as the hypothetical admin who removes blatantly POV-pushing content and then blocks the account responsible. So to me the real issue is that her understanding of what constitutes disruptive editing is so far-flung from current norms, and what I would like to see is some acknowledgment that she needs to better familiarize herself with those norms before making future blocks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm sympathetic to this best-light reading of AlisonW's actions but V linked WP:TRIVIA in an edit. A block subsequent to that premised solely on V being disruptive would require either a.) AW missing the content of that edit (which is hard to imagine) or b.) willful ignorance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• I knew something tickled at my mind when I saw this. I was able to find what I recalled, an instance when AlisonW threatened to block another editor for removing a template she was adding to a bunch of articles regarding Wikia. That template ({{Wikia is not Wikipedia}}) was later deleted at TfD, but the discussion and block threat, originally from the template talk thread, were archived at Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 5#Removal. It looks like I warned AlisonW not to make the block, so that's probably why I recalled the incident.[3] Now, to be sure, that was in 2008, and that may as well be antiquity in Wikipedia time, but just to clarify that this is not AlisonW's first time around with questionable admin decisions while involved. (For the sake of clarity, the block was completely inappropriate and AlisonW was clearly much too involved to make it, and I support Tamzin's reversal of it.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• AlisonW reverted/rollbacked me on 7 pages, not 4. Here are all of the reverts/rollbacks:

• Document on Human Fraternity
• Seven deadly sins
• Metatron
• Do-it-yourself biology
• Vocationist Fathers
• Contemporary Catholic liturgical music
• General Congregation of the Anatolian Turkish Orthodox

I consider all but one (the TRIVIA one) of those reverts/rollbacks to have been motivated not by editorial concerns, but as an automatism (4 out of 7 have a summary along the lines of "reverting removal" without any clear justification of why the revert/rollback was ever needed, and one has no edit summary at all). I also would like to point out that that AlisonW clearly violated WP:BURDEN on many cases. Veverve (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that the Vocationist Fathers article is a copyright violation: compare early versions with this: [4] And while it isn't reasonable to expect admins (or any other contributor) to check ever revert for such violations, I'd have hoped that anyone with an ounce of sense would look askance at phraseology like this:

By the reality of their vocation-oriented charism, a “Vocationist”, a name given to them by their founder, Fr. Giustino Russolillo, and coined from the word “Vocation”, is one who has an exceptional love for vocation, one who is a specialist in caring for vocations, one who dedicates his life to vocations, and one who is committed to working and praying for vocations. According to Fr. Giustino, other religious institutes wait for vocations and welcome them, while the Vocationists, personally and purposely, go out searching for them, especially through their catechetical schools and other apostolates. In other words, their activities are highly riveted on matters of vocation and in all, their immediate objective, though not their goal, is to see people being guided to properly discern their vocations and being helped to realize them by responding appropriately to God's call in their lives. Their ultimate goal is to help all attain Divine Union with the Blessed Trinity by means of universal sanctification of all souls.

That doesn't need a citation. It needs a complete rewrite for neutral encyclopaedic phrasing. No admin should be restoring that, with nothing beyond a 'citation needed' tag. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Regardless of that section at Metatron being an "In Popular Culture" one, it was a pile of crap anyway [5], as you can see most of the sections were either unsourced or sources to non-RS such as IMDB or forums. I note this quote from User:AlisonW; ...editing the content in order to increase that record of knowledge is and will always be far more important than getting hung up on 'process' and 'policy'. The only policy that matters is to *add useful stuff*.... Given that and the terrible INVOLVED block which Alison used to enforce her ideas of what Wikipedia should be like, I suggest that she seriously considers handing in her bit to save everyone the timesink that is an ArbCom case. Black Kite (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Black Kite Do you have a diff for that quote? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, never mind. It's on their user page. Dooh! -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Getting past the easy stuff first, there's no problem with Tamzin's unblock. As for AlisonW, I don't think we're in desysop territory yet, but it's clear that if they're going to continue to use the tools, they need to make a serious effort to get up to speed on how things have changed on enwiki since they were last active. I don't mind that they're an inclusionist, but they need to understand that policies (and culture) have evolved. It's not enough to "add useful stuff" anymore (and hasn't been for many years). We've gotten tougher on WP:N and WP:V, insisting on more and better citations, and moving away from the whole "In popular culture" concept. But deeper than that, the concept of WP:INVOLVED goes back to at least 2008, but I suspect it's much older than that. So it's not like that's something that grew up after they had put their mop in hibernation.
  AlisonW, you need to take a step back, acknowledge your error, and make a commitment to review recent (by which I mean the past decade or so) policy changes. If you're not sure about a admin action you're planning to perform and you'd prefer to ask off-wiki, I'm sure any of the admins who have responded to this thread (including myself) would be happy to offer advice by email. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Don't we have a page for returning admins that updates them on changes? Could swear it exists but can't remember the name. I halfway wonder if there should be a big box at the top of that page saying "Notability and inclusion standards have become significantly more strict since the project's early years", since that seems to be the top recurring issue. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators? DanCherek (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Reading through the Guideline and policy news sections of Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter/Archive would also be useful. It only goes back to 2017, but it's a start. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with RoySmith that trouting is most appropriate, in the hope that it doesn't happen again. Regarding WP:INVOLVED, it's been an understood thing as long as I can remember. It was stated as a principle in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo in 2005. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I also agree, but I would like to see at least an acknowledgement that they have seen this thread, taken the message onboard, and will make an effort to avoid issues in the future. Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, you're right, and I should have mentioned that. Mackensen (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Per WP:ADMINACCT, admins are required to communicate, and may face sanctions or desysopping for failure to "address concerns of the community". AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, they are. AlisonW hasn't edited since the block. She appears to edit rather infrequently, which means both that this isn't necessarily deliberate and that they shouldn't be blocking. I don't think a desysopping is warranted absent a pattern of tool misuse. Mackensen (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  So how do you suggest the community prevents an admin who clearly doesn't understand current practice and/or doesn't care about it from returning from a long (and possibly convenient) absence from misusing their tools again? Not sanctioning someone because they don't comply with accountability requirements is simply untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  What I've suggested above is the functional equivalent of a yellow card. Call it a warning, call it a reprimand, the point is that you communicate that someone's behavior was below expectations and that if it happens again there are likely to be far more serious consequences (desysopping in the case of an admin). A feedback loop that goes from zero to desysopped, or zero to banned, isn't helpful when working with a good-faith editor who made a mistake. Absent a demonstrable pattern (pace the IP below, that pattern was adduced with Scottywong), I think that's a viable approach. I made a similar suggestion a few weeks ago regarding ErnestKrause and the GAN process: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1128#ErnestKrause disruption at GAN. This does depend on AlisonW engaging with this discussion. Mackensen (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

It’s wild how so many people were out for ScottyWong’s scalp over the “Mr Squiggles” remark but here we have people willing to give a slap on the wrist to admin who violated the brightline INOLVED policy. 2601:196:4600:5BF0:A44C:D931:2B68:E6CE (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Who cares what IPs with one edit think. Ymblanter (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it's not only one edit: see Special:contributions/2601:196:4600:5BF0:0:0:0:0/64.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Impressive. Ymblanter (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

They're not wrong though, are they? Black Kite (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Meh--there's a big difference between an admin making a bad block and an admin using (what was generally perceived to be) racist language, and in the other case there was, or was alleged to be, a pattern. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think someone would need to put the work in to explain how they're right. An INVOLVED block is an error in judgment, and no one's suggested that this is part of a pattern. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence suggests that the situations aren't really comparable. Mackensen (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

We could discuss whether the cases are similar and whether people are the same (I can not recollect myself saying anything about the Scottywong case for example) but I guess it is best left to users in good standing to open such discussions, and it should be probably separate from the current case. Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought WP:NPA applied to IPs too. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 05:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Note AlisonW has now started editing again. She must be aware of this discussion. [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. That edit was with the Android app. In theory, yes, she should have. But in practice, I wouldn't be so sure. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

She appears to have email enabled. Has anyone tried that? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I just did that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Someone with the tools really needs to have notifications enabled. No one is expected to live on here. But admins must be able to respond in a timely manner to concerns that are raised by editors or the broader community. AlisonW's failure to respond to or address this little dumpster fire is not a good look. If they had stepped up right away and acknowledged their mistake, apologized, and promised to be more careful going forward, I think it likely this conversation would have wrapped up by now. Yet, here we are. Still... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Roy, you say you tried email but I've not received anything via WP mail. How did you send it? --AlisonW (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@AlisonW I clicked the "Email this user" link on your user page, which takes you to Special:EmailUser/AlisonW. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

[/me goes to check ... ah ... correction made to tld concerned. Many thanks. --AlisonW (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)]

@Suffusion of Yellow: For what it's worth, I've been using the app regularly for over a year and I always receive notifications (whether I'm pinged or when someone messages me on my talk page) I'm aware that there are some pre-existing mobile communication bugs and differences between whether you use iOS/android (I can see my watchlist because I have the latter)... but my point is that AlisonW could have been made aware of this discussion through the app given my own experiences. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• If AlisonW does not respond to this post, it could presumably mean that she does not consider this to be a tool misuse issue -- opening the chance for this happening in the future. In the face of non-acknowledgement and possibility of disruption continuing in the future, I would suggest we take the stronger path and allow the community to decide on whether this becomes a blockable offence (to prevent further disruption). Of course, if she responds and apologises, that's about it. Lourdes 09:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Outside of emergency blocks for ongoing abuse (not applicable here), I don't think it makes sense to block admins as a way of restricting admin tool use. If AlisonW continues to edit without responding, I think the appropriate next step would be ArbCom. But I'm still hoping we can avoid it coming to that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, having responded originally at [diff] I'm happy to restate that opinion here. I noted on recent edits the massive deletion of content (one person's irrelevancy is another person's desired search result) on the 'Metatron' page (sidebar: The first I'd ever heard of this belief subject was in the movie 'Dogma', which reference was part of that deletion). I didn't *edit*, per se, the page at all, just rv the deletion, primarily because of the volume of information and links deleted. Veverve responded "I have explained each and every removal" which I disagree with (despite stating "This user is no longer active on Wikipedia" on User:Veverve they have made over 100 edits in the last two days; it is impossible to find such details without spending hours.) Because of that I took a look at their recent edit history and noted other examples of mass content deletion (some of which just needed references, writing "not notable people" for a redlink is a reason to _create_ an article, not delete content imho) and, taking on board the frequent comments on their talk page regarding substantial other content deletions it was clear that there are problems with that user imposing their personal beliefs on WP content. As an example I quote "you are currently edit-warring across a wide swath of liturgical calendar-related articles. You are fighting multiple editors who disagree with your unilateral decision to gut all of these articles of their usefulness. Could you please cease and desist the edit-wars, firstly, and secondly, consider that your decision goes against consensus and that you should permit others to hold contrary opinions about this? Elizium23 (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)". That they have had repeated blocks I concluded another was necessary, and did so. Sadly, yes, I failed to make the proper notification on their page, for which I apologise. I stand by my decision though, formed of many years involvement at all levels with Wikipedia in all its forms. I wasn't 'involved' in the content of the articles at any point - this was purely acting in the best interests of retaining encyclopaedic information. If I may also make a couple of asides, (a) I don't live here, anything substantial needs me to be on a 'proper' machine so that I can properly see diffs and references, hence replying now not at the weekend. I have never _stopped_ editing. (b) raw edit counts are meaningless - anyone can game the system by doing each small change separately. I choose to edit in the browser with extensive use of preview. ymmv. (c) Yes, I saw this discussion start but didn't jump straight in because the comments and views of others are more important initially. How people choose to view that is up to them. I would additionally comment that "out-of-touch legacy admin" is an interesting attack. Those of us who have been around a long time are, very definitely, 'not' out of touch, indeed I'd argue that we have shown by our longevity that we have the best interests of this project at heart. Obviously, ymmv applies but 'new' isn't automatically 'better'. --AlisonW (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

"acting in the best interests of retaining encyclopaedic information" **is** being involved in content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Then guilty as charged as that is the purpose of Wikipedia! Check Wikipedia:Prime objective --AlisonW (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

With this [7] edit summary, you were clearly and unambiguously involved. Inviting someone to engage in talk-page discussions over disputed content is involvement, by any sensible definition whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Andy, when I wrote "Discuss on talk page if you consider it necessary" I was referring to the action I was taking at that moment and adding a comment to the rollback; my concern was not with the 'content of the content' but with the deletion of the content and, accordingly, I asked them to talk to me before taking they took any further action. They chose not to. --AlisonW (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that simply makes no sense. Talk pages are there to discuss content. You invited discussion on the talk page, after editing the article (and yes, restoring deleted content is editing, as Wikipedia policy defines it, despite your earlier suggestion to the contrary). By any sensible reading, the purpose of the discussion was to determine whether the content should appear in the article. If that wasn't the purpose of inviting discussion there, what exactly were you expecting to discuss? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@AlisonW This was a classic content dispute and you used the tools to enforce your side of it. That you don't seem to understand how wrong that was, is frankly very disturbing. This despite a wall of comments above from a wide range of experienced editors, including other admins, panning your block. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I asked them to talk to me before taking any further action. They chose not to. Ergo they got blocked? I'd see that as a pretty egregious misuse of power, but perhaps that's just me... (Non-admin comment) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I saw what I believed to be a pattern of vandalism - large deletions of content with little evidence of consideration - and took appropriate action. It wasn't about the 'content' and I take no view on whether the content of that range of articles is good or bad. I'd refer you to Wikipedia:Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is on that point. --AlisonW (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing in WP:PRIME (notwithstanding that it is at any rate an essay, and cannot possibly overrule WP:INVOLVED which is part of the WP:ADMIN policy) says that retaining information is inherently desirable. It explicitly says that Wikipedia should be a summary of and gateway to all of the world's knowledge, which by definition requires that there must be some selection and exclusion. It's all very well trying to smuggle in the assumption that the content in question was "encyclopaedic", but that's begging the question: Veverve had clearly articulated that they did not believe that it was encyclopedic, and the way to resolve a content dispute on Wikipedia is to discuss on the talkpage, not to abuse the block button. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I found the "not involved" rationale to be astounding. In essence that if they were actively editing/reverting in the contested area but in their opinion it was "acting in the best interests of retaining encyclopaedic information." that that makes it not count as involvement. That's exactly what involvement is. North8000 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Re: "Then guilty as charged as that is the purpose of Wikipedia!"... You're missing the point, which is that admins who involve themselves in content should not take admin action over that content. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been in the situation of being the old-timer who curses the Eternal September of the community and sees the new ways as morally degenerate. I don't think that position is the correct one here. Wikipedia has changed in many ways over the years, and the changes to policy and culture relevant here have been changes for the better. (non-admin commment) XOR'easter (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Beyond the INVOLVED issue, I will note the admin seems to be aware of violating WP:BURDEN by restoring unsourced content without providing a source to support it (noted other examples of mass content deletion (some of which just needed references [...])), and does not seem to care.

Quoting Elizium23 who is now permanently blocked, and thus cannot provide further information and details, is quite unfair to Elizium23. Veverve (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• It is fantastically ironic that AlisonW says they blocked the user because it was clear that there are problems with that user imposing their personal beliefs on WP content but are completely unable to see that they blocked them because their actions conflicted with their personal beliefs on WP content. Seriously, you couldn't make it up. Since AlisonW still does not seem to understand why their block was completely wrong (indeed, she does not appear to understand WP:INVOLVED, so that's hardly surprising), I really don't think a slap on the wrist is going to be the answer here. Black Kite (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, the comment was bad. After this comment from AlisonW, I don’t see anything less than a referral to Arbcom as suitable. Courcelles (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• @AlisonW I have stated that I don't think your actions were malicious, and that remains my view. But your recent comments have raised serious questions in my mind regarding your general understanding of very fundamental policy and guidelines, in particular INVOLVED. So much so that I think it touches on WP:CIR. At this point, I think you should review the comments in this discussion from numerous experienced editors and consider voluntarily surrendering the tools. Absent which I have to ask if you are open to WP:ADMINRECALL, and if so, under what conditions? -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)AlisonW

AlisonW It's an area where you are not active anyway and which requires an extremely strong current knowledge of policy including admin policy and related mechanisms. In this case having / not having the role/tools is simply based on whether or not that is the case and not a reflection on you as an editor or thankfulness for your work. North8000 (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Given that AlisonW has made just three blocks in the past decade I view any referral to the Arbitration Committee as a grossly premature response to one-off behavior. Nobody's ever referred to the Committee after their first incident of incivility. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an 'incident of incivility'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Where did you get incident of incivility from, wbm? This is, at best, a misuse of tools, and, at worst, a gross misuse of tools followed by a complete failure to understand why this was a gross misuse of tools. I can't see where incivility comes into it. I'm clearly missing something very major: can you supply diffs for this, please? — Trey Maturin™ 17:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Arguably this misuse of tools is a form of incivility, albeit low-level incivility. She blocked in lieu of engaging in a civil bold–revert–discuss process. My point is that if more blatant incivility doesn't merit an Arbcom case, then this certainly doesn't. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The blocked editor was blocked for a full month as recently as three months ago (contribution history) so this block shouldn't be viewed as grossly out-of-bounds.

I don't see that this admin is particularly "INVOLVED" in religion topics, per her most-edited pages. Whereas religion topics are the blocked editor's main focus. So this is not an "INVOLVED" content dispute, just more concern for inclusion vs. exclusion of marginal content added by other editors. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

That seems the exact opposite of how the community and ArbCom have interpreted involvement. We generally don't say that admins are involved with respect to an entire topic area, even topic areas they spend most of their time in; but we do say admins are involved if they get into an edit war and then escalate by blocking, regardless of broader circumstance. I think Alison's comments have born out my appraisal that she didn't think she was doing the latter, but it's still what she did. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:23, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nonsense. She didn't block "in lieu of engaging in" BRD, she reverted (and invited discussion in her edit summary) and reverted again before blocking. She was clearly involved in a content dispute, whether or not she had any former engagement with the topic. And there's nothing in WP:INVOLVED which says "it doesn't count if you are violating WP:INVOLVED to win an edit war against someone if they have recently been blocked", so Veverve's history has no bearing at all on whether this was an involved action. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that an admin who has been here for 12 years has as little understanding of WP:INVOLVED as AlisonW clearly does. Black Kite (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(outsiders perspective) Is it possible that only in the past few years that it's become a policy that is adhered to? While the policy may have existed for a decade+ it's also reasonable to say that not everyone may have closely adhered to it (and only particularly egregious violations of it were prosecuted). Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

For the record, I've been editing WP for almost nineteen and a half years, including for the WMF office and OTRS. --AlisonW (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• AlisonW, I am just a non-admin nobody, but I'd like to ask a clarifying question if you feel like answering. Given the benefit of hindsight, is there anything you would do differently with this situation? Relatedly, is there anything you might handle differently in the future? You are of course under no obligation to answer. I hope everyone has a good week. Dumuzid (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Um, simply put 'not kicked the hornet's nest'! I've never seen a plain revert or rollback as being 'involved' with an article as, for me, that means you are editing the _content_ not the existence, however it has become exceedingly clear that more recently (years=??) others consider that so. Ditto 'edit war' imho requires editing the content. Given the user's past blocking I felt I took an appropriate action but, as always, others are able to agree or disagree as they will (eg why this page and individual talk pages for users and articles exist and are in regular use.). --AlisonW (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate the answer. Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't consider that response to be adequate. Your views on being involved are not in line with current practice, and I would like you to confirm that you would not block again in similar circumstances.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not in the slightest adequate. Unless you are rolling back obvious vandalism (which you weren't, regardless of your Wikipedia worldview), any change to an article makes you INVOLVED. This has been the case for at least 14 years. Also, blocking someone on the basis of their previous block record makes it even worse because it suggests you are judging their edits on the basis of their block log rather than their edits. I think it's time for ArbCom. Black Kite (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

On the particular point of "blocking someone on the basis of their previous block record" no I did not. That record did suggest to me that if one week and two week blocks in the past had not worked then maybe a month would. YMMV obviously (which it apparently does) and if I'd not read their current talk page it would have only been a single week. --AlisonW (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Except that the editor hadn't done anything wrong, so they didn't need to be blocked at all. It appears that you're still saying that you still don't understand that your block was utterly incorrect. And yet you still claim that you're not a legacy admin that's out of touch with community norms. That's clearly not the case. Black Kite (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That doesn't address the fundamental issue here. Even if it were true that Veverve should have been blocked (I don't think they should have been in any case, mind, but hypothetically speaking), the inappropriate thing is specifically that you, in the midst of a content dispute with them, were the one to do it. If you felt administrative intervention was necessary, you should have brought the matter to a venue like ANI and allowed uninvolved admins to decide what, if any, action needed to be taken. That's the expectation for any involved admin. Even if this were a good block, it would have still been wrong for you to be the one to make it. Does that help to make things clearer? The exact reason for the "INVOLVED" rule is that being in the midst of a situation can cloud our judgment, so we should let someone who isn't make the call. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I note Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved_admins: "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area.". This is absolutely the case with my actions, which I believed to be vandalism by their nature. --AlisonW (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Alison, what do you believe constitutes vandalism? Because I cannot see how any of the edits in question possibly fit the definition in WP:VANDALISM.

Policy says (emphasis original): Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. The edits in question were made by an editor of 5 years and 50,000 edits experience, and though they have some blocks for editwarring, they were in good standing at the time of your block. They explained the reasons for their edits in their edit summaries. Do you genuinely believe that this was a bad-faith attempt to harm Wikipedia? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AlisonW: I do hope you take what Seraphimblade says above to heart — as someone who got this wrong themselves, it's painfully easy to double-down and argue the toss, but if this many people are telling you it looks involved, then its "apparent involvement" and the rest is mostly moot.. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 19:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I very much take your point, but if others want to keep on about 'involved' and policy then actually reading what it said on the subject is important. Also it should be noted that I did not engage in wheelwarring, any further action was something for others to review, not me. --AlisonW (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Then, I have to add to those who have urged you to resign the tools voluntarily. That certainly doesn't mean you'd have to leave entirely; no one's asking for a site ban, and plenty of excellent editors are non-admins or former admins. I very much hope you would stay around in that capacity. But given that you have essentially doubled down on saying you did nothing wrong, I think you have substantially lost the community's trust as an administrator, and even were you to reverse course now, I think many would see that as "too little, too late". At this point, the only ends I see to this are the easy way, and the hard way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Alison: the way out of this mess is to plainly and sincerely apologise to the editor you wrongly blocked, then to promise here to never do anything similar again.

Your attempts to make this go away by citing technicalities, especially when everybody here is trying to tell you that you have made a mistake, is wikilawyering.

You probably have a few hours where you can walk this back and thus maintain your admin bit. By tomorrow morning, your only way out will be to resign. By this time tomorrow, you will be in front of ArbCom.

Please listen to what people are saying here. — Trey Maturin™ 20:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I would add to Seraphimblade that you can always give up your tools and then go through the nomination process again when you're ready. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

As Tamzin noted at the top of this page, the involved block is not the only issue here. Alongside blocking Veverve, AlisonW also went on to make a series of reverts, apparently in retribution. In my opinion several of these were not only unjustified, but actively harmful. As I noted above, ignoring a possible copyright issue (which I wouldn't consider it fair to expect investigation of) the material Veverve had removed from the Vocationist Fathers article was entirely inappropriate, promotional and unencyclopedic. [8] The material AlisonW restored to Do-it-yourself biology includes at least one unsourced assertion regarding a living person, uncited since 2015, and thus arguably a WP:BLP violation, alongside a long poorly-sourced list of 'Groups and organizations' not otherwise discussed in the article. Given legitimate questions as to whether WP:MEDRS should apply to the article, and as to whether Wikipedia should be linking to apparently non-notable websites encouraging 'DIY biology' and other questionable practices with serious medical implications, a wholesale revert here seems entirely unjustified. One might perhaps argue that Veverve went too far, but that is a question best answered through policy-based discussion and if necessary dispute resolution, not wholesale reverting by an admin apparently engaging in knee-jerk mass rollback. And look at AlisonW 's revert to Contemporary Catholic liturgical music, with an edit summary stating that "Redlinks are NOT a reason for deletion, they are reason to create an article". I have no idea whether this was ever actually Wikipedia policy, but it isn't now. Not for redlinks to putative biographical articles, which per WP:REDLINKBIO should only be created for people who would likely meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Did AlisonW investigate these names before restoring them to a list of 'Popular composers'? I very much doubt it, but in any case, such wholesale restoration of content in this context is unjustifiable. I haven't looked into all the other reverts, and there may be further matters of concern, but meanwhile I'd like to ask AlisonW whether she thinks it is appropriate to engage in wholesale restoration of content without apparently confirming whether it is compliant with Wikipedia policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• I cannot find any record of AlisonW ever going through the RfA process. There is a note on her user page that says Until 2006 I used a different account which also had 'admin powers', but I also can't find a record of that account. I'm not sure any of this really matters, but if AlisonW has never gone through a consensus-based RfA process (e.g. adminship was granted ex officio and never removed) that seems like it would be relevant. – bradv 00:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well this seems a little weird. Per Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing § What vanishing is not, Vanishing is not a way to start over with a fresh account. When you request a courtesy vanishing, it is understood that you will not be returning. If you want to start over, please follow the directions at Clean start instead of (not in addition to) this page. If you make a request to vanish, and then start over with a new account, and are then discovered, the vanishing procedure may be reversed, and your old and new accounts may be linked. – wbm1058 (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Her old account is documented at Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/renamed Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Based upon the info on that page, then, there's this. - jc37 01:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wow, it's wild seeing a successful RfA with just 25 participants for an account that was around 3-4 months old with 1600 edits.

  Nearly 20 years later, a successful RfA has ten times that number of participants, and an account being around for at least a year or two with tens of thousands of edits is basically a minimum. How far this project has come! 2600:1700:87D3:3460:8836:50DB:CF58:3BA9 (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  along with similar behavioral concerns. Unsurprisingly. Star Mississippi 01:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Seems to be a recurring theme: [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Ok, just please stop. It's one thing to talk about current edits, it's another to go back years and try to dig up past things long resolved. If you can draw an ongoing line throughout an editor's editing history to show ongoing issues, that's one thing, but cherry picking from the past is just inappropriate. Let's please stick to the topic at hand. - jc37 02:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  No digging involved. It's in the immediate history of their alt account. Star Mississippi 02:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  (ec) If there was much in the way of 'current edits' - or more to the point, current admin actions - to discuss, you might have a point. Since there isn't, and since AlisonW suggests that her long-standing presence on Wikipedia justifies her remaining an admin, we are fully entitled to look at that presence. Which seems to indicate ongoing issues, going back a long way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• There's enough here, IMO, for the arbs to handle this via motion. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. Originally I was inclined to view this as just a really bad lapse in judgement and would have been satisfied with an acknowledgment of the mistake, an apology, and a promise to be more careful going fwd. Unfortunately, I think that ship has now sailed. Based on their comments above, I no longer have confidence that they possess the requisite judgement and command of policy and guidelines for someone to be trusted with the tools. As far as I can tell they are not open to recall and have not responded to the various calls to stand down voluntarily. Regrettably, this needs to be referred to ARBCOM. I will close with a caveat. This is solely about their abillity to be trusted with the tools. It is not a reflection on their character or long history of contributions as an editor. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree. When asked "Given the benefit of hindsight, is there anything you would do differently with this situation? Relatedly, is there anything you might handle differently in the future?", she responded "simply put 'not kicked the hornet's nest'!" I trust her not to use the block button in this manner for, at least the next ten years. This seems like another "storm in a teacup" to me. Does AlisonW have a history of behavior unbecoming of an administrator? Some old behavior could be investigated, but it's mostly a decade or more old. wbm1058 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Preferably AlisonW comes to the realization that they don't meet the current admin standards and voluntarily puts their tools and badge on the desk so to speak. @AlisonW: are you open to that or do you feel that there are compelling reasons that you remain an admin? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Arbcom

• I have opened a request for arbitration. Interested editors are invited to comment at the linked discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. How many more such cases does it take for people to realise that we need to have a better way of removing the admin tools than referring every case to Arbcom? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see a major problem with the current system. The need to remove the bit from admins is not altogether common. We have a situation here where a longstanding sysop has acted in a manner that is clearly inconsistent with community expectations and the broadly accepted interpretation of some fairly important policy/guidelines. The matter was discussed here with a broad consensus to that effect, and they chose not to stand down. So the matter has now been handed off to ARBCOM. I'm not seeing a big deal. AlisonW does not appear to be actively using the tools for good or ill. What's the rush? Desysopping should not be something done casually or quickly absent something very urgent like a compromised account or ongoing blatant abuse. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Personally, I do see flaws with the current system, but I just don't think this is a situation that particularly highlights them. There should be a community desysop for at least two reasons:

1) There's no particular reason (other than perhaps the slightly more anarchic state of the early project) that this process should have been sequestered, in the first place, as a top-down tool invoked only by laborious appeal to an elite body with limited resources and time. Admins get their mandate from an expression of common community support (for that matter, so does ArbCom). It is frankly perplexing to me that there has been such a history of bureaucratic stonewalling to clear community will to create a straight-forward, structured, and fair process by which the community may take back those elevated tools which they have invested in an individual in trust in the first place, where that trust has been broken. Rank-and-file community members are subject to complete banishment from the project in the form of a CBAN at a demonstration of community will, so why on earth the protracted hand-wringing over the relatively much lighter censure of the removal of advanced tools for a sysop, who should be viewed to have placed themselves, if anything, under a greater burden of community scrutiny? It just makes no rational sense to me, and I doubt it ever will until we finally enshrine that process.

And 2) the community needs those tools to address cases of major disruption, which I agree are relatively--but hardly exceedingly--rare. In the case of a clear showing of repeated violation of the tools in cases of self-interest, propensity towards impulsive, incorrect use, a failure to understand relevant (and current) policy, intractability to community perspective/concerns about potential misuse, and so forth, there's no good reason the community should not address the abuse directly.

And this goes beyond the principled ("constitutional" as we sometimes frame it) question of whether the community is inherently entitled to this ability, as the ultimate source of all rule-making and ability to censure individual community member conduct, as it clearly is. There is also a pragmatic element here, as well as issues of the health of our self-regulation ecology, for lack of a better term. Such discussions can (and should) be setting the line on what is and is not appropriate administrative action, beyond passingly rare adjustments to the handful of restraining policies. Let me preface this by saying that I cannot imagine that a community desysop would be any more common than those which currently occur at ArbCom. Indeed, I would expect them to be harder to pass, based on the history of ANI and the high threshold necessary to censure (sometimes plainly out of control) users, and the strong differences of opinion that almost invariably invokes when it comes to stiffer penalties for established community members--with the burden undoubtedly increased even further by the level of respect your typical admin usually holds within the community.

But the act of doing so in those edge cases when it is strictly necessary could help to clarify the standards, establish clearer community support for where the line that should not be crossed that Tamzin alludes to in her first post here actually lays, and create visible reminders that admins are servants of the community trust who follow its will, rather than having an elevated role in shaping it. It won't always be pretty, but in the long run, I think it will certainly be better for the health of the community, the transparency of our expectations, and the reliability of the administrative corps.

All that said, this isn't one of those particularly protracted or high-concern cases. Don't get me wrong, I join with the consensus above that this was an unambiguous case of bright-line violations of WP:INVOLVED, misconception of the purpose of the ban function, and a hair-trigger on that function. And it's possible there have been other mistakes or abuse by this admin. But there hasn't been a showing of that and there does not seem to be widespread disruption needing immediate community action. In short, this is the kind of nuanced case that ArbCom should be handling, even hopefully after the development of the community desysop process. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Handling the content side

Veverve asked me when this started what would happen with the reverts, and I replied that he should wait for this thread to resolve. Since things are moving in the direction of ArbCom now, and ArbCom can't decide content, seems we should resolve that. To me, the most equitable solution would be to revert AlisonW's 7 reverts (i.e. re-remove the content), without prejudice against the content in question being restored as part of the normal editorial process if appropriate. Same as we would do if an editor e.g. incorrectly massrollbacked something as vandalism. CC AndyTheGrump. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

(NAC) This seems fair and pretty drama-free. — Trey Maturin™ 18:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I already performed some of these re-reverts on the grounds that the discussion was heading that way, anyhow. I'm willing to standby the content of those changes (back to V's version) independent of the discussion, too. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yup. If the disputed content is policy-compliant and appropriate (some at least isn't, in my opinion) it can be restored by consensus, after discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Roast goose

Roast goose was moved and its scope changed from its original form between 2006 and 2022 without discussion. now User:Daharon is preventing restoration of this article to its original scope and title. please stop the editwarring. i dont intend to keep reverting as it's obviously useless. RZuo (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute, but I have protected the article from being further moved for a month; it is now time to discuss this on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Both editors warned as well. GiantSnowman 18:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

RZuo, the article, as so many food-related articles, picked up information about preparations of goose not limited to dry heat. This is a more useful and reasonable scope for the article, unless we need separate articles for steamed fish and baked fish. Your corrections remove useful information and context about goose, as a food. Daharon (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

RZuo and Daharon, in your edit summaries, you each accuse the other of vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism to learn what is and is not vandalism. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Lisa Nakazono-Węgłowska

There's a bit of a dispute in the history, over an image. I cannot assess who's right and who's wrong--I hope one of you experts can have a look and decide. Involved editors are User:Tyranzion, User:Imaginatorium, User:Nesnad. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added my 2 cents to the discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

StoreDot company page

I've noticed that an active editor of the StoreDot page HueSurname treats it as their own, consistently promoting their personal viewpoint. Consequently, the page is full of phrases like: "CEO said", "CEO promised", "CEO hopes", "CEO reported", company was planning; company stated; company announced in 2018 to do something in 2019,,, and so on. I do believe, that Wikipedia is not built on what a CEO, or company, or other individuals express in their interviews or blogs (even cited in reliable sources). Rather, an encyclopedic page should be grounded on objective facts - what occurred, what was launched, etc. The pledges made by marketing experts or upper management are not particularly crucial to be included in Wikipedia.

However, I find the page heavily unbalanced; it seems more like a tribune for the CEO of StoreDot than a page about the company. I hope someone will streamline the page and remove the vague, unnecessary details, as it is currently overly complex and brimming with the personal remarks of the company's CEO. Ben0.1Hur (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ben0.1Hur: This is more appropriate for WP:COI/N than here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

New special page to fight spam

Please help translate to other languages.

Hello, We are replacing most of the functionalities of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist with a new special page called Special:BlockedExternalDomains. In this special page, admins can simply add a domain and notes on the block (usually reasoning and/or link to a discussion) and the added domain would automatically be blocked to be linked in Wikis anymore (including its subdomains). Content of this list is stored in MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json. You can see w:fa:Special:BlockedExternalDomains as an example. Check the phabricator ticket for more information.

This would make fighting spam easier and safer without needing to know regex or accidentally breaking wikis while also addressing the need to have some notes next to each domain on why it’s blocked. It would also make the list of blocked domains searchable and would make editing Wikis in general faster by optimizing matching links added against the blocked list in every edit (see phab:T337431#8936498 for some measurements).

If you want to migrate your entries in MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, there is a python script in phab:P49299 that would produce contents of MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist and MediaWiki:BlockedExternalDomains.json for you automatically migrating off simple regex cases.

Note that this new feature doesn’t support regex (for complex cases) nor URL paths matching. Also it doesn’t support bypass by spam whitelist. For those, please either keep using MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist or switch to an abuse filter if possible. And adding a link to the list might take up to five minutes to be fully in effect (due to server-side caching, this is already the case with the old system) and admins and bots automatically bypass the blocked list.

Let me know if you have any questions or encounter any issues. Happy editing. Amir (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Amir: This looks sensational, thanks to all involved. Re "admins and bots automatically bypass the blocked list": I seem to recall discussions about whether admins should be exempt from the current system and I suspect the result was no. One point being that if an admin can (presumably unknowingly) add a blocked URL, non-admins cannot edit the page if the link remains present. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq According to Special:ListGroupRights indeed admins don't have the sboverride right (while bots do). So it should be possible to take away the new right from addmins too. That being said, spam blacklist or the new system don't block further edits if it contains a blocked domain. It used to do that but not anymore, now it only blocks edits that add a blocked domain. Ladsgroup^overleg 10:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, that's even better. Johnuniq (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

What if I want to block 20 domains at a time? This is a far too frequent use case. MER-C 15:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@MER-C You would be able to edit the json directly, someone could write a gadget to make it easier if that's a common usecase. Ladsgroup^overleg 17:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

New RfC opened 3 days after close

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

---

A few days ago there was a challenge of the close of the Killing of Jordan Neely RfC that was quickly withdrawn after feedback. A new RfC was created immediately and features most of the same editors who commented on the previous RfC. This article is based on recent story. Shouldn't their be a pause on this question for a period? 3 days isn't enough time to restart a RfC. I initially supported inclusion on the first RfC, but I endorsed the close as no consensus. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I see that the first RfC, the RfC close review, and the second RfC were all opened by LoomCreek. As this is about their conduct, I've left them an AN notice so they're notified of this discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No, not at all, otherwise I would have left them a notice. I'm just curious what the SOP to reopen a RfC that are recently closed? As someone who has monitored RfCs the past few months I'm not familiar with a situation like this one where a close occured, was challenged, the challenge was DOA, and then a new RfC is opened immediately. Nemov (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the AN Notice @Thebiguglyalien. As I've argued in Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#Discussion I was within rights to open the Rfc given the support for it by other editors, alongside uninvolved administrators in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Close challenge, Talk:Killing_of_Jordan_Neely#Name Inclusion. Such as @Starship.paint, @Springee, @WWGB, @Festucalexand @Xan747 at the time.

And while not involved in the original discussion I'm fairly certain @Combefere, @Sangdeboeuf, @72.14.126.22 who been involved in the process would support my decision among others. I can explain myself further, but I'll mostly be repeating what I said there at the time. - LoomCreek (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe you created the 2nd RfC in good faith. There's no need to drag everyone in who is participating in the ongoing discussion. This was a question for uninvolved admins. I should have been clearer, my apologies. I'd welcome any feedback they could give because that could change my position from procedural close. Nemov (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:CCC: Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. This is an ongoing, high-profile case, and the previous RfC close specifically found no consensus, so I don't see opening a new RfC so soon as disruptive, especially since LoomCreek made explicit reference to "recent developments of the case". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. --JBL (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I disagreed with LoomCreek in the initial RfC, and I believe that the original close was correct (though SFR cited my comments approvingly in their close, so I would say that!), but given the no-consensus close, and the developing nature of the case and particularly the fact that LoomCreek cites recent developments which were not discussed in the initial RfC, I can't see this as disruptive. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll just throw in that I was unaware of the initial close challenge when it was active (for less than 24 hours), but would have supported it on grounds of both procedure (the closing editor significantly miscounted the !votes) and content. It seems the editors involved in that discussion were unsure whether a close challenge was more appropriate than a new RfC, given the ever changing nature of the story. In the end, LoomCreek cancelled the close-challenge, and opted for a new RfC, which seems like the correct decision to me.

I do not find this disruptive, nor even out of the ordinary. On the contrary, I think it was necessary. Close challenges exist for a reason. Combefere ★ Talk 23:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

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

edits by user HM2021

this user has already been brought up here before, they are very active on articles about movies and make some productive edits, such as adding posters and other non-free material to film-related articles. However, they have also been blocked multiple times from editing for making disruptive edits (see talk page), almost all of their recent contributions have been rolled back and marked as vandalism (compare my edit on 1917 (2019 film), they seem to have been adding a number of similar statement to other movie articles recently.) As noted in the old noticeboard entry, they seem to be entirely unresponsive regarding all of this, and as mentioned have received multiple 24 hour bans with no apparent change in behavior. I'm not sure what the correct procedure is here, but this seems disruptive and persistent enough to bring up here. --jonas (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

They ignore warnings constantly and repeat the same type of edits after being warned. WP:NOTHERE Mike Allen 14:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

paid editing

Please pay attention at this paid editing page Doug Bania and its author @MMJ2023 172.126.175.124 (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Phanuruch855

This account vandalized own talk page, by making unconstructive edits and removing warnings. Probably the ability to edit the talk page needs to be disabled. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Company attempts at Influence over TECO Energy

TECO Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I wasn't sure where to put in this request, but it seemed important and likely to involve administrators.

There is a potential conflict with Teco Energy the company. Who had an employee on their behalf attempt to get the article (TECO Energy) deleted on the basis of it's unfavorable coverage. The conflict of interest was disclosed. However, this could be a potentially continuing issue and think it would be best to have more eyes on the page. Given also that the deletion request was unmerited and I had to remove some sections as they seemed to be promotional material.

I'm unsure what would be the best next step would be, but advice would be appreciated. - LoomCreek (talk) 10:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI for future posts: we have a noticeboard for problems with COI that may be helpful. WP:COIN. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

(Ah okay, thanks I'll make sure to keep in mind for the future.) LoomCreek (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

After examining the page, its seem like this might be recurring, with a disruptive edit to unfavorable information through an ip in 2016 [10] (just fixed) - LoomCreek (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

CastJared's comments at various AFD discussions

• CastJared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jared has been told multiple times that their comments are not acceptable and that they need to adjust their behavior or cease commenting. They have even slammed the door on this discussion, though they have since reverted this and made a simple though IMO meaningless response. Some of their comments on AFD discussions include "I don't care", and "this is the second nomination". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've seen this user's comments on various discussions (not just AfD) in the past. They tend to be unhelpful and more often than not, utterly incomprehensible. Some examples from a few minutes of scanning their contribs:

• In response to a block for adding unsourced content: I have certain reasons why I suppose to find a reliable source, but there is too many citations nearby.
• At AfD: Keep: per Eastmain decision. Not sure it's there are many sources to get.
• An AfD vote that was clearly copied and pasted from the one above it with minor changes.
• At AfD: Keep: Seems run-of-the-mill.

• The issues with their frequent and low-quality AfD votes were brought up here, where they received another incomprehensible reply. Their talk page archives are a litany of warnings for various issues including edit warring, inappropriate usage of warning templates, careless automated edits, improper closures of discussions, etc. I'm wondering whether this user has the necessary competence to edit Wikipedia (or at least the English-language version of it). Spicy (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Interesting to note that CastJared's recent comment at this AfD copies the user above in incorrectly claiming that a guideline is depreceated, then follows it up with "No citation impact of SIGCOV". Luckily, another user identifies the mistake. Nonetheless, it demonstrates the potential negative impact of these poor quality !votes. CastJared's unwillingness to slow down is somewhat worrying. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a language problem perhaps? In any case, I agree that comments like here or here are not helpful at all, and it seems that they just tend to agree with the latest comment, without actually doing any work to determine if an article should be kept or deleted, e.g. here or rather extreme here, where they copy part of the previous post without seemingly having actually understood it at all. I have now spotchecked about 20 of their last 100 AfD votes, and not a single one helped in any way. Giving them an AfD topic ban would be a clear net gain for everyone involved. Fram (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm now deciding to quit on XFD votings. CastJared (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I just want to add that the issues with this user go further than just AFD, there seems to be general WP:CIR problems at play here. Some examples from the last few weeks:

• Showing up at the talk page of another user to leave a bizarre and useless comment [11].
• An IP trims an excessive number of citations [12] CastJared reverts and warns the IP for disruptive editing [13] and requests the page be protected [14]. Another editor tags the article for excessive citation cleanup [15], so CastJared removes 2 citations [16]. The IP trims it down to 1 citation referencing WP:Citation Overkill in the edit summary [17] CastJared reverts, and warns the editor again [18]. The IP was correct here, "john doe had a walk on cameo" does not require 4 or 6 citations, 1 is sufficient, and the second edit did not justify another disruptive editing warning.
• Giving out a warning for introducing factual errors [19] in response to an IP doing some (admittedly poor) copy editing that did not change any information or introduce any errors [20] [21] [22].

They also do this weird thing where they look for edits that have been reverted by other people and go to hand out warnings to people for edits made multiple days ago, e.g. these two warnings [23] [24] were both related to edits from 2-3 days before the warnings were give out.

Their talk page archive [25] is worth reading, similar issues across wide swathes of the project have been going on for months. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That is fine. There are some problems as did with The Idol. It is currently semi-protected until 17:42, 28 June 2023. CastJared (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No, that is not fine. And that is not for you to judge. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

As a result, I'm about to retire. CastJared (talk) 00:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I support an XfD topic ban, and have broad concerns with CastJared's editing beyond AfD participation in line the ones that that @163.1.15.238 notes above. They have an apparent tendency to willfully not hear what people are saying to them, and it takes a lot of effort to convince them that their behavior needs correction. For instance:

• Issues with their comments at AfD have been brought to their attention many times; the open conversation on their talk page was started on May 24. They never responded, despite other users adding similar experiences on to it, until this ANB discussion was opened. Even before that issues were coming up in individual AfDs. They tend to double down on the idea that what they're saying makes sense and stop responding if someone requests clarification; I'd personally learned to just ignore their comments if I saw them on an AfD.
• CastJared has been asked to not issue editing warnings multiple times, as they are often doing so in an incorrect or disruptive manner ([26], [27], [28]). Despite these discussions, CastJared continued to inappropriately issue vandalism warnings to users; e.g. on May 1 CastJared issued two warnings in a row and an AIV report for "vandalism beyond final warning" to an IP editor when there had been no editing activity from that IP since April 29 (warnings: [29], [30]; AIV report: [31]; IP contribs: [32]).
• A large percentage of their mainspace editing is using IABot to archive sources ([33]). That in and of itself is probably fine, if unusual; however it appears in some cases this has been disruptive ([34], [35]). The former discussion was closed and archived with their only comment being Uh, yeah, I'm using IABot to rescue citations. The latter message was entirely ignored by CastJared. In neither case did the discussion seem to prompt a change in behavior.
• I had a conversation with CastJared a month and a half ago about some odd AfD behavior where they had relisted AfDs that should not have been relisted, with confusing or irrelevant summaries similar to the ones others have outlined here (see User talk:CastJared/Archive_1#Relisting_of_AfD_Candidates and the conversation immediately following it, which was opened because the first was archived and closed). Ultimately they did agree not to continue relisting AfDs, but in that process they claimed to "accidentally" have installed XFDCloser, and it seemed more difficult than I'd have expected to get across that relisting wasn't a productive way for them to contribute.
• Their responses to criticism or concerns is often a short sentence that states some irrelevant facts or policies while ignoring the actual content of the message. As an example of this, see immediately above, where they replied to 163.1.15.238's comment stating that it's all fine because one of the pages that they'd been edit warring on is semi-protected.

CastJared's tendency to ignore other editors who raise issues combined with the somewhat authoritative language they use to discuss policy in project space concerns me a lot. I haven't seen them acknowledge that they don't know what they're doing, which is a necessary step towards learning what they're doing. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 17:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the same for Jack4576 and MrsSnoozyTurtle. They're failing of getting the point. CastJared (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna regret biting here, but why even bring up those users? Neither of them had come up at all in this discussion, unless I'm missing something. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 00:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support XfD topic ban and any further measures to limit disruption in other spaces. I don't think this user has the competence to contribute meaningfully. JoelleJay (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Now I should end up dropping the stick and back slowly away from XFD voting and nominating articles. I am now facing multiple controversies. CastJared (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support XfD topic ban. The user has been warned multiple times in good faith; however, the user ignores the warnings and continues to make low-quality !votes, showing no signs of improvement. Timothytyy (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• I've gone ahead and pulled the trigger to block them. The responses in this thread, as well as this comment in another AN discussion are a loud and clear sign that they have insufficient comprehension of what's going on to be able to edit constructively, and that they are actively, continually attempting to feign understanding that they do not have in a way that can only be destructive to the project (and as much as I'm personally dying to know what their reply to Dylnuge's query above would be, the odds of it being unnecessarily inflammatory with respect to the other two unrelated and uninvolved editors that I think preventing the reply was prudent). If editors think this was the wrong call, please let it be known below. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

IP Block exemption request

Hello all, I will like to request for IPBE for the following users. Users with no account on this wiki can be created. Since they do have an account on other wikis.

• Hussein m mmbaga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• sadammuhammad11234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kwaku benny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bugirbiig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• kwamevaughan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Atibrarian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Semmy1960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Maagyam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aliyu shaba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ogbeni Adewale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fine acer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mikogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Myzz Evelyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sureyaill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nana Kwabena Boakye-Yiadom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Christian Owusu Ansah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Belinda Acquah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please do update me incase of any situations on circumstances related to any of the accounts in the list. JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

You need to explain why you are requesting IPBE for these accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

They are currently community members within the Sub saharan region looking forward to contribute to the Africa Day Campaign. This is the reason why I am requesting for IPBE for the following users. JDQ Joris Darlington Quarshie (talk) 16:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is the wrong venue for this request. This needs a checkuser and should be requested through the methods listed at Wikipedia:IP block exemption. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• And I'll note that some of these editors don't appear to be net positives [36] and some of them appear to be creating articles of dubious notability, some of them promotional. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, the last time the OP made a similar request, the admin who received the request brought it to AN (courtesy ping @Mjroots, @Zzuuzz, @Graham87). –FlyingAce^✈hello 19:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I should add that I advised the OP to take it to AN. I thought about the methods prescribed by policy, but it seemed that they were designed mostly for a user who wanted IPBE for themself, not for a group, as here.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Mmm, fair point, but it'll still need a CU. Black Kite (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Note that this request is duplicated on zzuuzz's talk page, who have attended to several such requests recently. Perhaps Zzuuzz (and/or other CUs) can advice us about the best venue for future mass-IPBE requests and Wikipedia:IP block exemption can be updated accordingly. WP:AN, UTRS and an individual CU's talkpage, all seem to be non-ideal options. Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Topic ban removed

I would like my topic ban removed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive979#Barbara_(WVS)'s_editing_of_medical_and_anatomy_articles This ban includes all medical and anatomy articles. Also, I was banned from sexuality articles. I believe that I can do a good job to help the encyclopedia to grow. I intend to continue to create content in Project Medicine. Other things I like to do is to find references for unsourced content. I intend to continue to expand on topics and articles having to do with the health of older women. This ban has been in place for five years.

Best Regards. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 17:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• No We have no way of knowing whether Barbara could work without the topic ban, because Barbara has hardly edited since 2019. And some of the behaviour that led to the topic ban was particularly problematic, which she has not addressed at all in the appeal. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
• Question I did a brief check into the original thread and the issues of copyvio, sourcing, and introducing factual errors are pretty severe. I also recall a big incident with Flyer22 and I see that Barbara was (is?) subject to an Iban as well, but I have no interest in opening that particular can of worms right now. Given all of that, I'm pretty strongly leaning towards no. But in the interest of fairness, can you name any specific edits you would like to make if the topic ban was to be repealed? It would help your case if you could give more details. Since you're only banned from "medical articles" and not medical content outside of article space, it would be helpful if you did something like making a userspace draft of a section or article that you want to make substantive contributions to. From there it might give us a better perspective on whether the issues leading to the ban are no longer a problem, since there isn't much recent content work. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the concerns that you have about allowing me to edit again. I have created a few articles after my topic ban: Mariniflexile, List of Christian women of the patristic age, Susan Montgomery Williams (2019), Marinactinospora. If you would like to see the listing of the articles I have created look here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Barbara_(WVS) . I have been busy writing articles for the Simple English Wikipedia. You can see my article creations here: https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/simple.wikipedia.org/Barbara%20%28WVS%29 . So it might not be accurate to say that I have hardly edited since 2019. In addition, I have had some serious family issues going on during this time. I have not had any problematic behavior with other editors since my topic ban. I don't intend to engage in problematic behavior in the future. There were no issues of copy violations. There won't be any issues of an Iban since Flyer does not edit any more. I can't remember any edits I would like to make. I intend to review the articles I have created and make any edits that are necessary. I would also like to update the references on the articles. I have drafts of articles that I worked on in my userspace that any editor can review. I am also banned from articles that contain medical content. The ban was 'broadly construed'. Thank you for your input

Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 19:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The primary issue of the ANI discussion was concerns with serious content issues in medical articles, rather than "problematic behavior with other editors". It looked like @Anthonyhcole: had offered to mentor Barbara's work in that area; perhaps, if Anthonyhcole is willing, there could be a period of probation during which all of Barbara's proposed edits to topics within the scope of the ban go through her mentor for approval first? Schazjmd (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Barbara's most recent edit on simple.wiki as I write is this one. I do not know simple's rules, but on en.wiki I would consider that unacceptably close paraphrasing of the source.

Compare:

"If the women does not get treated, the infection can get worse. Then many things will happen. If it diagnosed and treated early, the complications of PID can be prevented. Some of the complications of PID are formation of scar tissue, blocked fallopian tubes. The women could have a pregnancy outside the womb. There could be much pain in the belly."

To the source:

"What happens if I don’t get treated?

If diagnosed and treated early, the complications of PID can be prevented. Some of the complications of PID are

• Formation of scar tissue both outside and inside the fallopian tubes that can lead to tubal blockage;
• Ectopic pregnancy (pregnancy outside the womb);
• Infertility (inability to get pregnant);
• Long-term pelvic/abdominal pain."

If source use and copyright were previously problems in Barbara's editing, the fact that this is literally the first edit of hers I looked at does not give me confidence. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The content that you mention can be found on the CDC website and it is in the public domain. Content from the CDC is considered a good source on health topics. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 22:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Copying directly from a public domain source is not a WP:COPYVIO, but it is WP:PLAGIARISM: "even though there is no copyright issue, public-domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

The content was referenced and acknowledged in the citation. I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 01:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Digidwar

I'm requesting to disable the ability to edit own talk page of this account for making unconstructive edits on own talk page. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

All they did was blank their talk page, which they are allowed to do. DanCherek (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason for being allowed to blank own talk page. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Removing a block notice, even while blocked, is simply not prohibited by policy. See Wikipedia:User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. DanCherek (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

But is it needed to archive warnings removed from the talk page. 178.95.99.242 (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Where did you get that idea from? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

178, the essay Wikipedia:Mark of Cain might be helpful to you here. — Trey Maturin™ 21:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

See the essay Mark of Cain. CastJared (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)