Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:ANB)
    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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks[edit]

    XFD backlog
    V Mar Apr May Jun Total
    CfD 0 9 53 0 62
    TfD 0 0 11 0 11
    MfD 0 0 2 0 2
    FfD 0 0 3 0 3
    RfD 0 2 25 0 27
    AfD 0 0 3 0 3


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (22 out of 7800 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Al-Sardi school attack 2024-06-06 20:53 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement for contentious topic Malinaccier
    Dance of Flags 2024-06-06 17:57 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Indian National Congress 2024-06-06 17:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Telugu Desam Party 2024-06-06 17:47 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Agent Galahad 2024-06-06 02:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated NinjaRobotPirate
    Elsett 2024-06-05 22:22 2024-07-05 22:22 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo
    Wikipedia talk:Contents/Lists/Reference 2024-06-05 21:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan
    List of Pakistanis by net worth 2024-06-05 16:48 2025-02-13 08:30 edit Edit warring / content dispute: Restore to semiprotection when dispute is resolved Anachronist
    Pors 2024-06-05 13:52 2024-09-05 13:52 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry, editing by IPs that are a clear behavioral match to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bensebgli Rosguill
    Morty Smith 2024-06-05 02:51 2024-09-05 02:51 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate
    2024 Indian general election 2024-06-04 19:32 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/IPA; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Template:Catalog of Fishes 2024-06-04 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3449 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Group A 2024-06-04 02:18 2024-06-11 02:18 move Move warring: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Robert Adams (spiritual teacher) 2024-06-04 01:59 2024-06-25 01:59 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Rescue of Ori Megidish 2024-06-04 00:52 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Combat operations in 1964 during the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation 2024-06-03 23:20 2024-07-03 23:20 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    User talk:Leonidlednev 2024-06-03 22:41 2024-10-08 05:50 move Persistent vandalism Daniel
    Clancy (album) 2024-06-03 22:03 2024-07-03 22:03 move Persistent vandalism and disruptive editing Carlosguitar
    Israel–Maldives relations 2024-06-03 21:13 2025-06-03 21:13 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Sporting CP 2024-06-03 17:42 2024-09-03 17:42 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Enough. ECR protected. Black Kite
    Economy of England 2024-06-03 09:21 2026-06-03 09:21 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Draft:Yash Shah 2024-06-03 01:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case

    Thoughts on ARBPIA objectivity[edit]

    This seems to be a pretty clear request for arbitration enforcement against the same editor named in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#JDiala. Rajoub570's concerns are best addressed in that thread, where they have already added their comments after having been notified about the parallel discussion. With that resolved, I don't see a need for this parallel discussion and would direct editors with input on JDiala's editing to proceed to the thread open at AE. signed, Rosguill talk 15:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Hello, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what is known here as ARBPIA, is a very sensitive issue in the world.

    My personal opinion, as one whose conflict also concerns his personal life (I am Palestinian :)) One should deal with the issue carefully and not light the fire for nothing. I would like to raise the issue of one editor - @JDiala's behavior that, as I see it, not only has a troubling effect on the neutrality of Wikipedia, but also harms the chance of a peaceful and quiet life in our area.

    Here are some examples:

    1. In the past, they featured quotes from Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar (who, no matter how we define him, is probably one of those responsible, along with Netanyahu and the extreme right from Israel, for the ongoing current conflict) on their talk page [link]. They also made clear the quotes were in praise of Sinwar [link]. They were removed only after a lengthy discussion on this page.
    2. They currently have a quote on their talk page [link] that can be understood as a justification for the murder of Jews by Palestinians. I think that any quote that starts with "X do not go out to murder Y because they are Y" should not be acceptable on Wikipedia. This is totally unnecessary.
    3. A few days ago, they closed an RFC that they themselves opened on the "Israel" page, which raises a question of integrity [discussion on this is still on going above, link].
    4. Recently, they stated that Israel is a rough state of the same level of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan on Israel's talk page [link]. In the same message they wrote that "For Israel, war crimes are a sine qua non, a core aspect of its existence", and stated that, unlike Israel, "Other states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies, with large economies, deep histories, and immense global influence beyond their militarism, and this richness is reflected by WP:RS.", a weird comment.

    It looks like I am not the first to raise concerns on this. I looked up his talk page and saw that editors have been asking them to moderate their language many times in the past decade. [link - December 2014], [link - May 2015], [link - January 2024], [link - February 2024].

    The editor was even banned for a week last December for violating the 1RR rule. [link]

    As a Palestinian, whose life is affected daily by the conflict, with my criticisms of Israel, I find this behavior problematic for Wikipedia. I think we should try our best to promote neutral coverage of the conflict. I think it is necessary to ask JDiala not to deal at all with a topic that is obvious to everyone that arouses their anger. Their edits hurt the project, and ultimately the Palestinians as well.

    Please don't add fuel to the fire.

    Rajoub570 (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note the current AE thread (opened by me). FortunateSons (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What are your thoughts on the role of honesty in ARBPIA? Is it important? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there context I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you haven't missed any context or anything related to the AE report FortunateSons as far as I'm aware (although you might want to check some of the diffs in your AE report. I think some may not take people to the section you intended e.g. [1]. The AE report is a reasonable report with legitimate concerns as far as I can tell. My question was for Rajoub570 specifically. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New user is making bizarre, inappropriate edits, not interested in discussion[edit]

    I'm getting some strong WP:NOTHERE vibes from Colorationarian (talk · contribs · logs); edits like this (added again here) and this make me wonder what his motivations are and edits like this are just clearly inappropriate. In spite of the fact that his talk page solicits users to tell him what he did wrong, he seems not at all interested in explaining his arcane reasoning. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    While I see your point, I think the indef block that has just been issued by @Bbb23: is a bit heavy-handed. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not fully comfortable with the speed by which we have gone from a template warning to AN thread (10 minutes!) and then to block, particularly when the editor in question has attempted to understand why they were receiving warnings. GiantSnowman 20:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tell me what I did wrong" was posted before several concerns on his talk page that he ignored. It's actually not obvious that he has any interest in learning. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indefinite isn't infinite. If the user can explain on his talk that he understands why he was blocked and how to be productive in the future, then I personally support unblocking. As an aside, can someone please undo his edits to Monster (R.E.M. album)? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their second edit was making a coded reference to chrischan and sonichu and the disruption around those topics, with them seemingly aware that those topics are "taboo" and not mentioned by name on wikipedia and with them also aware of the previous disruption in this topic area and its history of attracting trolls. How on earth would someone who has genuinely been here for an hour know about the history of disruption in this topic? How would they know that they are topics not to be mentioned by name? How would they know about the messy conflict between trolls, people adding poorly sourced rubbish and editors trying to enforce WP:BLP? I very strongly doubt that this is a genuine new user. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to admit I have no idea what any of that means myself. I'm certainly not defending those edits, we shouldn't be amking weird references to internal issues in articles themselves, but there are perfectly legitimate reasons a seemingly new user may be aware of such things. I'm just not seeing a justification for issuing an indef block fifteen minutes after they were informed that there ws a discussion here. I would expect to see severe disruption to justify something like that. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have agreed with you, until 86.23 connected the dots for me. This is a troll. We need to remove trolls from WP as soon as we can; if for no other reason than WP doesn’t know how to handle trolls. This isn’t biting a newbie. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Just Step Sideways Chrischan is the online name for the person who created sonichu, a web comic about a character which is a hybrid of sonic the hedgehog and Pikachu.
    The somethingawful forums noticed this webcomic in 2007ish, which started a harassment campaign against it's creator. This spread to Encyclopedia Dramatica, before a standalone site, Kiwi Farms (formerly known as the CWCki Forums), was created.
    There have been a number of attempts to create a Chrischan article on wikipedia over the years, and they've pretty much all ended the same way. The articles get flooded with trolls using the site to further the harassment campaign, a lot of good faith but clueless editors add a load of very poorly sourced content to the article, and a load of editors waste a load of time trying to enforce WP:BLP.
    The eventual consensus reached is that Chrischan isn't notable by wikipedia standards, most of the coverage of them (with the exception of one criminal case) is in very low quality sources and it's generally not a good idea to have an article on a low profile person who is best known for being the victim of online harassment (i.e. WP:AVOIDVICTIM). See [2] [3] for some relativley recent threads about this.
    All the titles where an article about them could be written have all been admin level create protected, and Special:AbuseFilter/1159 is used to track people adding content into other articles.
    Given the background here I do not believe that somebody who in their second edit essentially said "I want to mention a certain person here, but that's not allowed on wikipedia because it attracts the trolls" is a genuine, good faith newcomer. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    RPP backlog[edit]

    There are 20 pending requests for page protection, including an ARBPIA edit war at Maldives. (It concerns a recently added statement about the government's response to the Israel–Hamas War.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I added one more article on the same issue: Israel–Maldives relations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    String of odd comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandni Mistry[edit]

    I'm not sure what's going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandni Mistry, but I think it could use the eyes of an admin. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Weird...ten unsigned votes by new accounts, all of which appear to be AI-written... Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this article's retention is just in the interest of AI entities Zanahary (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha, Spicy just cleaned out a sock drawer! Schazjmd (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    So I messed up.[edit]

    See my talk page. I wanted to restore some un-encyclopedic content to a user sandbox, but it is currently a redirect, so now said un-encyclopedic content is viewable as history in the redirect. Is this a problem? How would someone re-delete history without deleting the redirect? How do you restore a page to a user sandbox directly, should there be an active redirect page? I should know this after all these years, but it's amazing the number of knowledge gaps one can uncover... Thanks! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not an administrator here, but I use MediaWiki deployments regularly in my work so have experience with many of the administrator tools you'll have. Someone else may have a better solution for you specific to Wikipedia, but I think the best option is just to move the current redirect page to the user's sandbox without leaving a redirect, and then creating a new redirect to the target article at the original page. It may be possible to restore revisions for a re-created page that currently exists directly to a user sandbox, but it's something I've never had to do and you've got me curious so thanks! You've given me a project to experiment with on my test wiki over the next few days. Adam Black talk • contribs 01:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I understand what you're trying to do correctly, it's almost like a reverse histmerge. There's a way to do it right, but it's incredibly annoying. You can find it at WP:HMUNDO. Realistically, if it doesn't matter where the page history ends up then what Adam Black suggested is the easiest way. The WordsmithTalk to me 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In reverse order: If you want to move deleted page history that currently has content at its title, you have to move the current version out of the way, restore and move the deleted revisions, then move the current content back. You can't redelete the history without at least temporarily deleting the redirect - deletion is always of all revisions - but what you can do is delete the current version, restore the revisions you want to move to the sandbox, move those, then restore the revisions corresponding to the redirect (as documented at WP:HISTSPLIT). As to whether it's a problem, generally not, so long as it stays stuck behind the redirect; it could be problematic if there's copyvio or libel or such (in which case you shouldn't have offered to restore to a sandbox either, of course), or if it was deleted at afd (I haven't checked) and there are attempts to revert to the deleted version without improvement.
    Another option would have been to just email the latest revision to the user, like, y'know, they asked for; if the history was important, you can get a full xml dump through the api, like so. —Cryptic 02:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, boy, trying to follow the process described above has my mind tied up in knots. Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly the kind of type 2 fun which I enjoy doing. If anyone ever needs some history untangled, hit me up.  — Scott • talk 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll remember that if I ever need a histmerge/split. Merging has gotten easier in the last 20+ years, but splitting seems like it hasn't at all. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:PERM[edit]

    I feel like we need more active admins at WP:PERM. There are requests that have been sitting there since early May and requests that are just... open?. Could someone please look into this? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it's quite often backlogged. WP:PERM/NPR especially has been difficult to keep on top of lately because there are surges of applications when there are NPP backlog drives (and there have been four in the last year alone) or mass messages sent inviting people. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's also a very time consuming process that's easy to get burnt out from. I haven't dealt with nearly as many requests as you have and yet I find it difficult to consistently address requests the way I might deal with other tasks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing[edit]

    The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

    TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from removing all content in an article and replacing it with a redirect (commonly known as a blank-and-redirect, or BLAR). This topic ban will be suspended for a period of 12 months. This topic ban may be unsuspended and imposed onto TenPoundHammer if disruption by BLARing restarts, as determined by any of: (1) a consensus of administrators on WP:AE, (2) at least two arbitrators indicating "support" to unsuspend at WP:ARCA, with no opposition from other arbitrators indicated up to 48 hours after the second support, or (3) a majority of active arbitrators at WP:ARCA if there is opposition as indicated in condition 2. After 12 months, if it has not been imposed, the topic ban will be automatically lifted.

    For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

    Murder of Susana Morales[edit]

    I'm looking for an independent review of my actions and those of Fram, in relation to Murder of Susana Morales (later moved to Draft:Murder of Susana Morales and subsequently deleted). The article was created yesterday, and subsequently tagged as WP:G10 (attack page) by Fram. I looked at the article, and in my opinion it did not meet the strict requirements of G10, namely that it was not "intended purely to harass or intimidate a person", nor unsourced. Fram re-tagged it [4], which was reverted again by Bbb23. Fram left a query on my talk page asking why I asked declined the speedy, and I gave my reasons. At this point I had become busy with work, so did not have time to investigate further. Fram refused to accept my answers, and kept badgering me, finally calling my actions "shit" [5], when I pointed out that he could have removed the offending material from the article rather than retagging it.

    This morning, in response to a query on his own talk page, he accused me of gaslighting [6]. I have asked him to redact that comment, which I consider to be a personal attack, but so far he has refused to do so.

    See also discussions at User talk:Deepfriedokra#BLP draft, User talk:Bbb23#Now what? and User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Murder of Susana Morales.

    I would like an uninvolved admin or admins to consider the following two points:

    1. Whether my initial decision to decline the speedy can be considered reasonable?
    2. Fram's subsequent behaviour and comments about my actions.

    Thanks. — Voice of Clam (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll repeat what I said on my talk page.
    The article was ~700 words, ~550 words are about the suspect. ~365 words are under the heading Perpetrator with a criminal infobox listing the suspect as having committed the crimes. It wasn't a few instances where [you] forgot to specify that it was alleged, it was almost every single case. Again, read WP:BLP, which states Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. We don't move it to draft space to clean it up, we remove it immediately. These violations are egregious, which is why I warned you. When 80% of an article is egregious BLP violations and BLPCRIME violations targeting a living person who is not a public figure, that is an attack article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, that was written in response to the article creator, and the warning was to the author, not VoC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    in User talk:Voice of Clam#Murder of Susana Morales, they gave as their defense on why they reinstated the BLP violations: "I was too busy at the time. You were quite capable of removing the violations yourself." I had removed the violations, Voice of Clam reinstated them, so I consider this statement gaslighting, and I don't see how this description of their behaviour is a personal attack. Some scrutiny of the reinstatements of the severe BLP violations by Voice of Clam and Bbb23, and the block threats by Bbb23 and Deepfriedokra while completely disregarding our BLP policy (and its exemption for edit warring), seems warranted now that we are here anyway. Fram (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any article describing an unconvicted living individual as a murderer is as unequivocal a violation of WP:BLP policy as could possibly be imagined. Arguing the toss over exactly how this gross violation of policy should have been removed from sight (as WP:BLP policy absolutely demands) seems to me to be little more than pointless Wikilawyering. How about people getting back to doing something more useful, like finding better ways to stop such dross from getting into Wikipedia in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with SFR and ATG. Blatant BLP violations such as this should be deleted on sight, that's more important than the minutiae of which speedy deletion category should be applied. Reinserting the text, which accuses someone of a crime in Wikivoice despite there being no conviction, back into the page is definitely not the answer.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of little superscripted numbers in brackets don't mean that an article is sourced, and certainly not "well sourced" as you claimed in your edit summary. Three quarters of that article stated various accusations against a living person - mostly unrelated to the crime that was the article's purported subject - as fact, when the supposed sources did nothing of the sort. —Cryptic 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw the after-the-fact discussion on SFR's talk page yesterday, and thought:
    1. While I disagree with VoC, and think the article should have been deleted, I can see how they might have thought it didn't meet the letter of G10. So not entirely unreasonable. However, if they were going to deal with it and not delete it, they should have removed 2/3 of the article, revdel'd that, and moved it to draft space. If they didn't have time for that, they probably should have left it for another admin.
    2. We have a hard time dealing with high benefit/high cost editors like Fram. I'm not sure just looking at a benefit/cost ratio is enough, ling term. But in a case like this, where Fram is right on the important underlying BLP issue, it's going to be hard to do anything about their being a dick so often. The most important thing here is that the article was a BLP nightmare; I can't imagine anyone sanctioning Fram in this particular case. If it helps any, Fram's use of the word "gaslighting" was incorrect. But so many people misuse that word...
    Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you describe someone stating "you could have done X" when they know damn well you have done X and they are the one that has undone it? It sure feels like the kind of psychological manipulation and distortion described by "gaslighting", though a one-off and not a pattern. Fram (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Part of the problem is that out of my whole comment, this is what you choose to dispute.) Gaslightling means purposefully trying to get someone to doubt their own sanity. VoC obviously meant "you could have deleted the BLP problems without blanking the whole rest of the article". Only a fool would think they were actually trying to trick you into thinking maybe you hadn't blanked the whole thing with your {{db}}. You're not a fool. Therefore, you don't actually think you were being gaslit. You just thought the accusation sounded cool. When you claim this feels like "psychological manipulation" you are intentionally lying. You should stop that. It's beneath you. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, with a sprinkle of AGF, possibly Fram either misunderstood the definition of gaslighting or interpreted the conversation differently than you did. My telepathic senses are on the fritz today, so I guess I can't tell what Fram was thinking about at the time. Must be allergies. From every encounter I've had with Fram, he tries to do the right thing but can be rude while doing it. Intentionally lying about what he was thinking is not something I've seen; usually it's the opposite and we get more of the raw, unfiltered Fram than is necessary. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate getting dragged into these things, but I don't have the self-control to let someone be wrong on the internet, especially when I think I'm being misread. If you re-read what I said, I'm not saying he lied when he used the term gaslighting. As you and I have now both said, that's a commonly misused term. But in his reply to me, Fram doubled down and specifically claimed he felt he was being "psychologically manipulated." Come on; that's bullshit. I will do my best to let this go now. -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article text and sourcing are pretty severe BLP violations. The wording of G10 is very specific, and inflexible enough that it probably doesn't apply to this case. I still would have opted for summary deletion, but changed the rationale to cite WP:BLPDEL instead of G10. BLPDEL unquestionably applies to that article, since every version of the history is a severe BLP violation and repairing it would be impossible without rewriting the article from scratch. I also would have taken a look at the author to see if there was any disciplinary action that needed to be taken (it looks like he hasn't been notified about WP:NEWBLPBAN so I'll go take care of that). As usual, Fram can be prickly but he's not wrong. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like SFR took care of the DS notification already. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    G10 should just be expanded to cover BLPDEL situations since it's effectively the same thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already there. It's the text of the criterion on WP:CSD that's controlling, not the short one-line summary that appears there or in the dropdown menu. It starts Main page: Wikipedia:Attack page ¶ Examples of "attack pages" may include: ... and leaves the non-example specifics to be defined in WP:Attack page, which states in its first line or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Incorporating these situations is almost the entire reason we have a separate G10 rather than leaving it as a variant of G3 and relying on WP:Vandalism#Page creation, illegitimate's articles written to disparage the subject. —Cryptic 16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Textbook WP:BLPCRIME violation, deletion was the right outcome. —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think VOC and BBB got too focused on speedy deletion procedure and paid too little attention to how their actions restored a bunch of BLP vio to mainspace. I'd love to see them acknowledge those moves as errors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) The first part of what you say is right as far as I'm concerned. Usually, when I decline a speedy tag because it has already been declined I just remove the tag, but because of the nature of G10 (blanking the article "as a courtesy"), if I'd just removed the tag, the article would have been blank. The only "error" I'll acknowledge is I didn't do the work to figure out that the article was a BLP violation because you'd have to go through it to reach that conclusion. If I had it to do all over again, I would have done nothing because the whole thing is too messy for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statement by Deepfriedokra Had the CSD not been declined twice, I'd've deleted the thing. I saw it had been declined twice and my brain locked up. I could not act. Deleting it would have been the least bad choice, and I should have deleted it.
    To @Fram: I offer my sincere apologies for the perceived threat. That was not my intent. I apologize for my ill-chosen words and their effect.
    To @Voice of Clam: If I cannot bring myself to honor a CSD tag, I leave it alone. I leave it to be reviewed by an admin less squeamish than I or with clearer perception than I have at that moment. It is regrettable that such content was restored.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, apologies accepted. Fram (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for Bbb23. Hi Bbb23. Did you suggest that Fram be blocked for edit-warring, rather than removing egregious BLP violations. ——Serial Number 54129 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that was a weird discussion on my Talk page. I responded to Dfo (the OP at my Talk page) who noted that Fram had tagged the page yet again, and my comment was "Block Fram?". It was then Dfo who talked about edit-warring. If I had blocked Fram, which, btw, I did not do and would not have done, it would not have been for edit-warring. I've answered your question, even though it was pretty loaded.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My dear fellow—! In an emergency, I must marry civility to bluntness if at the expense of neutrality. But thank you for giving me what I'm accepting as a straight answer  :) ——Serial Number 54129 19:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that wasn't Wikipedia's finest moment. VOC's edit restoring poorly-substantiated accusations (1) shouldn't have happened and (2) doesn't amount to an understandable mistake. Never edit BLPs in a hurry. And, once again, we see that when a sysop's behaviour falls below Fram's standards for sysops, Fram goes properly berserk.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to have a very low threshold for berserkness then. I didn't start any of the talk page discussions (edited:except for the very first one at VoC's talk page) or AN discussion about this, I didn't start talking about blocking (others wanted me blocked for, well, no idea what for, apparently not for edit warring), I didn't ask for sanctions. I said about one statement that it was gaslighting, which the editor and one admin disagreed with. That admin said I was lying, which I disagree with. Please keep your claims about Fram going berserk for when I actually go berserk. Fram (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC) (edited as my claim was incorrect. Fram (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC) )[reply]
    • I saw this request after it had been declined by VoC and Bbb and decided that I didn't have the time that day to deal with the aftermath of any action I might take (which I think subsequent actions have proven right). For me there is no question that there were serious BLP violations in this article which needed to be remedied. Where I admit to some surprise is the consensus here that G10 was the right way handling it. G10 clearly allows for deletion for BLP violations, but my reading is that it encourages more consideration of alternatives including revdel and a non-speedy deletion method (although in most cases a deletion discussion should be initiated instead. While there was no BLP compliant version to revert to (which is what would have made revdel the easy answer), I'd have likely removed the perpetrator section, removed the alleged perpetrator's name and revdelled, given that the topic seems notable, had reasonable sourcing and was correctly titled about the victim rather than the alleged perpetrator. I think SFR's decision to do G10 instead of this was reasonable, but I also don't think VoC was wrong to say "not G10 eligible" if there had been firmer/clearer acknowledgement of the BLP violations that were present and would need to be fixed. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The issue is that it wasn't just one section, from my reading it seemed like there were severe BLP violations spread throughout the entire text, especially with things presented as fact in wikivoice that sources only raised as possibilities. It would be impossible to remedy the BLP violations with anything short of rewriting from scratch. At that point, the simplest solution is to just delete the entire thing and allow a new BLP-compliant article to be written. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – June 2024[edit]

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

    Administrator changes

    readded Graham Beards
    removed

    Bureaucrat changes

    removed

    Oversight changes

    removed Dreamy Jazz

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Partial Unblock Request[edit]

    After placing a request to be unblocked on my user page, I was instructed by User:331dot to start a community discussion by going to WP:AN and request its removal.

    • I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing.
    • I now believe in regaining trust and commit to ceasing any further problematic COI editing.
    • Since my partial block, I have authored 20 new articles, all of which have been reviewed and accepted by my peers for inclusion in the main article space.
    • I have also contributed to 28 articles through the Edit Request process since my block.
    • Upon unblocking, my intention is to contribute to Wikipedia by assisting with the backlog of AfC and edit requests.
    • My dedication lies in making Wikipedia the best encyclopedia globally.

    Greg Henderson (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy link to pblock discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greghenderson2006, you specify problematic COI editing: what type of COI editing do you consider to not be problematic? Schazjmd (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Schazjmd, any COI editing would be problematic per WP:COI. This request is based on my recent pldege to refrain from any further COI editing, as well as on the recent articles and upates I have made. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Greg, didn't you make essentially the same promise six months back and then break it? Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I made a mistake and I am fully committed to upholding my pledge this time. I have taken this expereince as a learning opputnity and am determined to demonstrate conistency moving forward. The recent articles I have written provide evidence of my committemnt. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's what you said last time too! And you have had the following COI related declaration and commitment on your userpage for a long time:

      I have a conflict of interest and paid-contribution disclosures in some of my Wikipedia articles. I intend to follow best practices by asking for help, sticking to neutral language, and having other editors review my work.

      If those previous commitments weren't upheld, I am not sure why we should just take your word for it this time instead of sustaining the pblock to ensure that all your edits to articlespace are in fact reviewed. Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As proposer of the p-block being discussed here, I will take no position as to this request. I will just say that I share @Abecedare's concerns about prior broken promises. You note that Since my partial block, I have authored 20 new articles, all of which have been reviewed and accepted by my peers for inclusion in the main article space. but this been declined as has this one. Why do you feel that's the case? Why didn't you note them above? Star Mississippi 03:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am opposed to any unblock. I agree with the concerns raised above by Abecedare; a significant part of Greg's undertaking above is word for word the same as the last time, and the rest of it is substantially the same in character. Not only has Greg previously made the same promise and broken it, but he also has an extensive history of making misleading statements and equivocations, many of which it is difficult to believe were not disingenuous. We have had "I haven't done X", and then, when someone points out a clear case of his doing X, "Oh, when I said I haven't done X, I meant I haven't done Y". We have had statements along the lines of "I made a mistake" for things which are difficult to see as mistakes. We have had "I have authored 20 new articles, all of which have been reviewed and accepted by my peers for inclusion in the main article space", without mentioning the number of drafts which have not been accepted; of course all the articles created at AfC have been accepted, as otherwise they wouldn't be articles, but did Greg honestly not intend to give the impression that all of the drafts he had created had been accepted as articles? And so it goes on... all documented in his talk page history, at AN/I, etc. To be absolutely blunt, I think Greg's history has shown time and time again that his word cannot be trusted, and I see no reason to assume that it will be any different this time. He has cried "Wolf" too often. JBW (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm opposed. I believe in third chances, but the period after the second chance should be measured in years, not months. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting SHJX[edit]

    I'm not sure such kind of language is OK here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_AMD_Ryzen_processors&diff=1227454497&oldid=1227450437 Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that is not acceptable and I see the user has already been warned on their talk page by JBW. By the way, you need to notify that user that you have reported them here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked them for 31 hours after they decided to double down on their personal attacks. —Ingenuity (t • c) 18:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's even more. I strongly suspect it's the person we all know. We've had them banned before at least four times now. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony Kart - deletion discussion[edit]

    Everything done.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Can anyone start a deletion discussion for Tony Kart on my behalf? 62.165.250.83 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, here. User:62.165.250.83, please add your deletion rationale to that page. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:57, 6 June 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=1227603586"