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	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	1	24	0	25
TfD	0	0	1	0	1
MfD	0	0	5	0	5
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	65	0	65
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

• 14 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 7 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 200 sockpuppet investigations
• 23 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 4 Fully protected edit requests
• 3 Candidates for history merging
• 62 requests for RD1 redaction
• 58 elapsed requested moves
• 4 Pages at move review
• 15 requested closures
• 109 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 28 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Bericht

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 8186 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Typ Summary Admin Ras Sedr massacre 2024-08-03 04:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Template:Ivory messagebox/styles.css 2024-08-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4463 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Sodhi 2024-08-02 17:15 2024-09-02 17:15 edit Persistent disruptive editing Anachronist Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/talk/talk 2024-08-01 21:07 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated by LTA Jauerback Lin Yu-ting 2024-08-01 20:47 2024-08-11 20:47 edit,move Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Real Malabar FC 2024-08-01 20:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated El C Silver Synth 2024-08-01 19:50 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem Imane Khelif 2024-08-01 17:14 2024-09-01 17:14 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Timeline of the Russian invasion of Ukraine (1 August 2024 – present) 2024-08-01 14:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Isabelle Belato Beit Jala 2024-08-01 11:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Ismail al-Ghoul 2024-08-01 03:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Firefangledfeathers Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier 2024-07-31 20:51 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Template:Inprogress 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Cricket squad2 player 2024-07-31 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Spike (missile) 2024-07-31 16:03 2024-08-07 16:03 edit,move WP:ARBPIA4 temporary enforcement Swatjester Kefas Brand (actor) 2024-07-31 15:05 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Bishonen Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh 2024-07-31 12:30 indefinite edit Highly visible page as currently on main page; it's been moved regularly over the last couple of days Schwede66 Reactions to Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Death of Paul Kessler 2024-07-31 01:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Azzam Pasha quotation 2024-07-31 01:14 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Queer advocacy in the Israel–Hamas War 2024-07-31 01:13 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato 80th Air Assault Brigade (Ukraine) 2024-07-31 01:11 indefinite edit,move WP:RUSUKR; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Megagle 2024-07-31 00:56 2026-07-31 00:56 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic 2024-07-30 21:20 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case 2024 Haret Hreik airstrike 2024-07-30 19:42 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Talk:Sister location circus fox 2024-07-30 19:11 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe Fouad Shuker 2024-07-30 19:08 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli July 2024 Israeli attack on Beirut 2024-07-30 19:07 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Jhanak 2024-07-30 16:56 indefinite move Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato Bat Ayin 2024-07-30 15:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBPIA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli

Guidelines on ChatGPT generated content

Would it be possible for an admin to consider doing something with Wikipedia:Large language models, Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Large language models and copyright and (possibly) Wikipedia:Artificial intelligence and m:Wikilegal/Copyright Analysis of ChatGPT.

These essays/guidelines are somewhat duplicates, and there's not much clarity regarding rules about ChatGPT, especially for new editors.

This is addition to numerous userspace AI demonstrations such as User:JPxG/LLM demonstration, User:Fuzheado/ChatGPT and User:DraconicDark/ChatGPT.

We already have Template:AI-generated as well as Template:Uw-ai1, so I think some sort of clear guideline about the issue would make sense, but that doesn't yet exist.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

My sense is that there's a collaborative effort to address this that is largely taking place at WP:Large language models, with the idea that it will eventually be a guideline once it's been workshopped.

In the meantime, the main advice that new editors need regarding LLMs is: don't use them. There's edge cases where they may be acceptable, but by and large the territory is open to major pitfalls regarding licensing and citogenesis such that the amount of proofreading and oversight that responsible LLM usage requires negates any speed advantage that they may have over conventional writing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill Would it be appropriate to merge Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia into WP:Large language models? The former seems to only be only made of up a few sections which would nicely fit into WP:LLM.  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

In principle yes, although given the amount of active editing and discussion that appears to be going on at WP:Large language models it would probably be best to start a discussion rather than attempting to boldly merge. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rosguill Okay, I've proposed merging at Wikipedia talk:Large language models#Proposed merge. Thanks for your advice!  – CityUrbanism 🗩 🖉 18:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Replacement_of_the_entire_lead_of_eight_biographies_by_IPv6 for a recent discussion touching this Johnbod (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
• Administrators don't write or decide policy (at least, no more than any other user), so there's nothing for an administrator specifically to do there unless there's been some sort of conduct issue (eg. someone misrepresenting the support something has, or spamming it everywhere, or revert-wars on policy pages or the like.) The decision of what to do about ChatGPT and related generative networks is going to have to be made by the community as a whole and is likely to take some time. --Aquillion (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Ibratwiki, massive stub creation

OK--I ran into User talk:Umarxon III, who was submitting drafts for Uzbek towns (mostly for other users), a couple of em--all consisting of a sentence and a half, and a link to a document that listed Uzbek towns. I found out quickly that there were other accounts doing the same thing, more accounts than I can list here, hundreds of em. Many of those accounts are submitting the same kind of stuff, same syntax, same verbiage: compare Draft:Xotinariq to Draft:Qoʻrgʻontepa (Fergana District). There are hundreds more, and I'm not the only one, I discovered, who's been declining these; User:Onel5969 has seen them too, for instance. To cut a long story short, after I saw some overlap I figured that CU was valid given the socking concerns, and found the hundreds of accounts over a few IPs. None of them did the usual things that editors do, which is talk, write up user pages, improve articles--it's all just this churning out of stubs. Now, some of them have a thingy on their user page that points to this, the IbratWiki camp, and I just saw a list of participants here--I wish more of the participants had made more things more clear on their user and talk pages. Umarxon, for instance, hasn't responded to notes.

I'm happy to accept the good faith of the organizers, but these poor submissions (and again, they're almost all the same) which are all going to get turned down, the lack of clarity, what good does that do? Yeah, Uzbekistan (and especially Karakalpakstan) need to be put on the map, but this isn't the way to do it. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Also see the previous discussion of this at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers#Uzbekistan_articles. One of the organizers responded here. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Another point, is the sole source even valid? I can't seem to open it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

If we're talking about the linked RTF on Draft:Xotinariq (for example) I was able to download and open it, although I had to proceed past a warning because it was offered over HTTP and not HTTPS. Mackensen (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Nataev--I see you're aware of this. How are you doing, old friend? Drmies (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, Drmies! Indeed, I'm painfully aware of this. The WikiStipendiya edit-a-thon has been a great project overall, but the IbratWiki subproject turned out to be a bit of a disaster. From what I understand, the camp was primarily organized by the Ibrat Language Team, who are a bunch of language enthusiasts without much knowledge of wiki projects. The camp participants were not properly trained and the organizers prioritized quantity over quality. That said, do let me know if I can be of any help when you review those cookie-cutter submissions. Maybe some can be salvaged.

The Youth Affairs Agency of Uzbekistan, which has been funding the WikiStipendiya edit-a-thon, is planning yet another weeklong WikiOromgoh camp as we speak. Luckily, they won't be editing enwiki but will focus on uzwiki as in the previous two rounds (1 and 2).

By the way, I remember discussing Women in Red with you. Inspired by this initiative, we organizing the WikiAyollar (WikiWomen) subproject to try to close the gender gap on uzwiki. Results so far haven't been outstanding, but I think many users have learned about the project and will continue writing about women. Nataev ^talk 22:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Excellent--good. I would love to see improved coverage of Uzbek topics. There are things we can do on en-wiki to help; you know I'm always happy to help out; it's a matter of coordination, and knowledge beforehand. I looked at the two SPIs that were filed (and now merged), and all that could have been prevented. It's like with the education projects: if editors put something on their user page, with a few useful links (to a page on the wiki they're working on), and if they all have, in their history, a diff where they're signing up on some project page, then those SPIs would have never happened, I think. It's still a bit puzzling how they got hundreds of editors to submit the exact same material, but that's another thing I guess. And I think User:Umarxon III is playing a role there, but nothing in their edits or on their user page makes that clear. We see that with educational projects too, BTW, if they're run by professors who don't coordinate with the Education branch.

Anyway, thanks for the note: good to see you still here. Let me know if I can help, and what we can do here to help them. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I might travel to Tashkent in the summer. If I do and if they decided to contribute to enwiki again, I'll make sure it's done differently. Cheers. Nataev ^talk 13:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Block appeal of Speedcuber1

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

---

The following is the appeal of Speedcuber1 for their block to be removed. I am doing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• I am hoping to be unblocked, I know that when you’re blocked you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia on other accounts, and I haven’t edited Wikipedia since I was blocked, I haven’t been on Wikipedia since last year but it came to mind today so I am going to attempt to be unblocked, if this request is unsuccessful, then I will have to try again another time in the future and I am ok with it. I’m not going to beg to be unblocked, I will just have to wait and see if I am unblocked or not in the future and accept it.

I was blocked some time last year or the year before and I think it was because I made to many edits on the administrators noticeboard, I can’t remember the edits that got me blocked or how many edits it was but I think that some of them were disruptive and that this is why I was blocked. If I am unblocked in the future, I will make sure that I don’t post a lot on the administrators noticeboard and I will also make sure that none of my edits are disruptive. I have had some experience in the past with the Wikipedia user gadget twinkle, and have reverted vandalism in the past.

The kind of edits that I might make if or when I am unblocked might include things like adding sources to articles, adding wikilinks to articles if they need them, and going to random articles that have messages at the top of them saying what needs to be done on the article, and doing that, for example if the message says that the article needs additional sources or that the article relies too much on primary or secondary sources, I will probably fix them if I have time.

I also want to change my username and also change some userboxes if possible.

I didn’t think that Wikipedia would have come to mind again but it did so I thought I would post an unblock request. Thank you for reading.
Speedcuber (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

If I was requesting unblock, and couldn't remember the circumstances surrounding my block (or even exactly when it happened), I would take time to read through the block notice, and to look through my contributions in the period leading up to the block, to remind myself. I would then address all that directly in my unblock request. This request fails to address (or even demonstrate an understanding of) the reason for the block, and so I have no way of judging whether the block can safely be lifted without risk of disruption continuing. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Utterly unconvincing appeal, "I can’t remember the edits that got me blocked" is the complete opposite of what we want to see. I tried (unsucsessfullly) to guide them last time they were unblocked, but they didn't listen and they were reblocked due to their continuing disruption. In ~700 edits this account accumulated a 13 item block log, which is frankly ridiculous. They were blocked twice for disruption, then had their talk page access revoked. This was upgraded to a checkuser block when they started socking, and they were WP:3X banned. They were granted talk page access for an appeal, then instantly lost it for abuse. They were granted a second chance unblock by the community, but were blocked again within three months, and lost their talk page privileges again.
  The edits they did make here were entireley unproductive and mostly consisted of them trying to get involved with stuff they didn't understand, messing about and creating drama. Here's a typical example: Floquenbeam accidentally uses rollback on their usepage [1] [2] and explains on their talk page it was a mistake [3]. Speedcuber1 proceeds to go to the teahouse and start a ridiculous thread where they claim they are being harassed [4] [5] [6] I respond pointing out exactly why their claims of harassment are meritless [7] to which they respond claiming that they didn't actually accuse Floquenbeam of harrassment and they were actually thankful for their help and guidance [8]. I point out the ridiculousness of this comment [9]. Another editor then pings El_C to the discussion (who was trying to help this editor at the time) [10] which causes speedcuber1 to run off to the administrative noticeboards to claim they were being harassed by the other editor and needed them to be blocked [11]. This is typical of their contributions here - messing around in administrative areas, overreacting to everything, trying to get other people blocked, ridiculous administrative reports and complaints, refusing to learn from their mistakes, wild mood swings and gaslighting "I didn't do that!" behaviour etc etc etc. It was exhausting. The whole discussion at the teahouse is worth reading to give you an idea of how this editor operates [12]. The fact that their proposed edits include another rename and a desire to mess around with userboxes does not inspire confidence that much has improved.
  This is now a third chance appeal, and the goodwill "give them another chance and see" WP:ROPE type options have been thoroughly exhausted. To accept an unblock I would expect a) some evidence that speedcuber1 understands what they have done wrong b) some appropriate topic bans/restrictions to prevent more disruption c) some semi-detailed plans for what constructive edits they plan to make when unblocked. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose The first thing in an unblock request I look for is if the person understands what the reason for the block was. There is none of that here at all. "I would take time to read through the block notice, and to look through my contributions in the period leading up to the block, to remind myself." This needed to be done BEFORE requesting an unblock. I would not feel comfortable in lifting the block, as we will be right back here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose there's no indication they will be any less of a time sink than before. Mostly per IP 192, but also because they want to change their username and userboxes? No. Star Mississippi 12:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone blocked once a decade ago may have the "I don't even remember what I did but I have grown up a lot and would like to edit Wikipedia" may have some sympathy and some WP:SO/WP:ROPE argument for being unblocked. This is not that. They've been unblocked and reblocked before; and have made several unblock requests also that have been unsuccessful, from my reading, largely because they have never really explained that they understand what the problems they created were. Given all of that, this is nothing new. If they genuinely don't understand, they should remain blocked per WP:CIR. If they are not accepting responsibility, that's also a good enough reason to keep blocked. Either way, no... --Jayron32 12:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose In addition to what's said above, in the previous unblock appeal discussion in May-June 2022, a couple of people requested a substantial period of constructive and problem-free editing on a different Wikimedia project before a new unblock request here. Speedcuber1 has made no edits to other projects since then. In addition, the unblock request doesn't show much actual interest in editing the encyclopedia — wikignoming is fine, but I will probably fix them if I have time isn't particularly convincing, and (again) is well below the requirements for an unblock reauest. It tells us nothing of what they would actually be doing. --bonadea contributions talk 12:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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

WMF Product & Technology OKRs

WMF Product & Technology group recently posted a draft of their OKRs. I'm noting it here because they include ... improve the experience of editors with extended rights (admins, patrollers, functionaries, and moderators of all kinds. If there's improvements you'd like to see which would make your admin-ish work easier, this would be a good time to leave comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Those abovementioned OKRs being at meta:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2023-2024/Draft/Product & Technology/OKRs. I do wish organisations would use normal words for these things — "goals" for example 😌 — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 15:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith's personal OKR for Q2-2023: "When referencing a document you intend your audience to read, effectualize their ability to locate said document by including a wikilink". -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheresNoTime I think Objective and Goal are synonymous, but given that OKR is corporate ritual...I understand why they use the archaic terms. Key/Results have very precise meanings though and I'll defend that usage ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I added a comment about abusefilters. Abusefilters are one of our most important moderation tools and are severely lacking. Galobtter (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Niš

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

---

Good evening. A month ago, there was a discussion about adding the terms "Nish" and "Nissa" to the article Niš, where only one editor (admin) spoke out and was even against it. The names were added despite this. I think they should be removed urgently. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I am curious about what is "urgent" about this? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The fact that something like this slipped through a month ago without anyone reacting. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ruach Chayim: this is a routine content-dispute that can be resolved through resuming the discussion on the article talk-page. No admin intervention is needed at this point. Abecedare (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Abecedare: The intervention of the admin is required because the text must be removed considering that its addition was not reached by consensus, but by self-initiative. — Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ruach Chayim No, this does not require any admin intervention. user:AlexBachmann proposed the change and gave a rationale for the change in response to another user's comment. They then waited two weeks to allow anyone else to comment before implementing the change. That is not unreasonable behaviour. If you disagree then, as already suggested, reopen the discussion on the article talk page. Nthep (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with AlexBachmann's edit. On the talk page they asked whether those names should be added, and another editor stated that a source would be needed. AlexBachmann provided a source, and the other editor did not provide any further objections despite being given days to respond and being pinged to the discussion.

If anyone is behaving poorly here it is Ruach Chayim, who seems to be on a mission to remove as many mentions of Kosovo as possible from the project or present it entirely in one light. A selection of examples: They have made large and inflammatory edits to articles with misleading edit summaries like "fix" [13] [14], Falsely accused other editors of "vandalism" [15] Deleted Albanian related content from articles for nonsensical reasons [16], accused other editors of speading "pro-Albaninan propaganda" without evidence [17], edit warred to reinsert changes against consensus [18] [19] [20] and have now filed this ridiculous AN thread to try to get someone they disagree with blocked. They seem to be another disruptive POV pusher in the EE topic area. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I've notified AlexBachmann of this discussion, as the OP failed to do so. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Good Evening, I would ask to dismiss the case. My edits were obviously in accordance to the rules of Wikipedia. Thank you -. AlexBachmann (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ruach Chayim: "Self-initiative" is how most editing on wikipedia happens. AlexBachmann, when asked, gave their reasons for the proposed addition and hearing no further objections (including from the only other discussant, Vanjagenije), implemented the proposal. All that is kosher. Now, if you (or, anyone else) have objections to the added text, you need to raise them on the article talkpage. If you wish, you can also approach WP:TEAHOUSE to get further explanation of wikipedia practices. An admin-board though is not the appropriate venue for such content discussions and is likely to just invite further scrutiny of your conduct (as above) if continued. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

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

RfC at Talk:Ruble

I feel like TCG has used the consensus from the RfC at Talk:Ruble to legitimise their rouble predilection, especially through CorwenAv (Examples: Special:Diff/1131561427 and Special:Diff/1131577807). The RfC makes it harder to eliminate the impact from TCG's disruptive edits since "rouble" would arguably be entrenched into BrE pages. I propose we overturn or re-run the RfC to plug this loophole, especially when we consider the fact that "ruble" is also used in some British sources including Britannica and the Cambridge dictionary as the principal spelling - where "rouble" is only offered as a British alternative - showing that "ruble" is also (somewhat) acceptable in BrE. Moreover, page 138 of the 2020 version of the World Bank Style Guide - deemed "a very high quality RS" (examples: source 1 of Russian ruble and Belarusian ruble) - also favour "ruble" for the Russian currency, indicating the universality of the "ruble" spelling. Thank you. Not·Really·Soroka 03:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Style Guide can be found at [21]. Not·Really·Soroka 04:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Content dispute. Admins don't rule on content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

But this refers to an RfC, and I heard that RfCs could be appealed to here. Not·Really·Soroka 04:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The RfC was closed over three months ago. Nobody is going to 'overturn' that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is handled by MOS:ENGVAR and doesn't need to be relitigated in any case. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It does seem like the argument by NotReallySoroka here is that, within the parameters of ENGVAR, "ruble" is still acceptable and preferable to "rouble" for British contexts. If others share this perspective, a separate RfC to determine whether rouble is an appropriate spelling in British English articles may be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah :) NotReallySoroka (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging ScottishFinnishRadish, the closer (sorry for not notifying you in advance). Not·Really·Soroka 04:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there any issue with the close itself, or concern that it was not an accurate reading of the consensus? We don't ignore consensus because a disruptive user agrees with it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Although I thank you for your good close, I believe that my points (as raised here) means that we could at least re-discuss the discussion. NotReallySoroka (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like you're asking for a fiat in order to deal with a disruptive user, and that's not a valid reason to overturn an RfC. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• So, there are two, entirely orthogonal issues 1) Is the user in question correct (in regards to them following the letter and spirit of the RFC in question) and 2) Is the user in question following behavioral norms. These are unrelated matters. Issue 1 is really not dealt with here in any meaningful way, and has very little bearing on anything we need to assess about the user in question, at this point of the process. Issue 2 can be dealt with on its own, without worrying about Issue 1. --Jayron32 18:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Why do you feel the need to pursue this? TCG has already been blocked, his behaviour is out of the question but the RfC has been conducted fairly. You seem to have a very particular bone to pick with them, which started almost a year ago with the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1103#Belittling behaviour and bad faith on several currency related articles where you filed a frivolous IBAN towards TCG for making a beginner's mistake. The last few notices on their talk pages are all posted by you too. Not to mention the sockpuppet investigation. Also, as Jayron mentions, you are disputing content. The consensus, derived by the closer SFR (i.e. was it an appropriate close), should be your issue and not what TCG is doing, or has done. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 21:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The C of E Tban appeal

This is an appeal against my topic ban from DYK (imposed here. Having been over a year since it was imposed, I recognised that my conduct back then was unbecoming and the drama I caused was unacceptable. I know that what I did back then was wrong and I apologise again for it. I have been working with WP:ITN to show I can be productive and avoid drama. I would love to be able to return to help build preps and restore goodwill to help the project. My previous appeal was rejected on the grounds that I had not been clear about what I had been looking for to be done.

Please let me be clear, I am aware of the strength of feeling about me so I am willing that if the TBan is lifted, to comply fully with the restrictions I was under prior to the TBAN (ie. a ban on nominating LGBT, British/Irish politics or Religion, ban on editing my own hooks in prep and anyone has a veto over my hooks). The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Kommentar - Just as a comment, 17 of the last 500 contributions for The C of E from October 2022 to now have been at WP:ITN, and most of them regarding Recent Deaths in particular, which makes sense since most of his work has been at mainspace. A few of the RDs he participated in have been articles that he has improved to bring up to par for posting. I wouldn't classify him necessarily as a regular participant, but I can attest to occasionally seeing him participate there with relatively low drama. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  What is "relatively low drama"? Shouldn't an editor trying to "avoid drama" and have their topic ban removed stir up next-to-no drama, as opposed to "relatively low drama". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  As an ITN regular I can say I have not noticed any drama in regards to C of E's participation there. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  I say relatively low because I haven't seen him engage in any overt breaching experiments, but it's only from my limited point of view and I can't speak for the totality of his activity there. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - but please, please, please C of E, stay well clear of any attempts at humor or being 'edgy.' I am all for second chances, but I cannot pretend I will read any borderline material charitably; no offence intended of course. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support, with the pre-existing restrictions still in place. Last chance. I also echo what Dumuzid says. Humour (particularly edgy humour) is very hard to do well, so please leave it to people who are good at it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support largely thinking along the same lines as Boing! Courcelles (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ROPE and per Boing! said Zebedee. I'd also like to see the proposal from the prior discussion that C of E also refrain from that C of E refrain from "creating any sexual double-entendre, racist, or other provocative DYK content" as well, insofar as if they did so, I would be the first to get in line to reinstate the full topic ban they are asking for relief from. I can confirm that C of E has contributed to ITN in the intervening year: [22] and that their participation there has flown under the radar and has not drawn attention to itself. Honestly, I hadn't remembered seeing them there at all, and I'm there every day. Which is saying a lot about how innocuous and under-the-radar it has been, which I think is kinda the idea. If we saw a similar level of blandness at DYK, I think we'd be fine. --Jayron32 16:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Enough second, third, etc., chances have been given. Everyone is capable of redemption at a point, but I see no remorse, above, for repeated attempts to use our Main Page to promote hatred against various minority groups, as documented thoroughly at the multiple previous TBAN threads. [23][24] I'm aware he isn't appealing the ban that stems from the worst of that, but why exactly do we want someone working on DYK who has repeatedly tried to get slurs and blatant political provocation on the Main Page, and seems to still not see the problem with that? Someone who has pushed every envelope he's been given? The continued full-throated defense of British imperialism on his userpage—right alongside a desire to be an admin someday—does not exactly augur confidence that he understands what is and isn't likely to offend. I'm not convinced Wikipedia needs editors like this at all; we definitely don't need them anywhere near Main Page content. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin's rationale given above aligns with the reason why I didn't !vote to support despite the evidence of his uncontroversial editing at ITN. It's still not clear to me what there is to be gained on Wikipedia or in DYK by having him return to this area. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:38, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for a limited exception to a community sanction (Newimpartial - GENSEX topic ban)

In light of the section of WP:BMB stating that exception to a topic ban may be requested; for example, to participate in a particular discussion, and following a discussion about this with the administrator who closed the ANI filing and imposed two sanctions as a result, I am following their guidance[25] and filing my request for strictly limited exceptions to my GENSEX topic ban at this forum. My request concerns only two pages:

1. I would like to be able to participate in discussions at the MOS:BIO Talk page even when they concern matters within the area of the GENSEX contentious topic, and

2. I would like to be able to participate in editing the MOS:GIDINFO project page, to keep it more up to date (a purusal of that page's history will show my role in "gnoming" it, and I would like to be free to do so).

Background

In the ANI discussion, I did mention my concern that my background in GENSEX policy could be lost in future discussions, e.g. here. However, this was a small contribution to a large discussion in which a lot of people said a lot of things, and I don't know that many editors gave thought to determining the precise scope of a topic ban that would prevent future disruption. So, as noted above, I asked the administrator imposing the sanction whether the precise scope could be changed by them, as it could with a typical Contentious Topics sanction, but they said that they understood that their choice of sanctions reflected the consensus of the community expressed at ANI, and I would have to seek any limited exceptions here. (Full discussion linked above).

In the last couple of months - even before the ANI concerning my editing was closed, I have avoided causing any disruption on Wikipedia. In line with my expressed intentions, I have made an effort to avoid personalizing disputes and have strictly observed the terms of the (unusual) anti-bludgeoning restrictions that reached community consensus at ANI. Whether or not my request here for a limited exception is granted, I will continue to edit in line with the principles I have articulated, to avoid personalized discussions, to respect my anti-bludgeon restrictions and to stay away from the GENSEX topic area outside of the very limited scope of this request.

Policy development discussions have been an area where I have felt my onwiki contributions to have been particularly constructive, as shown for example in my participation in these [26] nationality discussions [27] [28] As I have seen a new wave of editor energy at the same venue directed to the evolution of MOS:DEADNAME, I feel that my contribution as an experienced (and moderate) voice in this policy domain could be a decidedly positive one. Obviously if I were to lapse into bludgeon or antagonism, that would be disruptive behaviour and I would expect to lose editing privileges in that event. But that is within my control, and I won't do that.

For administrators who are unfamiliar with my P&G contributions, I would point to my prior participation in what evolved into an RFCBEFORE discussion on Subject Notability Guidelines, and this discussion on language for policy implementation post-RFC (the latter being within the GENSEX domain) as additional examples to illustrate how I have participated in the WP policy-development process in the past, inside and outside of GENSEX. Unlike, say, some of my contributions to deletion discussions or on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, I haven't often become antagonistic in my participation in P&G development onwiki and my participation in such discussions has not led to disruption.

So I hope that a consensus of uninvolved Administrators will agree that this request will be a positive to the project, and that preventing me from editing in these two strictly confined areas plays no role in preventing future disruption, especially given my embrace of the anti-bludgeon restriction which would not be in any way loosened by these proposed, limited exceptions. Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Support As I said briefly on Salvio giuliano's talk page, I would greatly value Newimpartial's input on the current discussion occurring at WT:MOSBIO. I think they have a wealth of knowledge of how this guideline has developed over the last few years, as well as how it's been applied in practice across a great many articles in this content area. Having their perspective in this discussion, as well as any future discussions on the scope of MOS:GENDERID while the broader GENSEX TBAN remains in place, would I think be of significant help to all editors involved in it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• While I have no position on whether to grant an exception, it seems to me that possibly your value of Newimpartial's input/perspective/help may be because you two have similar stances, with the end result being that Newimpartial will support your proposal at the discussion? Let’s see if that happens. starship.paint (exalt) 15:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  I thought I was pretty clear that I would value their input because of their institutional knowledge of how the current guideline was developed, and how it's been applied in practice. Because of this knowledge, they can better inform other editors about the guideline's scope than I can. Whether they ultimately support or oppose my proposal, or any of the other proposals at the discussion is not on my mind. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support - I confess, I am biased to some degree insofar as I consider Newimpartial a generally valuable editor. That said, I do appreciate their stated goal of 'turning down the temperature' so to speak. I think this would be a reasonable and worthwhile exception to make, though as ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Kommentar Part of the reason for the topic ban was because Newimpartial bludgeoned formal discussions, particularly those related to GENSEX, with the most egregious example being an RfC on the lede of J. K. Rowling with 95 comments. I'm not convinced it is a good idea to permit them to engage in formal discussions in this topic area until they have demonstrated that the bludgeoning issue is resolved, particularly since it appears they engaged in a lower level of bludgeoning at the previous RfC on the topic in which Sideswipe9th seeks their input with 36 comments. BilledMammal (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal, I would like to point out that my anti-bludgeon restriction would continue to apply everywhere, including these small proposed exceptions to the TBAN. I have observed its requirements carefully in my participation in both RfC and non-RfC discussions since it was placed (as can be seen in my recent participation on non-GENSEX topics at MOSBIO) and would continue to do so. So I am not sure what future disruption could be anticipated in that venue, given the restriction. I am not proposing any loophole that would permit me to bludgeon any discussions, about GENSEX topics or otherwise. That issue is, in effect, resolved, through the establishment of a "bright line" restriction that I will not cross, and that I would not be permitted to in any case. Newimpartial (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not convinced the anti-bludgeon restriction will be effective; even without considering the exceptions for replying to questions provided the answer is reasonably short and adding very brief clarifications of their own comments it would have permitted you to make 72 comments over the duration of the Rowling RfC. It might be a bright line but you can engage in bludgeoning without crossing it. BilledMammal (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Bludgeoning is not simply a measure of how much an editor has contributed to a discussion. You also have to be using those replies to force your point of view.

For example, in the current discussion on deadnames I've commented 22 times, which would be a high volume of replies, but across those replies I've made my own proposal and replied to queries about it, commented and asked questions on the four other proposals, and most recently I've been trying to organise the participants towards taking or modifying one of the proposals to bring forward to an RfC. While it's a high volume of comments, I think those have been productive and that it wouldn't count as bludgeoning. For me to be bludgeoning in that discussion, I would need to be using the volume of my replies to force others towards my proposal being the correct one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

For another topically relevant example, I'd direct you to the April 2022 J.K Rowling FAR, and the sub-archives for the discussions. During the FAR, as the editor leading and facilitating it SandyGeorgia made 667 comments. However despite the volume, that wasn't bludgeoning, as while some comments contained her perspective on the issues at hand, many others were for bringing the process forward. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that bludgeoning is not something that can be assessed solely by looking at the numbers; in one set of circumstances ten comments is bludgeoning, in another 667 is not.

However, this is why I am not convinced that Newimpartial's anti-bludgeoning restriction will be sufficient to prevent bludgeoning, particularly in the topic area where they most engaged in bludgeoning in the past; it is very easy to both comply with the restriction and engage in bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

In the time since the TBAN and anti-bludgeon restriction was enacted, has Newimpartial engaged in any bludgeoning? Whether it was compliant or non-compliant with the restriction? Is there any way that they can demonstrate that they won't bludgeon? I recognise that you're concerned over potential recidivism, but I have to ask, in your opinion how can any editor who is subject to such a restriction demonstrate that they'll either comply with it or that it's otherwise unnecessary? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

BilledMammal, while I recognize that different editors may hold varying opinions, my own assumption would be that any attempt on my part to WIKILAWYER my anti-bludgeon restriction - to observe it in letter but not in spirit - would receive the same reaction from the community as if I had violated the specific terms in which the restriction was formulated. In any event, I now edit based on my values and aspirations, not by pushing towards the boundaries of community norms, so there isn't really any other approach that would be in accord with by own conscience, other than behaving appropriately. Newimpartial (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support. Seems a reasonable and considered request and we should aim to provide a path back to good standing for otherwise-productive editors. My support is contingent on the anti-bludgeon restriction remaining, and I would urge you to make your contributions concise and to the point then let others have their say (concision and butting out in talk page discussions we should encourage across Wikipedia). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support — I've seen Newimpartial in a handful of discussions, post-ANI closure, and their behaviour was exemplary each time. DFlhb (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support: I opposed the original topic ban as a whole. I do not think that Newimpartial was a significantly problematic editor in this topic area at all, and so obviously I'm for loosening the topic ban imposed on them. Loki (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Support Newimpartial is a seasoned editor who has taken to heart the issues raised at ANI, and this is a reasoned and reasonable request. Also this gives them a way of showing they can bide by the bludgeoning restriction in an area they are obviously passionate about. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

SupportI feel comfortable in lifting the ban. This is a good request, and it appears they do understand just why the block ban was implemented. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This isn’t an appeal for the ban to be lifted, and I’m not sure what block you are talking about. Are you in the right thread? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are nitpicking colloquial uses of language. Loki (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Because the words ban and block can mean specific things on Wikipedia and I would like Rick to be clarify what he is referring to. Admins don’t usually refer to a topic ban as a block. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Because I mistyped. I support his request. I'm human, I screwed up. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Newimpartial has not acknowledged their disruptive behavior which was demonstrated at their ANI thread. Search for two occurances of "18:45, 22 February 2023". [29] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Weak support. Honestly, I do think that any CBAN topic ban ought to be taken as an indication that the editor subject to it needs to avoid the subject area for a time, and I would urge that NI, if allowed this restricted access to the area, use as light a touch in regards to even the carve out for a while. That said, policy discussions are a different animal from content discussions, and in two respects that impact this request especially: 1) there is decreased potential for immediate concern to BLPs or disruption of their associated talk spaces, and 2) changes to policies tend to get entrenched, meaning a topic banned editor could lose their moment to provide valuable insight in consideration of a change to the community/project's outlook on key issues. Considering the narrowness of the request, and the tone and nuance with which it was made, I'm inclined to support it--with the caveat that the least bit of disruptive behaviour in the relevant project spaces would hopefully lead to the exception being revoked immediately, and possible further restrictions in the area. But so long NewImpartial recognizes that they are putting their credibility and standing somewhat on the line here in that respect, I think we can afford to utilize some flexibility. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is far too slippery a slope, and likely to lead to way too many people requesting these exemptions in a torrent of wiggle-room negotiations that will eventually defeat the purpose of their TBANs. GENSEX is far too contentious topic already; we should not be letting exceptions creep in. We are not giving TheTranarchist exceptions. As with any other TBAN or sanction, let the editor edit neutrally and collaboratively in other topics for six months to a year, and then file for an appeal. There is no rush on Wikipedia, and nothing that cannot wait for one single editor's input. None of us are indispensable. Softlavender (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support generally valuable editor. Andre🚐 01:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose This completely undermines the point of the topic ban. This is the exact sort of topic that Newimpartial was topic banned for bludgeoning. Either make a appeal of the whole topic ban or just accept the terms of the topic ban. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hemiauchenia. Let's see some productive editing in some other area of the project for a while before we relax the tban. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Newimpartial has been a valuable contributor in policy discussions and has to my knowledge not exhibited further bludgeoning problems since the post which led to the ban. As ActivelyDisinterested said, this gives them a way of proving (or disproving) that they can contribute constructively in discussions related to the topic area, and their behaviour would be valuable evidence, one way or the other, in an eventual full appeal. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 15:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Hemiauchenia and Softlavender. The fact that there is a discussion currently taking place at MOS:BIO that would normally incense OP (and result in the things that led to the tban) has certainly prompted this request. Convenient exceptions to the ban defy its point. — Czello 15:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I don’t think there are any discussions at MOSBIO that would normally incense me. Editors are groping towards RfC questions that could see guidelines shift in various directions, and I have background and expertise to offer but no preferred ourcome in mind.

  Also, I don't think there is any evidence of my being "incensed" in any prior discussions around GENDERID policy, with the relevant evidence coming, e.g., from this discussion, this one and this one - but feel free to check the whole archive.

  I would also hope that you would not consider yourself uninvolved on this issue, given our interactions. Newimpartial (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

  I feel that you are right now repeating disruptive behavior by arguing over semantics ("incensed") at the expense of the commenter's intention, as I previously pointed out to you. [30] Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Neutral/Comment I strongly supported the anti-bludgeon restrictions in the original thread but had no comment on the GENSEX issue. I had no particular experience of their GENSEX conduct, but I had seen their frequent bludgeoning. So I don't have a strong view on this now. However, it seems strange to allow them to get back into the topic area on two specific pages just because they really want to. Why doesn't that work for any tbanned editor? Why make an exception in this case? They mention that they used to do gnoming at MOS:GIDINFO. There's more logic to allowing them to edit there provided they only engage in gnoming. DeCausa (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Upload image to Wikidata

Hello, please help me and upload the logo of this organization in Wikidata. (Islamic Republic of Iran Police Intelligence Organization) Like the logo of this network that is available in Wikidata. [31] Thankful 12:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaesarIran (talk • contribs)

The logo on Wikidata is actually on the Commons, which means it can be used here. It's at File:IRINN IRIB.png. Animal lover |666| 12:40, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

That's the wrong logo. The logo in the article is only on wikipedia. I expect it is too complex for commons. Secretlondon (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask the same question I asked on the OP's talk page. What did you mean by "This request was made by a loved one"? RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't fully understand English, but I posted my request on Wikipedia:Teahouse titled "Upload image to Wikidata" and dear GoingBatty (talk · contribs) did it. CaesarIran (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I was just making sure that this wasn't someone else using your account. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Reporting on edits related to Trumpism

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

---

Thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia. I am writing because I have noticed inappropriate edits related to Trumpism. The problem edit is as follows: [32]. I made edits based on reasonable sources related to Trumpism, but another user has been continuously reverting my edits without reaching any consensus. I believe this behavior violates not only Wikipedia's WP:3RR policy but also the WP:CON policy. Please take appropriate action. Jeff6045 (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I also realized that I may have violated the 3RR policy while editing. I apologize for my inappropriate actions. Jeff6045 (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• 4 reverts while warning someone else about 3RR is textbook violation of the bright line rule, for which I’ve blocked Mureungdowon. Courcelles (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• This really should've been a double block. Jeff6045 adds the same information about a BLP to a controversial article four times and the one reverting to the status quo is the only one blocked? (I know what the letter of 3RR says; more interested in WP:EDITWAR). As an aside, that line in the lead was really lousy. A list of people where some source somewhere compared them to Trump, with most of them not appearing anywhere in the body of the article. Went ahead and removed a bunch pending coverage in the article itself and/or better sourcing. In case it's unclear, Jeff6045: if someone reverts you the next step is discussing to find consensus for your addition. The onus is on you to convince others, not the other way around. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
• @Courcelles: Could you revisit this? It appears Jeff, after trying to add one politician to the lead (someone not mentioned in the body) four times, is now repeatedly removing two politicians from the rival party, despite them being covered in the body. I don't know what the best way to handle the content is, but this reeks of both POV and edit warring, and an excellent example of when abiding only by the letter of 3RR isn't the right course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

  Jeff had stopped and asked for help… I thought. More reverting was occurring, so I agree, this needs to be and now is a double block. Courcelles (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Global ban proposal for Piermark/House of Yahweh/HoY

There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Piermark/House of Yahweh/HoY be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Piermark on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! U.T. (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)