Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
added reply on behalf of Ombuds Commission
Tag: Reverted
Line 37: Line 37:
{{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}}
{{User:MusikBot/ECPMonitor/Report}}
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse bottom}}
== Block request ==

Why isn't there a link on the words "Block requests" above. I can't figure out how to get an IP blocked.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 15:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:Because blocking can be requested via different venues me thinks; see [[Wikipedia:BLOCKREQUESTS]]. [[User:Lectonar|Lectonar]] ([[User talk:Lectonar|talk]]) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
::Those words should be linked to that link.-[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|C]] / [[WP:FOUR]] / [[WP:CHICAGO]] / [[WP:WAWARD]])</small> 16:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
:: I agree with Tony. It should be linked. "page protection" and "deletion requests" are both linked in that sentence. <s>I would fix this myself but I cannot find the template to edit it.</s> EDIT: I found and wikilinked it. - [[User:Balph Eubank|The literary leader of the age]] [[User talk:Balph Eubank|✉]] 01:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

== #wikid ==

Anyone know what this is? Don't see it here or HD/Teahouse. It's in my TL on [[Elizabeth Diller]] by {{noping|Mdlawton11}} Nothing wrong with the edit, just flagging for awareness and insight as some of these end up being complex, especially w/r/t BLPs. Thanks! [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 02:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

:That sort of thing often indicates to me a project of some kind though I can’t identify it offhand. I see there are three new editors on that page, I’ll drop welcome messages on their talk pages. [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 03:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::Perhaps a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. See also [https://hashtags.wmcloud.org/?query=wikid&project=&startdate=&enddate=&search_type=or&user=]. Maybe someone at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red]] may know. [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 04:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks! Super helpful tool. I'll drop a note there. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 18:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
:I think this relates to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women Wikipedia Design]]. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 03:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::See also [[User:Loriannbrown]]. There's a pattern of constructive edits each year, around International Women's Day, mostly from editors who sadly make no other edits. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 21:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
:::It is our global effort to write more women architects into wikipedia. and yes, we are slow and not as active as we hope to be. do not give up on us...slowly we make progress. [[User:Loriannbrown|Loriannbrown]] ([[User talk:Loriannbrown|talk]]) 01:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I ''love'' this idea. I haven't written about as many women architects as I should have, but I'm up for doing more. We need more like [[Elizabeth Diller]] (and not because I started it) and [[Jeanne Gang]]. Might get me to write [[Claire Weisz]] this month. Thanks for your work @[[User:Loriannbrown|Loriannbrown]] [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 02:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Loriannbrown|Loriannbrown]] Given that IDs with hashcodes don't really work within Wikipedia, it might be more useful to include [[WP:WikiD]] in the edit summary and/or add a talk page banner, to publicise the project (and avoid future puzzlement as shown above). ([[WP:Wikid]] was pointing to a 2017 page until I redirected it to the main page just now, and I created the form [[WP:WikiD]] to point there too). [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 07:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:PamD|PamD]] The hashtag is there so you can use https://hashtags.wmcloud.org/ to search for all the edits made as part of this Edit-a-thon. [[Special:Contributions/86.23.109.101|86.23.109.101]] ([[User talk:86.23.109.101|talk]]) 10:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::ok. we can do that instead. when we began in 2015, the # worked. i appreciate your help. [[User:Loriannbrown|Loriannbrown]] ([[User talk:Loriannbrown|talk]]) 16:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

== Community expectations around Autopatrolled Rights: Aciram ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Autopatrolled has been removed with consent of reported user. Nothing further to do. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 18:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
}}



I do '''not''' intend to request a revocation of the autopatrolled flag ''yet'' because I have had not the time to take a detailed look but Aciram, an editor who has been auto-patrolled for over a decade, is writing articles like '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Frances_Wheeler&oldid=1211716756 1]''', '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Council_of_Jewish_Women&oldid=1187420953 2]''', '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Isaac_Brassard&oldid=1208301435 3]''', '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antoine_Qaurtier&oldid=1208301768 4]''', '''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Felice_Caronni&oldid=1208304783 5]'''. I wish to know if these samples satisfy the current standards governing the grant of the flag. Thanks, [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 21:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

:No, probably not. But I would like to note here, that it appears that {{noping|Aciram}} was just automatically given Autopatrolled rights because they were on a bot whitelist. They don't appear to have ever asked for this, and don't appear to have ever been told it happened, and don't appear to have ever been told there are heightened expectations that go with autopatrolled (I did a slightly cursory review, I'll strike out anything that isn't correct, but I ''think'' this is accurate). So from '''their''' point of view, they're just sitting there minding their own business, doing the same they've always done (which is contributing over 100,000+ edits to WP), and then with no warning get reported at AN fairly brusquely. Frankly, I'd be pretty annoyed too. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::Bots grant autopatrolled? I did not know of that; sorry such being the case. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 22:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Well it ''appears'' (again, not 100% sure) they were on a bot whitelist, and an admin came along when that whitelist got phased out and just granted autopatrolled. Things worked differently 15 years ago. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Ah, interesting - will keep this in mind! [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 22:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] So, [[User talk:Aciram/Archives/2022/July#Citations to books need to be more than a link to Google books|three editors (including two admins) told them in no uncertain terms that he needs to cite page-numbers when citing books]]. Well, he is still not citing them as my examples show. I am sure we can find more in the t/p archives. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 22:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
:::If this thread is going to become "list of things Aciram does that I don't like", let's be honest about the thread title. If you want to pester them into quitting, I can't stop you, but I don't understand this (widespread! by many, many other editors! In fact, two I hold in very high esteem in that link! In fact, I've probably done this a lot myself!) desire to find something someone is doing wrong, and then pick at it until they get pissed off. Instead of saying "oh well, that didn't work, I'll go try to solve one of the 60,000,000 (conservatively) other problems WP has". This is replying to you, but it's not directed at you, because many more people seem to agree with you than agree with me. Wikipedia is really good at letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, which is surprising, based on how it started out, with a philosophy of "i'll incrementally improve, and then someone else will incrementally improve somemore". I'm just not convinced a good faith, 100,000+ edit, productive editor needs to be pestered because they aren't perfect. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
::::{{tq|it's not directed at you}} - I know that; no issues! But citation practices is a component of autopatrolled; so, perhaps not a random list of things :-) That said, I think productivity must not come at the cost of quality. For example most of the content at [[Margaret Frances Wheeler]] is not found in the book (w/o page numbers but p. 147-148) cited by Aciram. So, the cost of cleaning up is too huge — one needs to find out the page numbers, then see the portions which are sourced, then check if the unsourced parts can be sourced, and ... [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*Aciram has said on their talk page they have no objection to removing the autopatrolled flag, so I've done so. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Thanks. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 22:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== An open letter to the Ombuds Commission and the Arbitration Committee: ==
== An open letter to the Ombuds Commission and the Arbitration Committee: ==


Line 126: Line 169:
*:::::::::::::I am can make some informed speculation about how JSS was reported in November but I don't know. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::I am can make some informed speculation about how JSS was reported in November but I don't know. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 22:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::So how did it come about that OC were asked if the committee could publicise the fact than an investigate started? Seems shady that none of the arbs commentating has addressed this question in anyway. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 07:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*::::::::::::::So how did it come about that OC were asked if the committee could publicise the fact than an investigate started? Seems shady that none of the arbs commentating has addressed this question in anyway. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] <sup>''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''</sup> 07:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::@[[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]]: I'm not looking at my email right now, but my memory is that the OC's chair decided, without any prompting from ArbCom, to tell us that there was an open investigation. When we were informed they were asked if ArbCom could pass that information along to the community. -- [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 16:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::@[[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] I think Kevin addressed it above. It seems some arbs thought the OC might have made a decision quicker and were worried that the ARCA request might undermine that decision (if, for example, we decided to give JSS's oversight permissions back and the OC decided a few days later to yank them). As it happened the incoming arbs (including me) were of a similar mind to last year's committee and that was a bit of a moot point. I don't think anyone meant to tarnish JSS by revealing the fact of the OC investigation (I hadn't realised until this thread that ARCA was the first time it became known). I apologise to @[[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] for the undue stress that caused. In hindsight, it's clear that no decision was imminent and it wasn't material to the ARCA request. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ&nbsp;Mitchell</b>]] &#124; [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?</span>]] 17:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::::::::::::::{{tqq|Seems shady that none of the arbs commentating has addressed this question in anyway. }} isn't correct? I see that I had addressed it, L235 had addressed it, Aoidh had addressed it, and ToBeFree had addressed. HJ Mitchell has now since addressed it. I'm not sure what else you're looking for? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
* It has been pretty obvious to me all along — having followed what you actually did post on WPO — that there was no merit whatsoever to this "investigation" or to their ridiculous action against you and that your "colleagues" at ArbCom were in a mad rush to kick you in the teeth before the clock ran out on their current term. Good for you for lighting a fire under their butts to put up or apologize. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 20:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
* It has been pretty obvious to me all along — having followed what you actually did post on WPO — that there was no merit whatsoever to this "investigation" or to their ridiculous action against you and that your "colleagues" at ArbCom were in a mad rush to kick you in the teeth before the clock ran out on their current term. Good for you for lighting a fire under their butts to put up or apologize. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 20:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Endorsed''', with added firelighters. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 17:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*:'''Endorsed''', with added firelighters. [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:black">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 17:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Line 134: Line 174:
**<small>To be preemptively clear, in my edit summary for the above, which read: {{tq|''non-random spotlight: a couple of arbitrators, a couple of chronic complainers?''}} ([[special:diff/1212709980|diff]]), the purported "chronic complainers" are meant to represent those subject to the ire of the aforementioned "couple of arbitrators," not those two arbs themselves (i.e. I realize that my word ~flow was a bit meh). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 06:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)</small>
**<small>To be preemptively clear, in my edit summary for the above, which read: {{tq|''non-random spotlight: a couple of arbitrators, a couple of chronic complainers?''}} ([[special:diff/1212709980|diff]]), the purported "chronic complainers" are meant to represent those subject to the ire of the aforementioned "couple of arbitrators," not those two arbs themselves (i.e. I realize that my word ~flow was a bit meh). [[User:El_C|El_C]] 06:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)</small>
*I would suggest that the five ArbCom members who agreed to publicise the information regarding the investigation (including {{u|L235}}, {{U|Aoidh}} and {{u|ToBeFree}}) check in with the Ombuds Commission on the status of the investigation and then update JSS and the community with the Ombuds Commission response (or lack of a response, perhaps at the one week, two week and one month stage). '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*I would suggest that the five ArbCom members who agreed to publicise the information regarding the investigation (including {{u|L235}}, {{U|Aoidh}} and {{u|ToBeFree}}) check in with the Ombuds Commission on the status of the investigation and then update JSS and the community with the Ombuds Commission response (or lack of a response, perhaps at the one week, two week and one month stage). '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|RUN]])''' 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*:{{Reply to|Starship.paint}} I have sent an email on behalf of the Arbitration Committee asking the Ombuds Commission to comment here regarding this matter. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 22:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*::I appreciate that, but don't hold your breath waiting for a reply. [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 05:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*In my view JSS/Beeb was right to bring this here. Doubtless there are further issues I’m unaware of, possibly grave and deep, but at this time the raw facts presented in the open letter are remarkable, and the feeling this matter gives me is one of unease and dismay. A full disclosure and apology seem in order for starters, and possibly if others share my concern, an independent investigation into this case to clarify and make transparent what the rationale is. Two months of secret proceedings seems an outrageous [[chilling effect]]. Who will watch the watchers? [[User:Jusdafax|Jusdafax]] ([[User talk:Jusdafax|talk]]) 11:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*In my view JSS/Beeb was right to bring this here. Doubtless there are further issues I’m unaware of, possibly grave and deep, but at this time the raw facts presented in the open letter are remarkable, and the feeling this matter gives me is one of unease and dismay. A full disclosure and apology seem in order for starters, and possibly if others share my concern, an independent investigation into this case to clarify and make transparent what the rationale is. Two months of secret proceedings seems an outrageous [[chilling effect]]. Who will watch the watchers? [[User:Jusdafax|Jusdafax]] ([[User talk:Jusdafax|talk]]) 11:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
*:If the OC was done in two months it would be something of a speed record for them. They are glacial slow in the best of times. -- [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 16:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Yes as I mentioned above, whether right or wrong the speed of OC proceedings is one thing that isn't a secret, effectively their quarterly reports tell us that 3-6 months proceedings are very common. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 09:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*::That's kind of my point. I am fully aware that two months would be very quick for them, and ''they'' should obviously also be aware of that, so why did they approve a public statement saying they would have a result soon? [[User:Just Step Sideways|Just Step Sideways]] [[User talk:Just Step Sideways|<sup>from this world ..... today</sup>]] 17:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

*What has this got to do with building an encyclopedia? <small>'''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]]''''' ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])</small> 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*What has this got to do with building an encyclopedia? <small>'''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]]''''' ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])</small> 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
*The Ombuds Commission cannot comment on cases publicly. We have sent an email to JSS with an update. Thank you, [[User:Faendalimas|<span style="color: #004730">Scott Thomson</span>]] (<small class="nickname">Faendalimas</small>) <sup>[[User talk:Faendalimas|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]</sup> 03:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
*::quite a bit. [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 13:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
*:::I don't see how. <s>Seems more like an overblown sense of self-importance from all parties which actually gets in the way of the process of building an encyclopedia, rather than contributing to it. I suppose that can be said of a lot of stuff that gets posted to the drama boards.</s> <small>'''''[[User:Polyamorph|Polyamorph]]''''' ([[User talk:Polyamorph#top|talk]])</small> 13:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


== Lock request ==
== Pamandersonfanclub disruptive editing on Diagolon ==
{{atop|Page protected. [[User:Amortias|Amortias]] ([[User talk:Amortias|T]])([[Special:Contributions/Amortias|C]]) 08:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)}}
{{atop
Hello,
| status =
Can somebody please lock the page for [[Fauja Singh]]? Constant back and forth vandalism and reverting between registered users and an ever changing IP. I don't think blocking the IP in question will sort anything so upping the page security is probably the best tact.
| result = No action, request is stale.[[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 04:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! [[Special:Contributions/89.240.73.254|89.240.73.254]] ([[User talk:89.240.73.254|talk]]) 14:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
}}


:I semi-protected the page for 2 days. IP89, thanks for the report, and please use [[WP:RFPP]] for future requests of this type. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 14:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== Pamandersonfanclub disruptive editing on Diagolon ==


This user keeps changing the Diagolon page and removing valid citations. It's clear that he is biased on the topic. I have already sent him a warning and he has since continued to edit the page. [[User:Ionophore|Ionophore]] ([[User talk:Ionophore|talk]]) 04:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
This user keeps changing the Diagolon page and removing valid citations. It's clear that he is biased on the topic. I have already sent him a warning and he has since continued to edit the page. [[User:Ionophore|Ionophore]] ([[User talk:Ionophore|talk]]) 04:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{an3|s}}. {{u|Ionophore}}, {{np|Pamandersonfanclub}} was warned by an admin on March 2 for vandalism ([[special:diff/1211530551|diff]]). Their last edit was also on March 2, so I'm unsure what you are requesting us to do ''now.'' [[User:El_C|El_C]] 06:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:{{an3|s}}. {{u|Ionophore}}, {{np|Pamandersonfanclub}} was warned by an admin on March 2 for vandalism ([[special:diff/1211530551|diff]]). Their last edit was also on March 2, so I'm unsure what you are requesting us to do ''now.'' [[User:El_C|El_C]] 06:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::Oh fair fair, I must have missed that warning! No worries then. [[User:Ionophore|Ionophore]] ([[User talk:Ionophore|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
::Oh fair fair, I must have missed that warning! No worries then. [[User:Ionophore|Ionophore]] ([[User talk:Ionophore|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}


== User deleted deletion proposal with no authority ==
== User deleted deletion proposal with no authority ==
Line 167: Line 202:
:And "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD." This one has an AfD prior. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
:And "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD." This one has an AfD prior. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 17:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
{{archive bottom}}

== 2601:205:4300:54F0 ==

IPv6 user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=2601%3A205%3A4300%3A54F0*&namespace=all&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 2601:205:4300:54F0*] (IP alias [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.166.136.47 67.166.136.47]) has engaged in repeated addition of unsourced, disruptive, and non-[[WP:RS]] content. User has received two previous bans for the same, and has continued disruptive editing without any acknowledgement of the repeated messages left on talk pages and edit summaries. Diffs for this most recent round—that is, after his latest ban—here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Kaye_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=1213063612], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Kaye_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=1213055103], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Kaye_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=1213055103], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_Strong&diff=prev&oldid=1211659104], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ari_Stidham&diff=prev&oldid=1212440772], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiley_Wiggins&curid=1836812&diff=prev&oldid=1212440657], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miles_Teller&diff=prev&oldid=1212442404], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ari_Stidham&diff=prev&oldid=1212088110], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Zuckerman&curid=29307177&diff=prev&oldid=1211812575]. User is clearly [[WP:NOTLISTENING]]. [[User:Rift|Rift]] ([[User talk:Rift|talk]]) 23:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

:I don't have enough time to handle this appropriately, but I agree that {{iprange|2601:205:4300:54F0::/64}} and {{ip|67.166.136.47}} are related and disruptive. Both have been blocked with a recent two-week block for the IPv6 range. It looks like the main issues are [[WP:DE]], [[WP:BLP]] violations, and [[WP:RS|poorly-sourced and unsourced]] edits. They have never engaged on any talk page (their single edit to a talk page was to make an edit request). [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] ([[User talk:Daniel Quinlan|talk]]) 00:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

== Uncivil/potentially explicit edit summary ==

This revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infrastructure_of_Changi_Airport&oldid=1212920503] by [[User:114.125.68.24|114.125.68.24]] contains a potentially explicit edit summary. Per [[Help:Edit summary]], only an admin can remove an edit summary, which is why I am requesting admin attention. Please let me know if I did this incorrectly. [[User:Mseingth2133444|<span style="color:MidnightBlue">Mseingth2133444</span>]] ([[User talk:Mseingth2133444|<span style="color:Blue">talk</span>]]/[[Special:Contributions/Mseingth2133444|<span style="color:Green">contribs</span>]]) 03:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:This has been taken care of. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 04:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

== IP used edit summary for insulting ==

Please hide/delete [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bianca_Belair&diff=prev&oldid=1212769258 this edit summary]. --[[User:Mann Mann|Mann Mann]] ([[User talk:Mann Mann|talk]]) 05:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
:I mean, it's not very civil (and obviously the IP will be blocked if it continues), but we don't revdel things unless they're "[[WP:CRD|grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive]]", and I don't think this rises to that level—it's just run-of-the-mill rudeness. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 05:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

== Strange numerical additions to articles ==

A series of IPs have been adding the same line of numbers ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mian_Muhammad_Mansha&diff=prev&oldid=1211634490], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistani_rupee&diff=prev&oldid=1210651580], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maybank&diff=prev&oldid=1213170544]) to articles and have been since at least February.

*[[Special:Contributions/2401:BA80:AA05:6BE2:D847:87A3:2823:9123|2401:BA80:AA05:6BE2:D847:87A3:2823:9123]]
*[[Special:Contributions/2401:BA80:AA09:6D63:993E:4716:FE50:3EEE|2401:BA80:AA09:6D63:993E:4716:FE50:3EEE]]
*[[Special:Contributions/2401:BA80:A102:4531:2049:1DFF:FE85:B0AA|2401:BA80:A102:4531:2049:1DFF:FE85:B0AA]]

I have no idea what the number is or why they keep doing it. [[User:ThaddeusSholto|ThaddeusSholto]] ([[User talk:ThaddeusSholto|talk]]) 13:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

:No clue what's going on there, but with that wide an IP range, it sounds like a job for [[Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested]]. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
: A soft block on [[Special:Contributions/2401:BA80:A100::/40]] should stop it for now. Most all of the recent edits on that IP range are from this person. It looks like this person gets allocated a different /40 on that /32 every so often. Account creation is left on, so it shouldn't affect many people, anyway. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 17:51, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

== Requesting Block Review ==
{{atop
| status =
| result = Thanks for the input everybody. Based on the discussion here and at their talk page I've extended their block to 1 week. Moving on. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 14:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
}}



{{userlinks|210.3.136.74}}

I have blocked the above IP x 31 hrs for disruptive editing following a wave of unexplained reverts (no edit summaries) and rapid fire issuance of various levels of warnings to users both registered, and IPs. Their activities tripped the edit filter which was what alerted me to the issue. They were also deleting messages on their own talk page w/o reply. However, they are insisting their activities were constructive. Accordingly, and out of an abundance of caution, I am requesting a review of their editing and my block by any experienced editors. From my perspective, rapid fire unexplained reverts coupled with all of those warnings, and their failure to respond to messages and warnings on their own talk page, was disruptive. Am I missing something here? -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 04:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:::It's well past midnight and I am off to bed. I will look in on this when I have a few minutes tomorrow. -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 04:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
:If Ad Orientem is missing something, than so am I. [[User:Smasongarrison|Mason]] ([[User talk:Smasongarrison|talk]]) 04:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::FWIW, I noticed the edits and had similar misgivings. Behavior trumps any presumed benefits from the edits. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|talk]]) 04:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*Obvious troll, restoring obviously bad edits in the examples I saw. Likely an LTA. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 04:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*I reviewed a dozen, mostly bad reverts, and the rapidity of the edits, and the overall hostile demeanor of the editor, suggest the block is quite correct, and calls for an indef, as I see it. Agree with Dennis Brown: a troll. [[User:Jusdafax|Jusdafax]] ([[User talk:Jusdafax|talk]]) 05:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::IPs almost never get indef blocks. '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]'''&nbsp;[[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 06:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*This is Hamish Ross, see other recent(albeit account) blocks: [[Special:Contribs/Pasi_Palmisano|<example1>]], [[Special:Contribs/Mrs._Janice_Jones|<example2>]]. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80C6:A301:9438:F1F9:E653:5F6C|2804:F14:80C6:A301:9438:F1F9:E653:5F6C]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80C6:A301:9438:F1F9:E653:5F6C|talk]]) 06:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
* [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Attention:_Toini_Ivanov]]. '''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]'''&nbsp;[[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 06:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*:Eh, that was also Hamish Ross, per their user page tag &mdash; my examples are more recent and more obvious. &ndash; [[Special:Contributions/2804:F14:80C6:A301:9438:F1F9:E653:5F6C|2804:F14:80C6:A301:9438:F1F9:E653:5F6C]] ([[User talk:2804:F14:80C6:A301:9438:F1F9:E653:5F6C|talk]]) 06:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
*::Adding, not contradicting.<span id="Usedtobecool:1710227358579:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;'''[[User:Usedtobecool|Usedtobecool]]'''&nbsp;[[User talk:Usedtobecool|☎️]] 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)</span>
*:::This is not a competition. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</sup> 07:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Multiblocks Wish updates ==

Dear admins,

Over the last few weeks we’ve been designing the user experience and user interface for the [[metawiki:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2023/Multiblocks|Multiblocks]] feature, that enables Admins to issue multiple blocks against an account (an account can be a user account, an IP, or an IP range).

'''Multiblocks''' was the #14 wish in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

After a design process and some consultation, we have [[metawiki:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2023/Multiblocks#February_2024_–_Design_Updates|published some designs]] of the feature. Please check them out and give feedback on the project talkpage.

Best regards,
Community Tech –– [[User:STei (WMF)|STei (WMF)]] ([[User talk:STei (WMF)|talk]]) 19:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

== Duplicate article creations ==

[[User:Dragisdr20|Dragisdr20]] created and submitted {{noredirect|Draft:Yerragundla}}. Because the article already exists, I declined and wrote them they should improve the and merge into the existing article instead of creating a duplicate. Without explaining why and without improving the draft, they did resubmit the article which got declined again. After a third submit and decline of the draft, I [[User talk:Dragisdr20#Article creations|wrote them]] that they should stop submitting a draft for an already existing article.

I didn't got a response but instead they moved an other draft for the same village, [[Draft:Yeraguntla Sirivella Mandal]] to the main space that was declined multiple times too and finally moved back to draft space by [[User:Significa liberdade|Significa liberdade]].

While I welcome their willingness to help, this practice just creates a lot of work for the reviewers. I don't understand the intention of creating articles that already exist and why they don't respond to messages, but that doesn't seem good practice to me.

I want to ask Dragisdr20 to stop doing this and have an administrator take a look at it. Thank you. [[User:Killarnee|Killarnee]] ([[User talk:Killarnee|talk]]) 20:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

:By the way, the article like user page [[User:Dragisdr20]] seems like [[WP:COI]]. [[User:Killarnee|Killarnee]] ([[User talk:Killarnee|talk]]) 20:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
::<small>(<span style="color:#555;">Non-administrator comment</span>)</small> Userpage appears to have been a rough draft for [[Ayyaloori Subhan Ali‎]]--as a draft this was declined thrice then rejected, after which Dragisdr20 moved it to mainspace anyway. It is now [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayyaloori Subhan Ali|at AfD]].
::As for the Yerragundla drafts, they were clearly not ready for mainspace but it was less clear to me whether Yeraguntla Sirivella Mandal was in fact about the same locality in the existing article or about a different village with a similar name. Regardless, their edits, while perhaps good faith, appear to be largely [[WP:CIR]]-noncompliant. --[[User:Finngall|<b style="color: green;">Finngall</b>]] [[User Talk:Finngall|<sup style="color: #D4A017;">talk</sup>]] 20:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

== Eyes needed at [[Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.]] ==

This page has become of what is being considered in RSes as Gamergate 2.0, though thankfully right now, attacks on BLP or other factors are minor, and from a quick history, very little revdel has been needed. However, a large number of fresh IP accounts have joined the discussion arguing against the approach taken in the current article (which is beholden to RS coverage and thus meet NPOV issues), being magnified in social media sources claiming the page is full of bias. (The article itself is locked down, that's not an issue)<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Page has been tagged already with WP:DS/GG on gender-related discussions (which extended off the Gamergate arbcom case, and clearly applies here) But the number of IPs joining, knowing they are throwaway accounts, is getting louder. We probably just need some more admin eyes to make sure that we have 24/7 watch on any nonsense.<span id="Masem:1710291335108:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)</span>
:Yeah, definitely needs additional eyes there. The talk page was already beginning to erupt a bit before the article page was protected, and the controversy doesn't show signs of cooling down any time soon. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 01:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:If it gets so bad is semi worth considering? I know we don't usually on talk pages but still that is getting a little hard to manage it looks like. [[User:Valeince|Valeince]] ([[User talk:Valeince|talk]]) 01:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::I believe temp ECP would be more useful, but I wouldn't be against starting at semi. [[User:Pirate Belle|Isabelle Belato]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Isabelle Belato|🏴‍☠️]]</sup></small> 01:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::A request for temporary semi-protection has been at {{diff2|1213424880|RfPP for a couple of hours}} now. That said, in the immediate circumstances I think temp ECP would be useful, as there is evidence of off-wiki canvassing attempts on social media to the article and its talk page. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 01:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::The page has extended confirmed protection now, not be me, but by {{u|ToBeFree}}. {{u|Masem}}, do you think that the page will still need some extra eyes or if that should deal with the worst of it? [[User:Clovermoss|<span style="color:darkorchid">Clovermoss</span><span style="color:green">🍀</span>]] [[User talk:Clovermoss|(talk)]] 02:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Showed up just a bit late, but I'll say it anyway: my experience with the first 'Gamergate' leads me to believe that such a move will only magnify the already-occurring [[Streisand effect]]; that said, I completely understand it at the same time. Cheers, all. [[User:Dumuzid|Dumuzid]] ([[User talk:Dumuzid|talk]]) 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::I don't think there's a Streisand effect here in the traditional sense of the term. I would characterise this as more of a tangential pile-on, because the sources that we consider reliable (for good reason) are publishing content that runs counter to the narrative that the groups who wish to use this backlash to kickstart GamerGate 2 wish to establish. It's akin to how the original GamerGaters kept pushing the "ethics in journalism" mantra, despite almost all reliable sources on the movement describing it as primarily a vehicle for harassment. The large follower accounts on social media that have been directing people to the article and talk page have done so primarily because of the content of the article, and not because it is currently protected. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 02:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::There are, however, new comments coming very close to the line of personal attacks against editors. ECP should limit that, but as when GG happened, extended confirmed accounts came out of the woodwork there. We'll see, but also just as a general alert that we have this vector of complaints happening.<span id="Masem:1710298043073:WikipediaFTTCLNAdministrators&apos;_noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 02:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)</span>
:::::::Discussion is veering into personal attacks. Right now, I think the remedy is blocks. If there is socking or brigading, protection may be warranted on the talkpage. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">[[User:Acroterion|<span style="color: black;">Acroterion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Acroterion|<span style="color: gray;">(talk)</span>]]</small></span>''' 02:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::This is true. I know one user has been warned for making personal attacks against me, and I've read the other comments you're describing and agree with your appraisal. I'm also worried about the exhaustion factor, since midnight UTC there have been roughly 60 comments added to the talk page, and 112 over all of yesterday. How much more will we see over the next day? I can see the wisdom in temporarily ECPing the talk page, I can also see the wisdom in blocking SPAs, and [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Gender_and_sexuality|I've proposed adding another option]] to the admin toolkit for this content area at ARCA. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th|talk]]) 02:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::It's a contentious topic. It's been duly labeled as such on the talk page, reminders have been issued to practically every editor on the talk page, in-line reminder sections about behavior have been made; at this point liberal application of blocking is the appropriate strategy, IMO.[[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 03:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I will add that there ARE admins currently watching the page, I'm just worried about "mods are asleep, attack the page" mentality at least for now. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 03:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:06, 13 March 2024

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V May Jun Jul Aug Total
    CfD 0 0 0 36 36
    TfD 0 0 2 3 5
    MfD 0 0 1 0 1
    FfD 0 0 0 1 1
    RfD 0 0 14 33 47
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (55 out of 8264 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    2019 Saurashtra Premier League 2024-08-17 12:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD
    2024 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election 2024-08-17 03:59 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Jihad Mughniyah 2024-08-16 21:44 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter
    Draft:Frank Guiller 2024-08-16 19:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Pickersgill-Cunliffe
    Pokrovsk offensive 2024-08-16 19:01 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Ad Orientem
    List of Israeli massacres in Gaza 2023-2024 2024-08-16 17:37 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Participants 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Newsletter draft 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Message 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023/Coordinators instructions 2024-08-16 15:58 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2023 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022/Participants 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/October 2022 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024/Invite 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2024 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:57 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023/Participants 2024-08-16 15:56 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2023 2024-08-16 15:56 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022/Participants 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/July 2022 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/invite 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/Re-reviews 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024/Participants 2024-08-16 15:55 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/January 2024 2024-08-16 15:54 indefinite edit,move old backlog drive pages don't need to be continually updated, the only real edits expected here are from bots/scripts, and vandalism is extremely hard to monitor Hey man im josh
    Harriet Sandburg 2024-08-16 12:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers
    Fluff My Life 2024-08-16 02:58 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate
    Template:Image Comics 2024-08-16 02:57 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
    Sadly Never After 2024-08-16 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate
    Jessica (Rick and Morty) 2024-08-16 02:36 2024-11-16 02:36 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
    2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident 2024-08-15 20:34 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIPA; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    Ukrainian occupation of Kursk Oblast 2024-08-15 20:33 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Wikipedia:Moto E22i 2024-08-15 20:15 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem
    Steps (pop group) 2024-08-15 19:41 2024-11-15 19:41 edit,move Persistent block evasion The Wordsmith
    Steps discography 2024-08-15 19:40 2024-11-15 19:40 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry The Wordsmith
    Gal Gadot 2024-08-15 14:22 2025-02-15 14:22 edit Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Sudzhansky District 2024-08-15 06:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq
    Sudzha 2024-08-15 06:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq
    Draft:Suman Kumar Mallick 2024-08-15 02:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Mz7
    Real Malabar F.C. 2024-08-14 23:54 indefinite create Pppery
    Janata Dal (United) 2024-08-14 23:17 2026-08-14 23:17 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
    Luxury For You 2024-08-14 20:25 2025-08-14 20:25 create Repeatedly recreated Tedder
    Bursuuk 2024-08-14 19:35 2026-08-14 19:35 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
    Altalena Affair 2024-08-14 14:57 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Talk:Majidul Haque 2024-08-14 13:03 2025-08-14 13:03 create Repeatedly recreated Explicit
    List of Stanley Cup Eastern Conference Finals broadcasters 2024-08-14 11:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG
    List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters 2024-08-14 11:09 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG
    Adult Swim (Latin American TV channel) 2024-08-14 01:28 2024-10-14 01:28 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Goodnightmush
    Thejo Kumari Amudala 2024-08-13 21:57 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Isabelle Belato
    Draft:Landmark Structures 2024-08-13 16:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem

    Block request

    Why isn't there a link on the words "Block requests" above. I can't figure out how to get an IP blocked.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Because blocking can be requested via different venues me thinks; see Wikipedia:BLOCKREQUESTS. Lectonar (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those words should be linked to that link.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Tony. It should be linked. "page protection" and "deletion requests" are both linked in that sentence. I would fix this myself but I cannot find the template to edit it. EDIT: I found and wikilinked it. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 01:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    #wikid

    Anyone know what this is? Don't see it here or HD/Teahouse. It's in my TL on Elizabeth Diller by Mdlawton11 Nothing wrong with the edit, just flagging for awareness and insight as some of these end up being complex, especially w/r/t BLPs. Thanks! Star Mississippi 02:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That sort of thing often indicates to me a project of some kind though I can’t identify it offhand. I see there are three new editors on that page, I’ll drop welcome messages on their talk pages. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a Wikipedia Edit-a-thon. See also [1]. Maybe someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red may know. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Super helpful tool. I'll drop a note there. Star Mississippi 18:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this relates to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women Wikipedia Design. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also User:Loriannbrown. There's a pattern of constructive edits each year, around International Women's Day, mostly from editors who sadly make no other edits. PamD 21:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is our global effort to write more women architects into wikipedia. and yes, we are slow and not as active as we hope to be. do not give up on us...slowly we make progress. Loriannbrown (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I love this idea. I haven't written about as many women architects as I should have, but I'm up for doing more. We need more like Elizabeth Diller (and not because I started it) and Jeanne Gang. Might get me to write Claire Weisz this month. Thanks for your work @Loriannbrown Star Mississippi 02:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Loriannbrown Given that IDs with hashcodes don't really work within Wikipedia, it might be more useful to include WP:WikiD in the edit summary and/or add a talk page banner, to publicise the project (and avoid future puzzlement as shown above). (WP:Wikid was pointing to a 2017 page until I redirected it to the main page just now, and I created the form WP:WikiD to point there too). PamD 07:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD The hashtag is there so you can use https://hashtags.wmcloud.org/ to search for all the edits made as part of this Edit-a-thon. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ok. we can do that instead. when we began in 2015, the # worked. i appreciate your help. Loriannbrown (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Community expectations around Autopatrolled Rights: Aciram

    Autopatrolled has been removed with consent of reported user. Nothing further to do. Star Mississippi 18:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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


    I do not intend to request a revocation of the autopatrolled flag yet because I have had not the time to take a detailed look but Aciram, an editor who has been auto-patrolled for over a decade, is writing articles like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I wish to know if these samples satisfy the current standards governing the grant of the flag. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, probably not. But I would like to note here, that it appears that Aciram was just automatically given Autopatrolled rights because they were on a bot whitelist. They don't appear to have ever asked for this, and don't appear to have ever been told it happened, and don't appear to have ever been told there are heightened expectations that go with autopatrolled (I did a slightly cursory review, I'll strike out anything that isn't correct, but I think this is accurate). So from their point of view, they're just sitting there minding their own business, doing the same they've always done (which is contributing over 100,000+ edits to WP), and then with no warning get reported at AN fairly brusquely. Frankly, I'd be pretty annoyed too. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bots grant autopatrolled? I did not know of that; sorry such being the case. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it appears (again, not 100% sure) they were on a bot whitelist, and an admin came along when that whitelist got phased out and just granted autopatrolled. Things worked differently 15 years ago. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, interesting - will keep this in mind! TrangaBellam (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Floquenbeam So, three editors (including two admins) told them in no uncertain terms that he needs to cite page-numbers when citing books. Well, he is still not citing them as my examples show. I am sure we can find more in the t/p archives. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this thread is going to become "list of things Aciram does that I don't like", let's be honest about the thread title. If you want to pester them into quitting, I can't stop you, but I don't understand this (widespread! by many, many other editors! In fact, two I hold in very high esteem in that link! In fact, I've probably done this a lot myself!) desire to find something someone is doing wrong, and then pick at it until they get pissed off. Instead of saying "oh well, that didn't work, I'll go try to solve one of the 60,000,000 (conservatively) other problems WP has". This is replying to you, but it's not directed at you, because many more people seem to agree with you than agree with me. Wikipedia is really good at letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, which is surprising, based on how it started out, with a philosophy of "i'll incrementally improve, and then someone else will incrementally improve somemore". I'm just not convinced a good faith, 100,000+ edit, productive editor needs to be pestered because they aren't perfect. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it's not directed at you - I know that; no issues! But citation practices is a component of autopatrolled; so, perhaps not a random list of things :-) That said, I think productivity must not come at the cost of quality. For example most of the content at Margaret Frances Wheeler is not found in the book (w/o page numbers but p. 147-148) cited by Aciram. So, the cost of cleaning up is too huge — one needs to find out the page numbers, then see the portions which are sourced, then check if the unsourced parts can be sourced, and ... TrangaBellam (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    An open letter to the Ombuds Commission and the Arbitration Committee:

    Two months ago, in an unusual break from their standard procedures, the Ombuds Commission, at the behest of the Arbitration Committee, allowed it to be publicly announced that they were investigating me. [2] This was how I found out I was being investigated by this body, they had not contacted me in any way. We were told they would have a result "soon". I contacted them to express my concern at this public announcement, but also to make it clear I was available to them if they had any questions. They replied with a fairly generic statement assuring me that the process would be fair. I accepted this and waited a month before contacting them again, simply to ask, since they chose to make a public announcement, if they could just give me even the vaguest idea of when "soon" was actually going to be. That was a month ago, and I have received no reply of any kind from them.

    I'd like anyone reading this to consider how they would feel in my position.

    I have not been told what evidence they are considering. I have not been told what I could have done to violate the access to nonpublic data policy,[3] which covers personally identifying information, such as real identities or locations of specific users discovered through the use of advanced permissions in or in the course of dealing with suppressible material using the oversight tool, or IP addresses revealed by use of the checkuser tool, It is an important rule and I am not actually aware of any accusation that reasonably explains how I might have violated it. The information I shared offsite was not PII at all. I understand that the committee nonetheless felt I breached their trust. I don't agree with the hardline stance they chose to take on this but I at least understand it. I don't understand what the Ombuds even have to investigate, or why it could possibly take this long to reach a conclusion. I suppose it is also possible that they have reached a conclusion and have simply not bothered to share it with me or anyone else, despite having taken the highly unusual step of allowing one of their investigations to be publicized.

    I find it ironic that a decision was made to reveal something that is usually held in the absolute strictest confidence, in response to an allegation that I had revealed something that should have been held in confidence. I don't think it is unreasonable for me to at least be told what it is I am accused of, to be given a chance to respond to those accusations, and to be given at least the vaguest suggestion of a real timeframe for when the case may be closed.

    Please ArbCom, the next time you know the ombuds are investigating someone don't ask them for a public announcement.

    Please, Ombuds, the next time someone asks you to make such an announcement don't do it. And don't say you will have a result soon and then sit on it for two months.

    I have followed what little is public about the commission's work for many years now, and it basically never does anything quickly. Why the rush to publicize this case, when clearly you were not close to a decision?

    Optics aren't everything, but they do matter. Publicly naming and shaming me without even having the courtesy to tell me first that I was even being investigated, without explaining exactly what is being investigated, without asking me a single question, and without giving any actual honest estimate of when I can expect a result is very poor behavior. Please, do better. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (The Arbitration Committee has been notified about this message.)
    I personally share the above-described lack of insight into what the Ombuds Commission currently does, why it does some things and why it does them the way it does.
    As far as I see, the announcement link above is in response to a public WP:ARCA request asking for oversight and VRT permissions to be restored after they had been removed for private reasons. If the information about the Ombuds investigation had been sent to you privately instead, would you really have wanted to keep it private and been fine with a prohibition on publicly mentioning it? And expected the Committee to rely on this after the suspension?
    Because from my point of view, there were two ways to deal with the information received from the Ombuds Commission: a) keep private or b) inform you publicly about it. The latter required additional permission I personally find reasonable to request in that situation.
    Asked differently: Would you have preferred being silently investigated by the Ombuds Commission without even knowing about it? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear JSS didn't notify us of an open letter to us which I admit I find strange. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is... open  :)
    But, more seriously, he probably assumed that, considering the alacrity with which arbs, crats and admins were crawling all over this very page not so long ago, that there was no need to... ——Serial Number 54129 13:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When I've been a part of open letters I've not made assumptions that the people I want to read it will read it. I've instead either sent them the letter directly - as one normally does with letters - or pointed them to it directly. :shrug: Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It had always been my understanding that if they were looking into your actions, they would inform you privately so you could at least attempt to explain yourself. So what I would have preferred is that. To find out there was an ongoing investigation and to be told it was nearly concluded before I even became aware of it was certainly not how I thought it worked, or how it should work.
    And now it is two months later and I know no more than anyone else about what they are investigating and when they will have a result. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 05:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually don't think that Ombuds reaches out to people it's investigating. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I got that impression was from asking a much more experienced arbitrator, but now that I think about it that conversation was at least a decade ago, so perhaps they have changed their internal procedures, which are an absolute black box. Except when they want to make a huge exception and tell the whole world. When they do one thing as opposed to the other is also about as transparent as piece of plywood. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that if it weren't the Ombuds, JSS would be aggrieved about something else, likely the fact that Arbcom didn't tell him OS revocation was being considered. What happened here is bound to cause hurt that won't go away in a few months. I also think JSS has a point. Having someone in limbo with no attempt to communicate or update for this length of time is unfair to him. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was already aggrieved about that, but I accept the rejection of my attempt to have it amended. That's just it, I'm not interested in dwelling on it, I'd prefer to just move on but I feel like there's this threat at any moment I might be subject to even more serious sanctions without even being told why. That kind of treatment is usually reserved for the worst kind of trolls and long-term abusers, I never expected to find myself being the subject of it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 05:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49 your first sentence is beneath you. Spartaz Humbug! 09:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    If any other editor wrote an "open letter to arbcom" and posted it at AN it would be closed so fast. This is not what this page is for, so I am closing this. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Original close

    Not an AN matter. Take it to the talk page of arbcom or the ombuds commission, or the signpost, or the pump. Levivich (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

    I've reverted the closure and copied the closing reason above. Issues of accountability, project-wide and inter-wiki governance definitely fall within "of interest to administrators" and this is the most central location to discuss it. It seems there are legitimate questions here regarding how the Ombudsman Commission operates, and stifling discussion that isn't disruptive is a bad look. Especially in a thread asking for greater transparency. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I...don't know. Reading through meta:OMBCOM I'm not entirely sure we have *any* direct means of recourse for their actions or how they conduct their business. As far as I can tell, they're only accountable to the board of trustees. What exactly can be achieved from this discussion, aside from perhaps a statement of solidarity if there's a consensus for that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And even if so, why would that be a discussion only for English Wikipedia admins and not the general editing public? This is a discussion for the pump, or a page about ombuds or arbcom, or meta. But this is not something concerns enwiki admins, who have no role here. Levivich (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were an admin, or rather when I become one, I would like to know that I too could be put in such a situation if I were to apply and be accepted for CU/OS. Ombuds dont investigate users without advanced permissions as far as I know, so I dont think it's quite general readership worthy, but really who cares where this is? nableezy - 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it was inappropriate to post this to a page unknown to the general editing public, to a page unwatched by non-admins, where only admins can comment and/or close a thread. Oh, wait... Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Straw man, floq. If beebs wanted the most eyes, it'd have been at the pump. If he wants the most sympathetic ears, this is the place. Levivich (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Far more people (and I'd wager a substantial amount also far more non-admins) watch this page than any applicable village pump page. I'm not sure you understand what straw man means; in this case, it directly addressed your false premise. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We both know what straw man means. to a page unknown to the general editing public was a straw man -- I didn't say this page was unknown to the general editing public. to a page unwatched by non-admins is another one; I didn't say this page was unwatched by non-admins. where only admins can comment and/or close a thread a third one -- you just made those three up, and then argued against them. directly addressed your false premise No, actually, it didn't. Here, let me repeat my premise for you:

    Not an AN matter. Take it to the talk page of arbcom or the ombuds commission, or the signpost, or the pump.

    Notice how that doesn't say anything about this page being unknown, unwatched, or only admins being able to comment and/or close a thread.
    This lesson was free but next time I teach you, I'll have to charge. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And even if so, why would that be a discussion only for English Wikipedia admins and not the general editing public? That sounds as if you are saying this discussion is not for the general editing public. Also, I don't agree that the pump is place to get the most eyes. More people will see this. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good point, I stand corrected, more eyes are here not there. Levivich (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like a good time to beat this drum again, it should be Administration noticeboard, not Administrator's. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, ths actually is worth a proper discusson! (And, hopefully, validation.) +1 ——Serial Number 54129 17:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me like this is probably a discussion to be held at meta:Talk:Ombuds commission, or somewhere else on meta, with a notice or two at a relevant venue rather than a discussion for anywhere specific on enwiki. Just so it's clear, I'm not being dismissive of what JSS is saying. I'd also be concerned about a body saying they're investigating someone without giving feedback on the process to the person they're investigating. But I just don't think it's anything that we can resolve here on enwiki, because that body isn't accountable to us in the same way that local administrators, CU/OS, or ArbCom are. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, I did contemplate where to post this, and considered mutliple options, and ultimately decided this was the right place. Posting on the talk page of the ombuds is something I have already tried, they have never replied to any of my posts there. As this is not soleley, or even mostly, about ArbCom it didn't make sene to me to post it there either. Whether I made the correct decision ro not, I think since the arbs started responding here it makes sense to leave it here regardless. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't have the authority to force the Ombudsman Commission to do anything but open, public discussions like this have historically been a good way to draw attention to Foundation-level issues and get answers from the WMF. There probably isn't much the OC can say given the obvious privacy issues, but they might be able to clarify their process and give a better answer than "Soon". According to the most recent (but outdated) database report, this is the 19th most watchlisted page. If you ignore the ones that are only there because of an ancient bug, it falls inside the top 10. Shutting it down within a few hours gives the impression that we're trying to sweep it under the rug or cover up a transparency issue, which we shouldn't. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with JSS that the slow movement of the OC is not reassuring. The OC's glacial pace makes ArbCom look like a racecar by comparison (and I wouldn't accuse us of being particularly fast either). As for the substantive issue of notice, I am glad that the OC at least mentioned its investigation. I think the alternative, in which JSS could have been blindsided by a sudden OC finding would have, at least if I were in JSS's position, been even more disconcerting and distressing. I take general issue at the OC's lack of transparency and responsiveness. I do not however find the OC's disclosure ironic: we asked the OC if such information could be revealed. JSS did not ask when he revealed what he did. There is the key difference, which is what sets his conduct apart. Though, for what it is worth, I do not believe that JSS should receive sanctions from the OC; based on the severity of the actions, the appropriate action here was to remove him from the Committee, not to put an eternal black mark on him. As to the public nature of the notice, I think I would be content with the OC not mentioning investigations publicly so long as it was actually being communicative with the person they were investigating. There is a silver lining here: had the OC not revealed it was investigating JSS, we would not have been able to see just how slow and unresponsive the OC is. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the reopening, and the call for an answer, even if one will be forthcoming. I think here makes more sense than the VP/WMF which while might be the right "audience" doesn't have the same level of eyes. Regardless of whether an investigation is merited, an editor (any, but especially one of @Just Step Sideways' tenure) deserves more information than what has been forthcoming. We saw this with WP:FRAM and nothing appears to have improved in the interim. Star Mississippi 22:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • um something I think my issue is twofold. Firstly that justice should be swift and secondly it should be seen to be done fairly. Unending opaque investigations are inherently unjust and unfair. For the OC to admit their investigation publicly they have an obligation to deliver a swift and fair outcome. Instead we are left with the worst of mixed metaphors. A scarlet letter imposed as part of a interminable Kafkaesque Trial where the only thing the accused knows is there is a process. The arbcom were shockingly high handed when they rushed through their original decision and in so doing were harsh and uncaring to a colleague. This didn’t allow themselves time to get the coms right and cover off the unintended consequences like JSS’ OS permissions and this is the root cause of the manifestly unfair situation JSS has fallen into. I don’t believe that the committee intended this in anyway and that their aim was in part to do the swift and transparent thing but they have created a real human price from what at the time felt like a bit of performative politics. I hope the current committee reflects on this.Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at their recent reports, it seems investigations often take about 3-6 months Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report Nov-Jan, Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report Aug-Oct, Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report May-Jul, Meta:Ombuds commission/2023/Report Feb-Apr, Meta:Ombuds commission/2022/Report Nov-Jan. So whatever the wisdom or fairness of this time frame, or of announcing their were investigating, saying there will be a result soon etc; it seems that the outcome here was fairly expected. While I appreciate soon can mean different things in different circumstances, perhaps at a minimum the commission should have said something like 'investigations often take 3-6 months'? Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the extraordinary situation where we decide to publicly announce that a named person is being investigated by the Ombuds Commission, that person should be informed of the announcement in advance. This shouldn't be a rule because it shouldn't need to be a rule. Everyone involved has been through a selection process that tests their judgment and discretion. That ought to obviate the need to explain what is, frankly, bloody obvious. An apology is in order, and a prompt one at that.—S Marshall T/C 10:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the most common of bloody courtesies, whether or not you are a Wikipedian or anybody who works in any sort of professional capacity in the real world, to notify someone well in advance before announcing to the world that your star chamber is investigating someone for whatever high crimes or misdemeanors they've committed. Giving notice is a concept that has been around for as long as common law. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Speaking in an individual capacity) I think that it's important to note that the decision to publicise the Ombuds' investigation was taken by a Committee member alone, rather than a decision by the Committee as a whole. I was unfortunately inactive for JSS's appeal, but I'm not sure that I would've taken that decision (though I understand the transparency rationale). I'm sorry that JSS has been held in limbo for all this while, and hope that it will be resolved soon – I don't have any particular insights into how the Commission has been conducting their investigation and my guess is as good as anyone's in this instance. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Um.. that's actually shocking as the actual announcement refers to "we" not I. Given the context and the statement that this was an individual action was the OC misled when they agreed to allow an announcement? Spartaz Humbug! 19:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @L235 would you care to comment please? Spartaz Humbug! 19:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the note. Five members of the committee (including myself) informally concurred in the decision to inform the community about the ongoing Ombuds case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've now read a bit more of this discussion and can elaborate. I'm sorry for the anguish that I've clearly caused JSS here. That wasn't my intention. At the time, my thinking was that it might make sense to hold off on addressing the merits of JSS's request because we were told that a resolution in the Ombuds case would be coming soon. It would be particularly awkward for the committee to, for example, grant back the permissions and then have them swiftly re-revoked by Ombuds action, so it seemed to be best to hold off on addressing the substantive merits of JSS's request until the Ombuds had rendered its decision, whichever way it'd come down. However, we couldn't really do that without saying that the Ombuds had told us that a decision was on the way soon. With the benefit of hindsight, the request was decided fairly quickly on the substantive merits, and so this was unnecessary. But at the time, most arbs hadn't voiced a substantive opinion, and the disclosure seemed like a natural step. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Correct me but 5 isnt a majority right? The conversation appears to have excluded some arbs, so how many were actually involved and how many were excluded. Also was the referral to the OC an individual or minority action or was the referral agreed as a formal arbcom action? @L235 Spartaz Humbug! 10:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So a member of the committee revealed committee communications without the approval of the committee? Sounds familiar, somehow... ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I do want to clarify that once the Ombuds Commission gave the okay for disclosure, there was a discussion prior to it being disclosed and that I took part in that discussion and explicitly agreed to share that information. Whether disclosing it that way was the right call or not I don't think is up to me, but I don't want it to seem like it was a decision made solely by KevinL or that it wasn't discussed beforehand. - Aoidh (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This must be confusing for people not on the Committee, so I've been told that it was a discussion not on the mailing list, so not all members were aware of the discussion. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I, too, have agreed to share that information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So were you aware that some of the arbs were excluded from the conversation and does that bother you in any way? Spartaz Humbug! 10:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't think much about the location and don't necessarily have to when stating my opinion about a topic. When I say I'm fine with something being published, I can do so in any conversation including a private conversation between two people. Whether the amount of such statements is sufficient for a specific piece of information to be published isn't something I had to evaluate. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a very political answer and to say you have no responsibility when your assent is being used to justify the addition of a scarlet letter on an editor seems .. um.. well not reflecting well on your character. Maybe I'm being unfair but every answer I have had on this subject has made me more alarmed not less. Is not giving a shit about process and fairness really the bridge you want to build your legacy on? @Aoidh interested in your observations too. Spartaz Humbug! 13:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      At the time I did not consider the fact that not all of the arbs were able to see that discussion (though the email to and from OmbCom was on the mailing list). With the benefit of hindsight I think an email to the list summarizing the discussion and decision would have been warranted, and ideally a holding period where arbs could have time to disagree with posting it, given the atypical circumstances. That I didn't suggest that is on me and is something I will be mindful of moving forward. - Aoidh (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Aoidh that's a better more reassuring answer. I still have questions outstanding about the OC referral. Was the referral to OC agreed by the whole committee and did the whole committee agreed to ask the OC if they could publicise their investigation? Spartaz Humbug! 15:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have every intention of being transparent about my own actions as much as possible, but I am concerned that answering that question in a satisfactory way may run afoul of point #4 of WP:ARBCOND. I'm not trying to avoid the question, but I want to make sure it's answered appropriately. I'm going to ask about this on the ArbCom list. - Aoidh (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      # 4 relates to confidential correspondence received by the committee not correspondence sent by the committee. But per Barkeep this referral wasn't an arbcom action but an individual action. Should I take it that arbcom did not ask the OC if they could release the fact of the investigation.?
      Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      We were meaning different things by referral. I thought you meant initiating the investigation, not the fact that the investigation existed, whose facts have been discussed earlier. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But the referral wasn't an act of the committee? Is that right. I expanded on my query below Spartaz Humbug! 17:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I was more specifically referring to the ...and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations since the answer to those two questions directly involves internal discussion. - Aoidh (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But this apparently wasn’t discussed by the committee? Spartaz Humbug! 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      An internal discussion did take place, though as I said above with the benefit of hindsight it could have been handled better on my part. - Aoidh (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Anyone can ask the Ombuds to take up a matter and I know in at least some enwiki matters more than one Arb submitted a request to the Ombuds. In this case I don't see any Arb cc'ing the list with any kind of report (though I could be missing it) so it seems like there was no committee "referral"? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If I parse your answer this wasn't a referral put forward by you and that the referral wasn't discussed by the committee. Presumably then the committee did not request permission to release the fact of the investigation and the decision to release this information does not appear to be an approproately constituted decision where all in scope arbs could contribute. Am I being unfair or does this chain of logic reflect what happened? Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      What are you calling a referral? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Reporting the matter to the OC as a potential investigation. Spartaz Humbug! 19:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I am can make some informed speculation about how JSS was reported in November but I don't know. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      So how did it come about that OC were asked if the committee could publicise the fact than an investigate started? Seems shady that none of the arbs commentating has addressed this question in anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been pretty obvious to me all along — having followed what you actually did post on WPO — that there was no merit whatsoever to this "investigation" or to their ridiculous action against you and that your "colleagues" at ArbCom were in a mad rush to kick you in the teeth before the clock ran out on their current term. Good for you for lighting a fire under their butts to put up or apologize. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Endorsed, with added firelighters. ——Serial Number 54129 17:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On Feb 24 2024, arbitrator Primefac stated the following on this noticeboard (unstricken): And if I hadn't used those words you'd find something else to complain about (diff). On March 7 2024, arbitrator Barkeep49 stated the following also on this noticeboard (stricken): I think that if it weren't the Ombuds, JSS would be aggrieved about something else (diff). Bold is my emphasis. So if I hadn't quoted these two seemingly disparate statements by these two arbitrators, I'd find something else to complain about? (Rhetorical: the answer is nyes, OT, goodbye.) El_C 06:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be preemptively clear, in my edit summary for the above, which read: non-random spotlight: a couple of arbitrators, a couple of chronic complainers? (diff), the purported "chronic complainers" are meant to represent those subject to the ire of the aforementioned "couple of arbitrators," not those two arbs themselves (i.e. I realize that my word ~flow was a bit meh). El_C 06:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would suggest that the five ArbCom members who agreed to publicise the information regarding the investigation (including L235, Aoidh and ToBeFree) check in with the Ombuds Commission on the status of the investigation and then update JSS and the community with the Ombuds Commission response (or lack of a response, perhaps at the one week, two week and one month stage). starship.paint (RUN) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my view JSS/Beeb was right to bring this here. Doubtless there are further issues I’m unaware of, possibly grave and deep, but at this time the raw facts presented in the open letter are remarkable, and the feeling this matter gives me is one of unease and dismay. A full disclosure and apology seem in order for starters, and possibly if others share my concern, an independent investigation into this case to clarify and make transparent what the rationale is. Two months of secret proceedings seems an outrageous chilling effect. Who will watch the watchers? Jusdafax (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • What has this got to do with building an encyclopedia? Polyamorph (talk) 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Ombuds Commission cannot comment on cases publicly. We have sent an email to JSS with an update. Thank you, Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Lock request

    Page protected. Amortias (T)(C) 08:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, Can somebody please lock the page for Fauja Singh? Constant back and forth vandalism and reverting between registered users and an ever changing IP. I don't think blocking the IP in question will sort anything so upping the page security is probably the best tact. Thanks! 89.240.73.254 (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I semi-protected the page for 2 days. IP89, thanks for the report, and please use WP:RFPP for future requests of this type. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Pamandersonfanclub disruptive editing on Diagolon

    This user keeps changing the Diagolon page and removing valid citations. It's clear that he is biased on the topic. I have already sent him a warning and he has since continued to edit the page. Ionophore (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Stale. Ionophore, Pamandersonfanclub was warned by an admin on March 2 for vandalism (diff). Their last edit was also on March 2, so I'm unsure what you are requesting us to do now. El_C 06:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh fair fair, I must have missed that warning! No worries then. Ionophore (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User deleted deletion proposal with no authority

    Nothing to do here, feel free to (re)list at WP:AFD after you have reviewed the prior AFD(s) linked on the talk page. — xaosflux Talk 17:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Article in question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haim_Gozali&oldid=1212614648

    the editor didn't agree about the proposal, instead of voting about it he just deleted the proposal altogether. That editor isn't an admin or moderator as far as I see 85.65.201.231 (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    PROD nominations can be removed by anyone, for any reason. I see nothing wrong with that edit. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD." This one has an AfD prior. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1213445250"