Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators. It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here. Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here. 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. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Click here to start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Total
CfD	0	3	71	0	74
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	1	1	0	2
FfD	0	0	5	0	5
RfD	0	0	23	0	23
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 6 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 0 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 38 sockpuppet investigations
• 9 Candidates for speedy deletion
  • 0 Duplicate files
• 2 Fully-protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 9 requests for RD1 redaction
• 79 elapsed requested moves
• 22 requested closures
• 88 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 13 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (28 out of 5654 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Bungie 2023-10-01 20:41 2024-09-26 16:00 edit Persistent sock puppetry, which has not been stopped by semi-protection JBW Sony 2023-10-01 20:34 indefinite edit persistent disruptive editing, edit-warring, and sockpuppetry JBW Crunchyroll LLC 2023-10-01 20:32 2023-12-21 06:05 edit persistent disruptive editing, edit-warring, and sockpuppetry JBW Graham Linehan 2023-10-01 19:43 2024-06-09 19:22 edit,move media coverage resulting in disruption - will drop back to semi when the nonsense has concluded Black Kite Khaled Ahmed Almessabi 2023-10-01 18:32 2024-10-01 18:32 create Repeatedly recreated GB fan Template:UnstripNoWiki 2023-10-01 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2810 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Create taxonomy 2023-10-01 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2807 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Empis producta 2023-10-01 03:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Shooting of Abby Zwerner 2023-10-01 01:55 2023-11-01 01:55 move Persistent vandalism Spicy AIDAaura 2023-10-01 01:46 2024-01-01 01:46 move Persistent vandalism UtherSRG Template:Au 2023-09-30 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Karki, Azerbaijan 2023-09-30 11:28 2024-03-30 11:28 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute Lourdes Draft:Shahi Kabir 2023-09-30 11:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man Callanecc Shahi Kabir 2023-09-30 11:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man Callanecc Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Armenia (1917–1921) 2023-09-30 10:48 indefinite edit,move Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan Callanecc Charlotte Clymer 2023-09-29 21:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/GG; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Inline block 2023-09-29 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4541 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Bharatiya Janata Party 2023-09-29 16:42 indefinite edit Arbitration enforcement: upgrade to WP:ECP; critical WP:ARBIND page El C Snow Patrol 2023-09-29 16:29 2024-09-11 06:42 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: upgrade to WP:ECP for the duration El C Garegin Nzhdeh 2023-09-29 16:12 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement GS/AA Rosguill Dvorichna settlement hromada 2023-09-28 22:46 2024-09-28 22:46 edit,move WP:GS/RUSUKR ToBeFree 2023 Cricket World Cup final 2023-09-28 14:15 2023-11-14 14:15 edit Persistent disruptive editing Ohnoitsjamie 2023 Cricket World Cup Final 2023-09-28 14:13 2023-11-14 14:13 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Ohnoitsjamie 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh clashes 2023-09-28 08:04 indefinite edit,move request at rfp, move needed after RM Lectonar Jrue Holiday 2023-09-28 00:23 2023-10-05 00:23 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Damian Lillard 2023-09-28 00:02 indefinite edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: due to continued problems from WP:CONFIRMED accounts, upgrading to WP:ECP — maybe not for an indefinite duration, but for a considerable while El C Exodus of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh 2023-09-27 23:51 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan El C 2023 Cricket World Cup 2023-09-27 23:43 2028-02-22 05:24 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: due to continued problems from WP:CONFIRMED accounts, upgrading to WP:ECP — maybe not for the full duration (Feb 2028), but for a considerable while El C

RevDel summary

This IP editor is long gone, hasn't edited in several years, and I wanted to suggest that the summary in [1] be revdeled. The excessive Zalgo is making adjacent text difficult to read in the history page. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The relevant criteria would be RD3 possibly. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The button has been pressed. —Cryptic 00:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

And the Zalgo edit summary blew up so much it exploded.

(Thank you so much though!) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 14:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Ban revision request

A couple of weeks ago I had asked to have my one-way interaction ban with user AldezD revised - not to drop the ban, but to narrow the scope. There was no consensus to do anything. That's OK. Much to my surprise, AldezD came out of a 6-month "retirement", apparently for the sole purpose of harassing me. Given this,[2] I would ask that the indefinite one-way ban be extended to an indefinite two-way ban. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure. If he's retired, it doesn't affect him, and if he isn't, it appears it might very well be needed anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Since there was very recently consensus against loosening the restriction, and given the other editor's gross overreaction to being inadvertently pinged one time in a discussion clearly falling within WP:BANEX, I think it's reasonable to make this a two-way IBAN. As for your earlier request: sanctions aren't meant to be a Sword of Damocles hanging over your head forever. If you edit something and then someone goes through the history to find that the edit was actually contrary to your ban, apologize and revert and that should be the end of it. But also, if you want to be able to quickly check for a particular editor's edits to any page, the User History script here will add that filter to the standard history page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-anyone comment) I absolutely agree. AldezD has either retired (in which case they won't be affected) or they haven't, and they think that calling people "Goblins" is acceptable behavior. Their entire post yesterday was wholly disingenuous, up to and including the claim that they were 'harassed', an extremely serious claim, which was patently not true (since it appears that BB has not even mentioned them in the last six months). Frankly, I believe they deserved sanctioning for it at the time, but that's in the past. Incidentally, this seems to have originally been a six-month IB, which was extended following a self-request. Is that the case? Serial 18:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
  • If you're asking me, yes, it was to be six months and I asked for it to be indefinite. If I had known he was going to "retire", I would have agreed to the 6 months plan, and wouldn't have asked about it a couple of weeks ago. And when I was hit with this unexpected barrage yesterday, at first I wondered if the account had been compromised. I also don't recall pinging (or "tagging", as he put it), but maybe something triggered it. He was talking about 10 years ago, or some such, but I never heard of this guy until sometime in the last year or two. So something's not making sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    • When you added a link to their user page at the editing requests talk page, that would have generated an on-wiki notification for them, like this: User:Baseball Bugs. If you don't want that to happen then you can use {{noping}}, like this: Baseball Bugs. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
      • Oh! I didn't realize that. I thought that a ping came from putting User:[whatever] inside pairs of braces. I'm either working off old information or had forgotten it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Support two-way IBAN. The ANI discussion opened was unacceptable and the "coming out of retirement" to retaliate was also very unacceptable and uncalled for. Retirement does not provide protection against sanctions. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support two way IBAN. AldezD was way out of line hurling their bizarre "goblin" and "creature" insults. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support two-way IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Comment The "goblin" comment was out of line but I'm trying to look at it from AldezD's perspective. Reading through all the archives and history shows Aldez was very, very much upset by the interactions between him and BB. It was continuous despite numerous requests to stop and it eventually ended up where a non-involved admin put the one-way iban on BB. Later on out of nowhere, the person, who from AldezD's perspective, harassed and annoyed the hell out of them without stopping, comes back with a ping out of the blue. I would say a lot of us would freak out as well especially if the history between them was as one-sided antagonistic as it was. Slap them with a "Don't do that again" for that comment at the very least (which has been done). I think escalating to a two way is premature. spryde | talk 12:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • A personal attack is a personal attack. Calling someone a "goblin" is dehumanizing at the least. If an editor is unable to keep their cool by accidental violations of WP:IBAN or even with behavior where there is consensus that WP:BANEXEMPT applies, then it probably means they should not be interacting with them to begin with. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • @Sp: can you also explain AldezD's references to BB's "nonsense from 10x years ago" that harasses him? Serial 14:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    No clue about that. I am talking about the interactions 2020-2022. spryde | talk 15:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

    • Indeed. The problem is that it's now harder to confirm the nominator's own statements if they claim to have had literally decade-old issues with BB. Serial 17:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
      • Is there a way to create a list of when one user has interacted with another over time? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Backlog at steward requests (meta)

If any stewards are around and looking for something to do, the requests for global [b]locks page currently has a backlog of 281 requests, the oldest stretching back to the start of July. Thanks in advance. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Jack Petchey

Can both of AntiMatterzzz edits be struck? [3], I consider them rude and offensive. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done and user warned. GiantSnowman 08:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you GS, much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thenotoriousbiggie

→ Recently created account, definately not here to build encyclopedia, they are adding content with pov ridden language and doesn't care much about 3R rule either - (diff), (diff), (diff) (likely WP:OR as well)

→ They refused to discuss the matter on talk page citing their lack of experience - (diff)

→ On Muhammad Ghuri article as well they are removing sourced content deceptively as can be seen here (diff), early days, still a block is strongly recomended. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 12:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

1) I havent added any content with pov ridden language I have clearly mentioned all the reliable sources and I have even edited my content after your suggestion but you refuse to talk with me and did not reply at your talk page instead you keep removing and modfiying my content deceptively without any legitimate reason.

2) What are you talking about I never refused to discuss disputed matter you were saying the word 't/p' I simply aked you what is 't/p' as I am new but you refused to explain that to me and instead you removed my content. (diff)

3) I never removed any sourced material I only removed unsourced line which is historically disputed.(diff)

4) I even asked you for your help as I am new but instead of guiding me you removed everything that I edited which contains information that can be highly beneficial for encyclopedia and is taken from historically reliable sources (diff) Thenotoriousbiggie (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeffed by Bbb23. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

request to lift or narrow topic ban

This is regarding the topic ban imposed on me on 2022-09-17 regarding the subject areas of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. I request this either be lifted or else that it be narrowed to apply only to the topic of love jihad. Fabrickator (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Link to discussion which led to the ban. [4] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Fabrickator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• oppose per User_talk:Fabrickator#Topic ban violations I'm afraid user has been in violation of the topic ban and has been trying to induce others to edit on their behalf.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 22:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
  • I think it's inaccurate to characterize my communication as a case of "trying to induce others to edit on [my] behalf". Admittedly, the involved admin had used this wording, though he did not actually allege that is what I had done. What I actually had done was to point out that the guidance as stated when adding a [disputed section] tag required providing an explanation on the talk page for having added the tag. While I'm not suggesting that you intentionally misrepresented the situation, it could leave others with the impression that I was actually attempting to work around the restriction that was in place, and discourage them from expressing the opinion that my request should be honored. Fabrickator (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

    Fabrickator, what do you mean by "the involved admin had used this wording"? To whom are you referring? DanCherek (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The post that called out the violation is at User talk:Fabrickator#Topic_ban_violations. It's actually an IP address, so I guess I misspoke referring to this wording as having been made by an admin. The point is that in the case of this specific violation, the wording in which I allegedly attempted to induce others to post content "on my behalf" was a request to the user to describe the reason for having added the {{dispute}} tag to the article, as per the provided guidance on using such tags (see edit of User talk:Fabrickator/Topic Ban Violations). Fabrickator (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You have explained one of the edits. The editor also called out this one. Why do you ignore that when you need to be scrupulously honest to have your ban lifted? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Please remove some of my rights

(posting here since that is what Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Removal of permissions says, feel free to move to ANI if the guidance there is wrong) Please remove my

• Mass message sender
• File mover

rights. I'm hoping to slowly return to activity and the other rights might still come in handy but I'm probably not going to be moving files or sending messages. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

•  Done Thanks for the previous work, hope you still find some ways to enjoy contributing in other areas. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Challange of RfC closure (will discuss first)

Talk:Operation Underground Railroad#RfC: Reliability of sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Underground_Railroad&diff=prev&oldid=1177878538 FormalDude (talk · contribs) weirdly closed this RFC claiming that there has been consensus, which obviously isnt the case. Please someone look over it --FMSky (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that FMSky has not contacted me about the closure to try to resolve the issue through discussion per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I see a clear consensus of editors agreeing that the RfC should be closed and the content included in the body and lede. I'm not sure what the objection here is. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The link says "other closures (including requests for comment[5]) are discussed at WP:AN."

The rfc initally had no consensus. Then when new sources came out, there was consensus to CLOSE this rfc and start a new one with these new sources. Please read again --FMSky (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

It says "If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard" (emphasis mine). I would've been happy to discuss your concerns with you (and still am), but coming here minutes after my close is jumping the gun.

And I'm still not sure how that's an objection as I made no comment about whether another RfC is needed, though more than half the people agreeing it should be closed explicitly mentioned that a new RfC is not needed. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, i will discuss it with you first then. This can be closed.---FMSky (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

FMSky has been a disruptive presence at that talkpage and the related Tim Ballard, arguing against the consensus of other editors that mainstream news publications reporting on Vice's investigation means that it is due to be included in the article. They've also been a disruptive presence on the talkpage of What is a Woman?, Including at one point arguing that the term anti-trans "could mean anything, such as anti-transvestite or anti-transglutaminase antibodies" [5], seemingly as facetious trolling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Comment on the topic, not the user. The rfc initally had no consensus. Then when new sources came out, there was consensus to CLOSE this rfc and start a new one with these new sources. Please read again --FMSky (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should read about the concept of WP:BOOMERANG. The problem here is you, not FormalDude's close. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you focus on the topic at hand --FMSky (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The topic at hand here is you, as all the problems at the OUR article that resulted in the RFC in the first place were caused by your disruptive editing. I'm not the only editor to have had enough of your behaviour, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#What Is a Woman?. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Trust me, that feeling is mutual. However I'm here to improve articles, and will continue to do so within the guidelines of this site. It is my right to challenge an rfc close i deemed incorrect. you attacking me for a completely unrelated topic doesnt change that. -- FMSky (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

• I've indefinitely topic banned FMSky from the articles broadly constructed under AP CT procedures for not listening to others, edit warring, bludgeoning discussions, and displaying ownership over the articles. No comment on any further sanctions against FMSky or others. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 07:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: 1-year transgender topic ban

Survey

• Support as proposer - as raised by Hemiauchenia above, in September 2023, when another editor used this Pink News source, which gives the description of the anti-trans What Is a Woman? film, FMSky argued that the source doesnt say "anti-transgender", as that term could mean anything, such as anti-transvestite or anti-transglutaminase antibodies [6] [7]. Noting that the source Pink News is focused on LGBT content, and that the source does not discuss any anti-transglutaminase antibodies at all, and even mentions transgender in the source. Wikipedia:Competence is required to edit this topic, and FMSky has failed to demonstrate that by having egregiously misread the source. starship.paint (RUN) 01:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  That's obnoxious and concerning, but that one exchange isn't really enough to add an additional tban. There is perhaps an argument that the tban applied above should've been a typical AP tban given the combination of issues at Ballard, etc. and What Is a Woman, but given where we are now I think you'll need more diffs to substantiate this being needed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: - consider the context, FMSky first started editing the article by removing anti-transgender and transphobic from the lede, despite six sources cited, on 16 June, then did it again on 24 August, with the comments: WP:WEIGHT, just as many sources dont see it like that and no need to highlight these fringe viewpoints, especially in the lead respectively. Over this time, FMSky also shifts the anti-transgender and transphobic further down the body six times despite being continually reverted: 16 July / 24 August / 25 August / 26 August first time / 26 August second time / 26 August third time. After this clear campaign to de-emphasize these terms, FMSky then objected to equating "anti-trans" to "anti-transgender", but now admits that they actually know "anti-trans" means "anti-transgender", yet they decided to initiate a talk page discussion objecting to that characterisation, thereby wasting the time of six other editors, and now admits that they actually provided a sarcastic reply, despite never mentioning this before, not even in the above discussion. This is disruptive behaviour. starship.paint (RUN) 13:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  That was a sarcastic reply, I thought that was obvious. It was to demonstrate that it was essentially original research as it didn't specifically say anti transgender and could theoretically mean anything. If you block me from that topic area you would have to do the same with the other user that agreed with me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=next&oldid=1174314760 FMSky (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  So, to be clear, I believe this is the reference in question? And if I have that right, then your position is that "anti-trans" as used in the subhead could "theoretically mean anything" and to say it refers to transgender is original research? Dumuzid (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  I know that it means anti transgender. But it didn't outright say it, that's my point. Imo when citing text we should say exactly what the sources say FMSky (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

  "Anti-trans" is so obviously "anti-transgender" in this context, though? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 09:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Its obviously either transgender or transsexual --FMSky (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

...am I being trolled? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

No why? I think these are the most common meanings (I could be wrong though, I'm not an expert on this). Im really not sure what you guys want from me so I'm not going to comment here any further --FMSky (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support for deliberately disingenuous conduct at the What Is A Woman talk page as highlighted by the nomination - for example, the "anti-transglutaminase" thing in the nomination, and accusing other editors who voted against his RSC of wanting "info suppressed from this page to make them feel better". I also would not oppose an AP TBAN, because the conduct at these articles has been less than acceptable - see, for example, describing Vice as a "biased far left outlet" while trying to argue against inclusion of something, before a week later adding Vice as a source to the Tim Ballard article, which is a BLP. I could go on. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That comment was struck out by me afterwards https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=next&oldid=1177214005 and there are actually doubts about WP:VICEs reliablitly --FMSky (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, so you doubt a source's reliability and call it "biased" and "far-left", but you add it a few days later to a BLP, for which there's even more stringent sourcing policies? Something's not adding up. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support, the comment about anti-transglutaminase is revolting enough, but then FMSky is playing dumb on this very discussion (here). Clearly not fit for the topic area. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 10:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support - In a WP:CTOPICS area, I found their behavior problematic at that talk page. I also find their answers/comments about the Pink News source disingenuous, considering the topic of the article, and their edits to the article, here, here, here, and here. They undoubtedly knew what anti-trans meant, but sill insisted on the talk page that since its doesnt say anti-transgender so its WP:OR. And then when a discussion didn't achieve consensus for content they wanted in the lead, they opened a RfC which participants also agreed that this rfc was disruptive, as the previous discussion was also opposed to adding the text. They also pestered editors about not watching the film: you obviously haven't even watched them film you're commenting about, You probably havent watched the film, and this question to me - Why are you voting if you havent even watched the film. In my view, watching a film shouldn't be a condition for commenting in a RfC. I made one more comment and then left the discussion, due to the "chilly" reception I received. And then there was this insinuation about the motives of editors commenting in the RfC: I have accepted now that people want the info suppressed from this page to make them feel better, so whatever, which they were asked to strike, and instead just removed their reply and other editors replies with a whatever edit summary. It was rightfully restored later by another editor and the comments were then struck. I think a topic ban in this area is reasonable, considering their comments on just this one article's talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support As I noted previously, they just seem to be a trolling account that is actively being disruptive across a number of articles related to this topic. They continuously make new threads on talk pages over and over, arguing every single point to death when they don't get their way because the majority of editors do not agree with them. It's tendentious to a degree of insanity and unhelpful on actually improving any of the articles. They do not seem to be here to make the project better, but to instead push their POV on this specific topic area. Hopefully a topic ban from this subject will allow them to be more productive elsewhere, though I'm rather doubtful about that. Silverseren^C 16:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support, although I think an extension of the ban to American politics might also be needed because some disruptive areas like Sound of Freedom (film)/Talk:Sound of Freedom (film) and Killing of Jordan Neely/Talk:Killing of Jordan Neely aren't covered under either the specific page blocks above or this topic ban. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sound of Freedom is covered by being related to Tim Ballard, which i have been banned from --FMSky (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that error at the same time you did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Honestly, I think there's a lot more evidence for a topic ban from AP, where FMSky edits frequently and is consistently disruptive, than from GENSEX, which they edit relatively infrequently. However, because of the large overlap between the categories and because of how egregious the "anti-trans" argument was I'm still in support of a GENSEX topic ban. Loki (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

The problem with this proposal is that I edit dozens of BLPs every, some of them happen to be trans without me even knowing. So if I just do some basic formatting in these types of articles which I often do (such as correcting date formats etc) would that be a violation too? That seems needlessly excessive. 🤷‍♂️ --FMSky (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely it would be a violation. Slow down and read articles before editing them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that this whole discussion is a massive violation of WP:FOC. I started this thread because of something completely different. What is all this pile-on because of a completely unrelated talk page entry of me in the past??? --FMSky (talk) 07:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Your own behavior may be scrutinized any time you post at a noticeboard. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That's good to know, I will think twice about visiting this page again in the future then.

I have obviously made mistakes in the past, i acknowledge that, no one is perfect. I try to improve as a user every day and i generally take criticism very seriously as to not make the same mistakes twice --FMSky (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I think a topic ban because of behaviour in a single article is a bit excessive tbh --FMSky (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

At least five articles have been mentioned along with a number of associated talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would anyone's behaviour change between different articles anyway? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

socks

This is a notification on sock issues that I found in ta.wiki and I report here and admin can take action. Please check CheckUser. There are 6 socks + possibly another at Draft. Just for your information. AntanO 13:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other

• Editorialseer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tamilpoetrycritic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Artcriticarmenia (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tigranhzor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Aivazovkyan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

-- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Superpes15: I think I found a few more accounts -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Guerillero: Many thanks for the ping! Indeed Tamilpoetrycritic and Aivazovkyan are not registered on tawiki, this starts to be a cross-wiki issue, will evaluate the situation better at this point ;) Superpes15 (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I will add these accounts as well

• VictorGevork (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Uirpitchai (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• AznavourTankyan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

this should probably get listed at WP:SPI -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I dont know where to put this

The google app on mobile leads to en.wikipedia.org instead of en.m.wikipedia.org when using the button in the knowledge panel. 166.205.222.16 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand you, but issues with Google knowledge panels are not our concern; you will need to contact Google. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the Google algorithms have detected that the fully functional desktop site works just fine on mobile devices, and that the mobile site, on the other hand, is still an impediment to collaborative editing, after many years of unsuccessful efforts to improve it. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Many blocks shouldn't be indef

Hello. I oftentimes see vandals, suckpuppet accounts or similar getting indef blocked. Many times they are new users testing the waters of Wikipedia. I think such blocks may be overly harsh, specially for new users. My suggestion is if there is need to block, the block should not be indef. For example, instead it could be for a year, giving chance to some users who genuinely want to stop vandalizing or testing to contribute afterwards to become helpful editors.

If they repeat the behavior, then for example, a two year block, then a 4 year block, then an 8 year block. This way, there is a balance between administrator time, dealing with unduly problematic editors and giving chance to other editors to become productive and learn the ropes in Wikipedia. Also, multi-year blocks can give chance for instance to a user who is still maybe an immature teen to pass their phase and in adulthood they might be more mature and be interested in Wikipedia in a more productive way.

This chance doesn't happen if they return and still see their account indef block after 10-15 years. Even though there is an appeal mechanism, most editors probably either just see the block and give up immediately or they think they won't get unblocked and don't return. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Would anyone wait two years before contributing constructively? Assuming run-of-the-mill disruption, the blocked user could easily get unblocked by posting a plausible request after a period which might be as little as a month. Being nice to people is great except that doing that often involves disruption for other editors. A good editor can get tired of monitoring more and more nonsense and may leave if disruption is not controlled. Indefs play a valuable role in saving community time and energy, and they are not forever. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Define "forever". I think I have seen people indefd blocked for 15 years or more with no updates from the initial block if Im not mistaken. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I have seen people indefd blocked for 15 years or more Are you saying that you followed Wikipedia's internal matters for over 7 years before you started editing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been around since 2001, although not registered. Also, I was thinking in the date they got blocked not that I saw them getting blocked. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If they're here to be disruptive, they will create sockpuppets anyway (and these will only be discovered if the vandalism is distinctive enough to convince of aikely connection); there's no difference in this context between a month and indef. If they're here to be helpful, and simply don't understand the problems with their edits, a shorter term block will give them time to learn our policies better. Animal lover |666| 06:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

An indef block does not mean "forever". It means "until a convincing unblock request is made". We can't control if people think they won't be unblocked, which would apply even if an end date is put on the block. I've unblocked accounts where the user says "I was a stupid teenager 5 years ago and won't do that stuff again", no problem. 331dot (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Accounts whose first edits are vandalism virtually never go on to make constructive edits, which is why we block vandalism only accounts. Indef blocks are also not permanent - they can actually be quite short if the user posts an appeal in which they acknowledge their error and make a convincing commitment to not repeat it. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's say I created an account as a teenager, vandalised a few pages, gotten blocked, and then five years later came back with the intention of contributing legitimately: I would have two options available to me. Option A, assuming I could remember the original username and password (or was still using the same email address I was back then), I could log into the old account and request unblock. That would likely be granted, but I think I would be more likely to take Option B, to create an entirely new account and just start editing. Option B is technically a WP:BADSOCK violation, but who would ever know? Nobody would report my new account, because I wasn't being disruptive, and the old account would be stale for CU purposes even if anyone ever did suspect a connection. I expect there are many constructive contributors active on the site, who are technically evading blocks on ancient accounts they used abusively in the dim and distant. Does anyone care? Girth Summit _(blether) 10:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit: Indeed, we've had at least one user elected to adminship who acknowledged having taken "Option B". See the examples at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock. Part of me thinks we should formalize something like allowing cleanstarts for simple vandalism/DE blocks after 1 year, but at the same time IAR seems to work decently in cases where this has arisen—combined with the fact that, as you say, most people just never mention they're technically socking (cf. User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return and User:Tamzin/Lot's wife.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaking generally: Indefinite is not infinite. Indefinite just means that the behavior is severe enough to warrant a full stop to editing until the poor behavior is addressed in a convincing unblock request. However if you want anything concrete to happen you should probably post specific usernames/blocks that you'd like reviewed. Hard to action anything without diffs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Ok, what about putting a technical limit of 10 years to indef blocks so it doesn't become a permanent block? That means that after 10 years the account is automatically unblocked. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a solution to a problem that has not yet been articulated. What is the problem with the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of extant indef-blocked throwaway vandalism-only accounts remaining blocked? Girth Summit _(blether) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(About a million and a half. —Cryptic 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC))

"giving chance to other editors to become productive and learn the ropes in Wikipedia." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a "permanent block", as I said above. I don't think that 10 years would make a difference- this is a solution looking for a problem. Editors have the chance to return and be productive editors- request unblocking. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Out of the millions of "extant indef-blocked throwaway vandalism-only accounts" probably there is a margin of error of at least 1%. That would mean tens of thousands of potential legitimate editors blocked indefinitely. Regarding the appeal, the question is what's the proportion of editors who would be legitimate who are deterred by the sole look of their account still blocked after years vs the proportion who would submit an appeal. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

How have you calculated this MOE? 331dot (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Girth Summit said "possibly millions", then if a margin of error is 1% of possibly millions then it follows "tens of thousands of potential legitimate editors". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes no sense to me. If you created an account years ago, and now want to edit constructively, you'd just create a new account. I see no reason to change the status quo. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I actually have pretty much the opposite view. Outside of logged-out editing, where an IP address could be reassigned to an innocent user, most blocks should be indefinite. Blocking is not a punishment; it is merely a technical measure by which we can prevent someone from editing while concerns about their editing need to be addressed. If those concerns are addressed in a satisfactory manner, then we will lift the block. Temporary blocks can and do have a preventative role, especially in edit warring blocks, where they serve to stop the edit warring in the short term and deter future edit warring in the long term—see WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. On the whole, however, I think that temporary blocks are actually more likely to be ineffective and/or seen as "punitive" because it allows a user to simply wait out the block without ever addressing the disruptive behavior. Mz7 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I whole-heartedly agree with Mz7. Almost all of the blocks I have imposed on accounts have been indef. IPs are different, since they tend to be impermanent, and there is no point indeffing an IP because an LTA used it one time. But accounts - why do we block them? Because the people using them are not following our policies and guidelines. Does a break from editing make them follow those PAGs? Rarely. Better to say 'You can't edit until you read them, and agree to follow them'. Then, by all means, unblock early and unblock often.

Here is an example: Koitus~nlwiki. I imposed a temporary block on their account, because they were edit warring and insulting people. They returned to insulting people almost immediately after the temporary block expired. It wasn't anything particularly egregious - I think he called his opponent a fool, or something like that - but I reblocked and made it indefinite. They badgered me on my talk page on meta for a few weeks, but I was clear that all they needed to do in order to be unblocked was to commit to abide by the no personal attacks policy. That seems to have been too much for them, so they remain blocked to this day. I see no reason why a block like that should expire automatically, when it would be so trivially easy for the subject of the block to get it lifted.

Folk who genuinely want to contribute here constructively have plenty of guidance on what they need to do to get unblocked. The fact that there are so many indef blocked accounts is mostly due to the fact that some people make numerous accounts to cause trouble, and to a lesser extent because some people stick to one account, but are unwilling to follow the rules agreed upon and imposed by the community. The middle ground between those two positions is a bit of a grey area, but as I've said, people who find themselves there are most likely to just create a new account and hope that the connection to their naughty earlier selves will never be discovered. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose this, as this is neither kindergarten nor a remedial school. A new user to the site must have the competence to comport themselves to the social norms of the community they are joining, and if they cannot manage that simple task, then they do not belong here, frankly. A user who has made mistakes but shows a willingness to learn from them should be able to articulate an unblock rationale good enough to get an indefinite block lifted. Call it a Wiki-Litmus Test. Zaathras (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Map Hoax of Inca Empire

Hello. I have realized that some images of the expansion of the Inca Empire seem to be a hoax (the map is all the way down) In short, on the web you can find a lot of maps that are literally the map of Inca expansion by John Rowe (who made a general chronology in the 1940’s accepted by most expert, even though it doesn’t coincide with some archeological data. This is the chronology seen on all Wikipedia articles concerning the Inca, most importantly for reign dates), here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inca_Expansion.svg (Sorry, I have no Idea how to do interwiki links), with the first out of two "Tupac Inca" (i.e Inca Emperor Tupac Yupanqui, but under the reign of his father, the second being the conquests he did under his own reign) having conquered everything he conquered, but the second one only having conquered Chimor, and Huayna Capac (and this is important) having supposedly made huge conquests south. The fact that this user made Chimor conquered by Tupac Yupanqui is historical, (in the case of the Inca Empire it is said by some chroniclers and continued by virtually all historians of the subject), but most historians, including John Rowe (Which by the way, no academic source had ever done such a map before. There was Rowe’s map, and this hoax is a direct copy of Rowe’s map but with the info changed), situate the conquest of chimor under his father's reign, Pachacuti. The problem here is that no source, no chronicle, no academic book, before and after this could-be hoax, ever, and I mean ever said that Huayna Capac conquered all of this. It’s probably not a deliberate hoax, but it is original research. Maybe this doesn’t originate in Wikipedia, because I’ve not found anything too old for now, but as long as not a single academic source (XVI century chronicles don’t mention this, i.e pretty much the only sources don’t mention this, so for me it’s clear), should this really be on Wikipedia ?

Here are some exemples, like this classic I just finished describing : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inca-expansion-map.png (the original and reliable one is here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Expansion_Imperio_Inca-1-.JPG, if your familiar with the subject give it some sources, sadly I’m to lazy for that)

And here, this one being… very creative : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Empèri_Inca.png Reman Empire (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Original research (or POV pushing, or just plain fantasy) is a frequent feature of maps found on Commons. Unless they can be verified to be cited to, and based solely on, a single valid source, they aren't WP:RS, and shouldn't be used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that they are. Specifically (I can’t speak Spanish or Occitan fluently to remove them there without getting seen as a vandal) the Occitan Article about the Inca Empire (labeled good article) has the second map on it, and the Spanish one uses these en masse. These https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pachacuti-conquest.png, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tupac-inca-conquest.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Late-intermediate-peru.png are also used quite often, including on the English wiki. More specifically I’ve removed them from Pachacuti, while theyr still on Topa Inca Yupanqui and possibly some other pages. On wikimedia you can see these last ones are used, tragically, on so many articles, that's a lot of work left. The Inca Empire being a subject where interpretation is often wide in historiography, this has probably gone through the radar.

Regards, Reman Empire (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Heck the "source" for the Occitan map is literally "Own Work". Worse, the source for the first and main hoax (the one reverting the original by Rowe, and the one now easily findable on the web through a simple google search) is also "Own Work". That should be enough for deletion, right ? Reman Empire (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, Commons is run by people who don't think that being complete crap is a valid reason to delete content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Requesting range block on IP range belonging to "49.206..."

IP range belonging to "49.206..." making disruptive changes against policies like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOINDICSCRIPT and edit warring. May be an LTA.
IP addresses belonging to the range - [8] [9]
Pages frequented by the IP range - [10] [11] [12] as well as numerous transport related articles from the southern Indian states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. So would like to request range-block or partial range block on these IP range. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Judging from the editing area (Karnataka, and transport related), seems like an IP sock of LTA User:Lokeshwaran V R, see the SPI case page [13]. See the editing history ([14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]) and the warnings for disregard of WP:COMMONNAME on their talk page [21]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

More IPs from the range - [22] [23]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I have blocked 49.206.128.0/22 for a month. Please let us know if the disruption spreads outside that range. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

block

Block the user‎ Herapalace - Frequent vandalism The Escape of the Seven Muatsem90 (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You have not left a notice on User:Herapalace's talk page, which you must do. I have done so for you. Tessaract2^Hi! 20:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

As for the actual issue at hand, it seemingly doesn't belong at AN, but there's merit to making a report. Herapalace and Muatsem90 are edit warring at The Escape of the Seven over the genre, but Herapalace's preferred version (fantasy) isn't supported by the source, at least by my quick glance, and their edit leaves an easter egg anyhow. I'll drop them a note in a bit. (edit: note has been dropped) Tessaract2^Hi! 20:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)