Gpedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
  • Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

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

Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archivessearch)

Open tasks

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
Incidents (archives, search)
1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104
1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452
453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302
303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312
Other links
XFD backlog
V Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
CfD 0 0 13 0 13
TfD 0 0 2 0 2
MfD 0 0 2 0 2
FfD 0 0 1 0 1
RfD 0 1 6 0 7
AfD 0 0 2 0 2


Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report
Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (25 out of 4075 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Abhik Anwar 2022-12-05 02:44 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Sockpuppetry Liz
Avik Anwar 2022-12-05 02:40 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Sockpuppetry Liz
Call Me Every Day 2022-12-04 23:08 2023-06-04 23:08 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso RoySmith
Royalty (Chris Brown album) 2022-12-04 23:07 2023-06-04 23:07 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso RoySmith
F.A.M.E. (Chris Brown album) 2022-12-04 23:07 2023-06-04 23:07 edit WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Giubbotto non ortodosso RoySmith
Module:Section sizes 2022-12-04 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3090 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Start and end dates 2022-12-04 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Section sizes 2022-12-04 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3087 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Kanye West 2022-12-04 17:26 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: request at WP:RFPP Ymblanter
Strange World (film) 2022-12-04 05:40 2023-01-04 05:40 edit,move Persistent vandalism from (auto)confirmed accounts Daniel Quinlan
NFU Mutual 2022-12-03 15:40 2022-12-17 15:38 edit,move excesses by both opponents / proponents [at WP:ECP, rather] El C
Battle of Bakhmut 2022-12-03 12:20 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: general sanctions Ymblanter
Paran Murmu 2022-12-02 18:23 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Mz7
Module:Rugby box 2022-12-02 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3217 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Template:Non-free use rationale title-card 2022-12-02 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
Farha (film) 2022-12-02 14:47 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:PIA Jayron32
Bijon Imtiaz 2022-12-02 01:19 indefinite create Liz
Ludwig Göransson 2022-12-01 23:17 2023-01-01 23:17 edit,move Persistent vandalism ScottishFinnishRadish
Southern Ukraine campaign 2022-12-01 19:50 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing: Requested at RFPP per WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
Eastern Ukraine campaign 2022-12-01 19:46 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Requested at RFPP per WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists 2022-12-01 18:24 2023-12-01 18:24 edit Arbitration enforcement - WP:ARBEE; requested at WP:RfPP DatGuy
Battle of Avdiivka (2022) 2022-12-01 18:04 indefinite edit,move General sanction enforcement - WP:GS/RUSUKR; requested at WP:RfPP DatGuy
Bigg Boss (Hindi season 16) 2022-12-01 18:02 2023-02-15 00:00 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; requested at WP:RfPP DatGuy
El Assico 2022-12-01 17:00 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP DatGuy
Asim Munir (general) 2022-12-01 04:18 indefinite move Persistent disruptive editing: per request at RFPP Daniel Case

Massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Gpedia

I noticed this Turkish-language Reddit link.[1]. It seems a massive off-wiki campaign has been initiated by Turkish-language speakers to create more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. As the posts/comments were in Turkish, they were translated using Google tranlate:

  • "The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Gpedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."[2]
  • "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Gpedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Gpedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."[3]
  • "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"[4]
  • "Turkish Gpedia Community Discord server. Friends, I left the link below if you would like to join the works that started before us."[5]
  • "Friends, let's start with the liberation war first and let there be a spark of salvation for us from the lies in Gpedia."[6]
  • "First of all, we must explain why this claim [Armenian genocide] is not true. For example, instead of the 1.5 million people they said, there were actually 1.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. There is no article about genocide against Armenians in the Treaty of Mudros Sevres or Lausanne. Until 1948, the United Nations and the League of Nations before it never defined a crime called genocide, and if you eat pizza and eat pizza in the future is a war crime, they cannot hold you guilty for what you did in the past. You can write that the deportation was carried out by the Union and Terraki and that the remaining Unionists completely severed their ties with the party at the Sivas congress, and the Parliament was against what the Committee of Union and Terraki did. In addition, we must reveal the evils committed by Armenians in the public opinion, instead of the crimes they have committed, the terrorist attacks of ASALA in Europe will be the best examples."[7]
  • "Ottoman archives of the period are available on this site: Devletarsivleri.gov.tr (<cant post the entire link due to blockquote error>) It is enough for someone to translate it into Turkish for us to understand. then we edit the page on the wiki."[8]
  • "The first thing that needs to be changed is the name. Then we will add the villages and towns burned by the Armenians. The number of people killed by Armenians is not specified. We should add them too. Let's diversify the missing parts as comments. Good luck with."[9]
  • "A patrol is here! hello, i am zemxer from turkish wikipedia. As I'm on patrol on Turkish Gpedia, I try to help new users as much as possible. You know, there is an approval system for the contributions made in Turkish Gpedia, and I am one of the patrol friends who approve these contributions. I can help users and groups who want to contribute to Gpedia and who want to make these contributions in an impartial framework. good wikis"[10]

So this group of people 1) clearly state their intention to spread Turkish government propaganda at Eng.Gpedia disproven by the rest of the world 2) They receive support from users at the Turkish Gpedia. Posting it here at AN as suggested by several administrators. You might be interested in this: @Rosguill: @Buidhe: @Bbb23: @Seraphimblade: @Black Kite: @Deepfriedokra: @Johnuniq: @HistoryofIran: @Dennis Brown: @Drmies: @El C: @Khirurg: @Kansas Bear: @Cplakidas: ‎- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting this is still ongoing, see Vahakn Dadrian and its abuse log. DatGuyTalkContribs 15:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discord server

When looking at the members of their discord, I noticed a person named "Berk". He has a portrait of Ulugh Beg as his discord profile picture, the very same added by one of our own Wikipedians, BerkBerk68, here [11]. In other words, they must be the same person. BerkBerk seems to have a prominent role there, as he has published the rules of the discord. This is not the first time user:BerkBerk has participated in off-wiki canvassing through Discord, see for example these two posts back in July 2021, where user:BerkBerk tried to recruit an admin to his "14 people" discord, which was apparently focused on editing the Syrian Civil War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. [12]-[13]- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note the date 27-06-2022 at Discord:[14] Seems there's a triad involving editors at the Turkish wiki, off-wiki people, and editors at Eng.Wiki. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LouisAragon, this report may have all kinds of merit, but doesn't the "The discord server" bit inch into WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Berk#2835 is me, and that community has permission from authorities of Turkish Gpedia, and it is not interested in English Gpedia editing. Many experienced/authorized Turkish-language editors are in that group, furthermore I am not the owner of that server. I undertake all the mistakes done by me at "discord" one year ago. BerkBerk68 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why am I not surprised to see you engaging in this kind of stuff again. Not interested in English Gpedia editing? What is this you have written under Planlama ("Planning") then? Google Translate "Users will be divided into 2 main sectors as English and Turkish Writers. It is obligatory to make a total of 100 edits, 60 from one sector and 40 from another sector, on behalf of users who want to participate in both. When the new week is started, the number of edits between sectors (60-40) may change." I did write a similar report about BerkBerk to ArbCom sometime ago, though I am still awaiting an update. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I invite administrators to the discord server to prove that there is not any single edit provoked by me in english wikipedia, everything asked will be translated by me, and for any kind of distrust, access to server logs (+ProBot for deleted messages) will be given. BerkBerk68 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discord link here just got deleted [15] (including the user who posted it) and the discord is now gone. Something you and co. trying to hide? Fortunately I took pictures of BerkBerk's "Planning" list before hand. Would it violate WP:OUTING to post it here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that text is not written by me, the person who writed it wanted me to post it (I understand the reason now), the planning list is already posted and I have opposed the things going on reddit on that server aswell. BerkBerk68 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kutlug Şad — 13.10.2022 O zaman r/Turkviki başlı başına canlı kuklacılık ("Then r/Turkviki is completely meatpuppet") Berk (me) — 13.10.2022 Öyle zaten ("it is, already") Kutlug Şad also posts a screenshot showing him posting a nationalistic comment, calling reddit users to the discord and asks me about it, I told him "don't". BerkBerk68 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
again, all logs and messages will be opened for Administrators. I have never motivated anyone to make any edits on English Gpedia on that server. BerkBerk68 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So.. you wrote for the sake of someone else? Honestly, your excuses bore me. Prepare to make more, as this is not even scrapping the barrel. As I said, I also have that huge ArbCom report of you. Not to mention you have been called out for nationalistic editing or similiar by other users than me. Let's not forget my previous ANI report of you either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have found messages of the owner sending me the text in order to publish it on server at 27.06.2022. since "discord screenshots" can't be used here, I will post it when its necessary. BerkBerk68 16:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I strongly urge you (both) to only send any personal data like that to ArbCom — posting screenshots/text or anything that someone could argue is personal data will, at the very least, cause drama. The back and forth here is unlikely to resolve the issue, given that it appears to depend on this private evidence. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
its not just me, but also another experienced editor pings 2 other editors including me, asking if that would be "meatpuppet". and I respond: "it would absolutely be called that because it is". messages at 13.10.2022 proves that I am blaming that subreddit. BerkBerk68 13:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HistoryofIran Per Gpedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs Posting discord logs on wiki is oversightable. Email them to arbcom. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. The issue is that it (respectfully) takes too long if I message ArbCom. They still haven't updated me regarding the ArbCom report of Berkberk, which I sent two months ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HistoryofIran: If you believe there's action that ArbCom can take, I'd suggest starting a case request — just ensure you keep the right side of WP:OUTING etc, and (re-)email the committee the private evidence — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Based on the evidence already provided in this thread regarding how this Discord group has been advertised and coordinated on Reddit, specifically taking issue with content on en.wiki, I don't buy the claim that this is unrelated to en.wiki editing. Frankly, the rhetoric surrounding this group online is WP:RGW and vitriolic enough that I would have serious concerns about them even operating as a group on tr.wiki; there may be a case for starting a discussion on Metawiki. signed, Rosguill talk 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are openly invited to the aforementioned group to see the proofs of my opposition on the subreddit. messages there are clearly showing that individuals wanted to support the subreddit and to invite reddit users while experienced editors including me opposed that. it would also prove the fact that I have never encouraged/supported anyone to edit on english wikipedia. BerkBerk68 18:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Could you more clearly explain what the purpose of this Discord group is? Setting aside your specific participation, what is the purpose of the group, and why has it been promoted on reddit forums in the highly combative manner detailed by LouisAragon in the first part of this discussion? signed, Rosguill talk 22:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The fact that both the Discord and Reddit sub-forum are now private makes BerkBerk's claim even less believable. I also still have that screenshot of his "Planning" message if an admin is interested. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, according to this post from 9 days ago, the privating the subreddit was something planned in advance, so. That's on me. ~StyyxTalk? 23:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, glad to see. Some users think that I am managing a whole reddit group despite I have opposed that group days ago. BerkBerk68 15:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    promotions were made by different users and multiple experienced users including me thought that it would be meatpuppetry and opposed that (as it could be seen on the server messages including the meatpuppet expression). The general thought of the community is that Turkish community on Gpedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Gpedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that. BerkBerk68 15:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Turkish community on Gpedia have been regressed a lot due to the disgusting decision of Turkish government on blocking Gpedia, and therefore source interpretation has changed a lot, which I totally agree with that, this does not allay concerns that the discord is operating as a POV-pushing platform. Additionally, your position in this thread is that there is a subset of people involved with the discord that have been publicizing it improperly, against your advice and against the intent of the server in the first place, would be a lot more convincing if you identified the black-hat editors misusing the discord so that we could investigate and address their malfeasance. signed, Rosguill talk 15:39, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ofcourse, the user that I have warned about this situation is Kutlug Şad as I explained above. BerkBerk68 16:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's some POV editing happening right now at Karapapakhs, who were renamed to "Karapapakhs Turks" by some IPs and a new account. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have seen a large increase in dubious editing on Turkic history-related articles recently. I asked for a sockpuppet investigation into one because I thought edits were too similar. However, accounts coordinating off-wiki could very possibly be another solution. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two brand new users are currently engaging in POV editing at Seljuk Empire, attempting to remove 7k sourced information through edit warring. This is not good. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Aaand r/Turkviki has been made private by its moderators. ~StyyxTalk? 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My screenshot of BerkBerk's "Planning" comment also shows a certain user (who has the role of "Yönetici", meaning "Executive"), that is User:Beyoglou. A notorious xenophobic pan-nationalist and sock (Gpedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Beyoglou/Archive), whom BerkBerk has claimed that he has "no relation to" [16] and has tried to defend [17]. Yet they are in the same discord, curious. Not to mention some of Beyoglou's socks have come to the aid of BerkBerk several times. Again, I have all kinds of proof to back this up, but WP:OUTING is not making this easy. I would prefer to send this to an admin who would be willing to make a quick judgement of this, rather than ArbCom. Though if I have no choice, I will send it to the latter. This connects rather too well with my current ArbCom report of BerkBerk. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Individual administrators aren't allowed to act on non-public evidence. It has to be ArbCom for something like this. – Joe (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks, I have sent it all to ArbCom and asked them about an update regarding my other report. However, I do think some sort of action or actions needs to be taken here, as this is very concerning. We can't just sit idle. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and blocked BerkBerk68. If y'all have a clue as to other editors I should block based on this matter, ping me. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Was that an action based on private evidence (as you mention on the user's talk page) provided to ArbCom? If so, we can assume this was a block made in your capacity as an arbitrator (given that you wouldn't have access to that private evidence were you not one), and not a "standard functionary" — correct? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TheresNoTime Ya know, that is a good question. I'm not 100% sure of that answer? I don't think it can be a block in my capacity as an Arb, because individual Arbs can't place blocks. An ArbCom block is by its nature a block by the committee and we only place them after a vote. So I think it must be a block in my capacity as an individual func. I asked that question of another Arb before I blocked, since I too wondered that, and they were also of the opinion that I could use the info ArbCom had been emailed to make an individual block. We do that from time to time with other matters: we get emailed something that really doesn't need the whole committee to waste its time on it, so one of us will just do it as an individual admin action. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    An individual admin action based on private evidence that no other admin/functionary (other than those on the committee) can verify/review? Doesn't that sound incredibly close to a recent discussion.. perhaps the community needs to be consulted on if they're happy for these actions to take place. I'm certainly not, and would expect our arbs to use a bit of common sense. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I read that RfC as saying that individual admins couldn't make those blocks, but individual CU/OS could, or of course ArbCom. So unless I've misinterpreted that RfC, I don't see how taking the action as an individual CU is an issue? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I thought the whole point with allowing that was private evidence was available for review by those with relevant access (i.e., all functionaries can review the private evidence which led to an action being taken)? Seeing as all functionaries are unable to review this evidence, and this wasn't an action by an arbitrator, all I can see is that you've decided to make a block based off of this thread. Perhaps that's warranted, I don't particularly care, but I definitely do care about ArbCom making somewhat secret decisions but enacting them in their private capacity. Whom do we hold accountable, the committee or the arb? How can we review an unblock request in this case? Do we contact the committee, or you? Why didn't ArbCom forward this evidence to the checkuser list when it decided it as an entity didn't want to do anything with it? These are worrying questions, and the community deserves transparency in how often this happens. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I see your concern, I'm not sure it's a major issue. Let's say that someone emails ArbCom an UpWork profile and says "so and so is a paid editor." Technically it's private evidence. But it would not be worth the time of the committee for all 15 members to deliberate and vote on blocking an obvious paid editor. So an individual Arb can just block said obvious paid editor without needing to make it an ArbCom block. It would be no different if say someone had emailed just me, and not ArbCom. In either case, the block I make is as an individual CU. The appeal is not difficult: the CU looking into unblocking just emails the blocking CU (pretty standard procedure) and asks what the basis for the block was. The blocking CU sends over the UpWork profile, and all is well. This case here is but a variation on that theme. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 08:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree, so have opened a dedicated thread below. Thanks. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 08:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks, CaptainEek. I will soon make a (probably unpopular) proposal here on how we can deal with this massive off-Wiki campaign, I would appreciate to hear what you all think of it. We shouldn't take this matter lightly one bit imo. Before the Reddit got private, there were like 400 members. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • :"I believe this all goes back to the current massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Gpedia, which Beyoglou plays a leading part in."
    There is a massive witchhunt going against a lot of person has nothing to do with our so called "massive discord group". I don't even know any of the banned user excluding my sockpuppet "Crasyy". But as I said they try to accuse all vandals and newcomers on Turkish-topics of being meat puppet and related to our "pan-nationalist" group and block them. It's a concerning situation when it comes to newcomer users who try to edit Turkey related topics. when some of the users that making witch hunt against us notice these newcomers, will try to ban them with accusation of relating to us. Is creating Gpedia-related community and editing Gpedia illegal according to policies? Absouletly not. But when it comes to some idiotic teenagers in reddit that has nothing related to us, they made our discord group "Pan-Nationalistic", "Xenophobic". 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]
    For example under this comment a user named "Nyhtar" says "They are even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS". A random vandal changes "Russian" with Kurdish and accused to be in one of these groups.
    @TheresNoTime:
    @CaptainEek: and other users who involved. 95.70.214.41 (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC) <--- blocked sock of User:BeyoglouReply[reply]

Proposal

As LouisAragon rightly put it, the WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS is a cesspool, and it's not going to get better anytime soon, especially with these massive off-wiki campaigns. In my 10 years on this site, the vast majority of IPs and brand new users in this area have been WP:NOTHERE, often ending up getting indeffed for pov editing and/or egregious attacks. It's also too easy for these troublemakers to sock nowadays, it's almost laughable. For example, see this long SPI archive [18] of the notorious sock Aydın memmedov2000, which doesn't even show all of their socks, there are even more of this person here [19]. Sadly that's just one of many cases. It would alleviate so much time and stress on Gpedia if we implemented at least some sort of restriction in this area. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur with HistoryofIran that there are too many LTAs in WP:AA2 (I can't speak for WP:KURDS) and that something needs to be done to address this. Aside from the LTA HistoryofIran mentioned above, there are 2 additional LTAs (1 & 2) whose socks I must report at least once or twice each month. It's extremely rare for a new account or IP in AA2 to make a helpful edit; instead, 99% of the time, they only do so to vandalise or promote a POV. I think the requirement of 500 edits and 30 days (which could possibly be lowered to 200-300 edits and 15 days) is a good idea to address this problem, so I support it. — Golden call me maybe? 10:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Yes, for both. There's so much disruption in these areas, I'm surprised we don't already have a good enough restriction on them. Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Take a look at this edit I reverted just now. They're even disrupting article not related to WP:KURDS. Let's at least ECP articles directly related to that topic area. — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support applying WP:ARBECR to AA2 and KURDS. Levivich (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support something needs to be done concerning the flood of IPs and sockpuppets. The AA2 area is continuously being disrupted by the socks of Aydın memmedov2000, Beyoglou, Steverci. And a listing of disruption for the last 3 yrs: 2022 disruption 2021 disruption, 2020 disruption. I think this says it all. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If anyone needs further evidence, check out the 8 9 10 reverts by an IP at the Orontid dynasty. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Clearly something needs to be done here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Surely something must need to be done about this disruption. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 22:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Very sensible proposal to reduce the disruption. Khirurg (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Long, long overdue. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support the disruption is only ever going to grow, and it's already at unsustainable levels. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Even though this won't stop them, it will certainly hinder their disruptive activity. Demetrios1993 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Clearly there is almost no good activity by IPs and plenty of autoconfirmed socks. This is probably the most effective remedy. The Night Watch ω (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @HistoryofIran: I have no opinion on the proposal but would suggest replacing "500edits/30days restriction" with "extended-confirmed restriction" – WP:ECR was carefully drafted specifically to address the nuances of applying a topic-wide 500/30 restriction. Best KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see, so it's more or less the same as my proposal, but also takes cares of other details related to it. Thanks, I have slightly reworded my proposal. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, this is a good idea considering what I've seen when patrolling vandalism. LilianaUwU (talk / contribs) 23:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, Disruptive IPs and socks are becoming a big nuisance for the AA2 area, with experienced editors spending significant time protecting the articles from the never-ending flow of IPs, socks, and new accounts, when they could be spending it more efficiently. Yes, it will affect new editors who have good intentions, however, I believe it is better for them if they do not begin their editing in intense editing areas such as AA2. So, I fully support proposed initiative. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 06:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, but only for ethnic or political topics in this area. Under the current scope of AA2, an article about an Armenian railroad would be covered by the sanctions, but ECP would be counterproductive unless the railroad has a significant role in an ethnic conflict, or a non-ECP user has repeatedly added ethnic fanaticism to the article. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 10:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per constant disruption/vandalism by IPs on AA2 topic area. – Olympian loquere 06:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Query I'm not against applying WP:ARBECR, but it seems to me this is an ArbCom-level restriction that needs to be applied, not one that we can do via WP:AN based on its phrasing. I support its implementation, but there appear to be some bureaucratic hurdles we should clarify. Buffs (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Gpedia:General sanctions#Community sanctions says the community can impose any general sanctions it wants, and can (and has) made its general sanctions identical in substance to sanctions imposed under ArbCom's procedures. That's if it wishes to, of course; the community is "not bound by Arbitration Committee procedures and guidelines" when imposing these general sanctions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This overwhelming support surely is more than enough for the WP:ARBECR to be implemented? --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Only if you're brave enough for the WP:ARCA template, which no one is. Otherwise, it'll probably have to be set up (i.e. split) into something like WP:ARBEEWP:GS/RUSUKR. HTH. El_C 23:03, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @El C: I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand. Are there even more steps required to go through with this? Weren't we only supposed to vote for it? --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @El C: I understood this proposal to be for establishing ECR as a community-imposed general sanction. That would not require ArbCom action, if I'm understanding correctly. @HistoryofIran: I recommend posting at Gpedia:Closure requests. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure why you'd think that, Kevin, when the proposal plainly says: WP:ARBECR [...] over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. Now, asking the Committee at ARCA to consider doing that, as is the intent here, ought to be relatively straight forward when such overwhelming consensus has been gathered. Had I not been so lazy (I mean, the ARCA template isn't that hard) and likewise anyone else bothering, RUSUKR probably would have passed by motion as +ARBEE. The overall trend has been to streamline (subsume), like with WP:GS/COVID19WP:ARBCOVID; WP:GS/IPAKWP:ARBPAK; WP:GS/IRANPOLWP:ARBIRP; and so on.
    To me, personally, it's more or less all the same (even when inelegant), but beyond that, I think it would make sense to have something along the line of clerks assisting users, who, like in this instance, were able to accomplish community consensus for their proposal to add/adjust an existing ArbCom sanctions regimes. To help them file the paperwork, as it were. Because the less of an access ceiling, the better, I'm sure you'd agree. And all of this as we are in flux. El_C 01:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The confusion about this proposal may be my fault. Before my comment here, the proposal was for "500edits/30days restriction over" the articles. I suggested changing it to WP:ECR, which describes more nuances and implementing rules. My thought was that the community would implement the restriction itself, not that it would ask ArbCom to do so. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not following. What I quoted (the proposal: WP:ARBECR [...] over WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS) was from Nov 1; your comment to whch you link is from Nov 11. The two Arbcom sanctions regimes mentioned in the proposal, WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS, are ones that many of the users supporting the proposal are already accustomed to (to whichever extent). What would be the benefit of adding a third sanctions regime, except this time making it WP:GS instead of WP:ACDS? Would it not make more sense to just amend AA2/KURDS, instead of overcomplicating everything with a new log, new alerts and page notices, new thing to remember? Thwink about it! El_C 16:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry guys, but I am even more lost now. Is there a tutorial somewhere for dummies that I can follow? I wanna proceed as soon as possible, especially since the numbers of socks are slowly ramping up. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's exactly what I've been trying to work towards in my comments above (and elsewhere), HistoryofIran. I wish Kevin would have addressed my point about this access ceiling. Oh well, maybe next time. El_C 23:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    El C, the original proposal was for a 500 edits/30 days restriction, as seen in this diff provided by Kevin. This was overwritten later, following Kevin's comment. Can we please get the administrative and bureaucratic eccentricities out of the way, and have some sort of action on the problem? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not preventing you from doing anything, least of all read what I had written. El_C 13:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support because of constant sockpuppeting. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose even though I know that this isn't going to have an effect. When I created what would become ECP in 2015, it was meant to be a last-ditch creative effort to stop the highest-level of disruption on the project. I feel that this proposal rolls it out to a far too broad array of articles while lesser remedies have yet to be tried. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per Guerillero and my comments at WP:ARCA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. Nominator has given definitive proof that too many IPs and accounts have disrupted Kurdish-related articles for many years. Some personal experience at Southern Kurdish. ~~lol1VNIO⁠🎌 (I made a mistake? talk to me) 07:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Potential oppose, potential support - I am reticent to support an automatic major restriction on such a scale as the entire (amended as of 2013) AA2 scope. I'm aware, of course, of the gaming risk, but I don't think we'd ever endorse such an action were there (say) a dispute nexus between the US and UK. I would support this restriction on the conflict between the two countries (broadly construed, by all means), but opppose a restriction on the individual countries and their topics. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose applying restrictions on the entire AA2 scope, per statistics below. Undecided on narrower restrictions, and restrictions on WP:KURDS. BilledMammal (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose general ECP. When we're ECPing an area, we should be doing so only if it is a narrowly-tailored way to prevent future disruption. The arguments above note that the locus of the disruption is threefold: the first is that there are a number of disruptive IPs, the second is that there is general problems newer editors and the third is that there is socking going on. For the first issue, semi-protection would solve this quite easily; we don't need ECP to protect a topic area from disruptive IP editors. For the second, if the concern is new (canvassed) editors, then ECP isn't required to weed them out; semi-protection would likely serve as enough of a barrier to disruption that people would not be able to enter the topic spontaneously and begin to disrupt articles. For the third case, I do not see substantial evidence that long-term persistent sockmasters are deterred by ECP requirements; IceWhiz, NoCal100, and יניב הורון all still sock in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area, and frankly I don't see why this is going to be different. That being said, semi-protection would well-address most forms of disruption in this area, and I might be able to get behind a 1-year semi-protection in the area. To paraphrase El_C's close of this 2021 discussion, I'm not seeing the reasons for why ECP should supersede a testing-the-waters semi-protection in this topic area, especially when the majority of the complaints are about IP editors doing the disruption. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At ARCA

Might as well do myself, or it probably just won't happen. I requested ArbCom to amend WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS by motion per the #Proposal. See: WP:ARCA#Long title. El_C 22:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've listed this at WP:CENT in case that helps move things forward. Levivich (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statistics

IP editors were reverted:

  • 65% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
  • 44% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
  • 57% of the time on articles related to Kurds
  • 40% of the time on articles related to American politics
  • 28% of the time on all articles

Non-AC editors were reverted

  • 64% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
  • 49% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
  • 63% of the time on articles related to Kurds
  • 53% of the time on articles related to American politics
  • 37% of the time on all articles

Non-EC editors were reverted

  • 47% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
  • 33% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
  • 42% of the time on articles related to Kurds
  • 27% of the time on articles related to American politics
  • 17% of the time on all articles

Non-EC but AC editors were reverted

  • 44% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
  • 30% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
  • 38% of the time on articles related to Kurds
  • 23% of the time on articles related to American politics
  • 13% of the time on all articles

All editors were reverted

  • 23% of the time on articles related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
  • 15% of the time on articles related to Armenia or Azerbaijan
  • 26% of the time on articles related to Kurds
  • 14% of the time on articles related to American politics
  • 10% of the time on all articles

Articles were determined by looking at articles within the scope of the relevant wikiprojects; WP:WikiProject Armenia, WP:WikiProject Azerbaijan, and WP:WikiProject Kurdistan. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is useful. Can you clarify if "non-EC" editors includes IP/non-confirmed editors? If so, can you give statistics for non-EC editors who are autoconfirmed?
For comparion, could we get the revert rate in non-ECR hot-bed topics like American Politics?
Did you do this programmatically or did you select a sample of articles? (Enterprisey out of interest, could your revert script from WP:RESPONDER-RFC be used for this kind of analysis?) ProcSock (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"non-EC" editors include non-confirmed editors, but not IP editors. I've added the requested statistics, as well as few others. I've also attempted to include the revert rate in AP2, but I'm not certain I have properly identified the area; I used Category:American_politics_task_force_articles and it includes articles on American politics not covered by AP2 (the AP2 template is only used on a ~200 articles, so isn't useful here).
I did this with Quarry; see Edit count Armenia or Azerbaijan articles, Edit count American politics articles, Edit count Kurdistan articles, Edit count Armenia and Azerbaijan articles, and Reversions by editor. Reversion by editor only looks at November 2022; the rest look at all of 2022. They also don't account for the increase in edit count since making the relevant edits; if an editor has EC now, it assumes they had it when they made the edit. BilledMammal (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repeated claims of advertising+mass deletions

Under the Wiki The Emperor (tarot card) a user, @Mr.Ollie has taken it upon himself to reduce the number of alternative references under the subcategory "Alternative decks", preferring to enter in "edit wars" rather than civil discussions.

I am new to Gpedia, so my first addition to this page did include an external backlink to the alternative deck reference. I have since then removed that external link, and made repeated attempts to explain this to Mr.Ollie, yet he prefers to undo changes without explanation, just the default comment "advert"

After clearly explaining that my edit follows the exact same formatting as the previous contributions by @Thejeweledweevil on March 2018‎, Mr.Ollie has now removed multiple contributions in that subcategory under more subjective terms "clean out some nonnotable decks".


Of the previous contributions he removed, one was based on Voodoo, another based on Mexican filmmaker Guillermo del Toro's work. He's intentionally removing decks that are non-traditional and ALTERNATIVE to the Ryder-Waite deck. This is a disservice to anyone new to tarot decks and are looking for alternative artwork that represents them.


Thank you Pratherpublishing (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the first problem is the username you've chosen. You'll need to change that before anything else. RickinBaltimore (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically that's not an issue, though if they have connection with a "Prather Publishing", then they must declare any WP:COI they may have. That said, I can't find any Prather Publishing of any note on a google search, so that may just be something else. Masem (t) 02:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may be an issue as it sounds like a WP:ROLE account, rather than an individual one, and violates WP:CORPNAME. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The misspelled user name probably prevented MrOllie from noticing this; I added the required notification to his talk.
WHEN YOU POSTTO AN/IDON'T FORGETTO NOTIFYBurma-shave
David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WHEN ADDINGBIG RED WALLS OF SHAMEAMEND THE RHYME SCHEMEFOR {{PAGENAME}}Burma-shaveCryptic 10:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
need a styptic? — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 13:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cryptic: This would scan better as "When you add" fwiw. --JBL (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone looking at this should also have a look at the contribs of 71.44.217.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call me, maybe?

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


Some advice, please. Hypothetically, say someone found a couple of articles where people have added actual telephone numbers (their own or other people's, can't tell). If someone did, would administrators appreciate a (very long) list of diffs to delete or oversight? If so, would you RD or OS them? And where would you like someone to report them? Or should that person, whoever they are, walk away, perhaps whistling a jaunty tune to themself, and pretend this never happened? It is a very long list of (otherwise anonymous) telephone numbers going back over a decade. — Trey Maturin has spoken 19:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trey Maturin: If it looks like spam, just remove it like you would any other junk. If it looks like they might be private numbers, email the oversight team and we'll make it disappear if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just echoing what HJ Mitchell said above. Even if you do think it is spam, feel free to contact the Oversight team. We would rather have an editor err on the side of caution and report any personal identifiable information. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's almost never attached to an individual's name (call Robin on 0012345679 for a good time) – it's anonymous-but-real numbers (replacing Sodorland numbers begin +42 with call +42 12345679). — Trey Maturin has spoken 19:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All the more reason to suppress. Whether it's someone's personal number or someone trying to prank a friend, those numbers shouldn't be out there for any passer-by to try and call. Primefac (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. Some numbers will charge the caller and are scams. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well thanks for telling everyone, Doug! Now how am I gonna pay the rent? Levivich (talk) (+42 12345679) 21:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions regarding suspected article hijacking

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




I became aware of this article via this post: Gpedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Pavel_Naumov. After doing some investigation, it seems that originally, the article Pavel Naumov was created in 2006 for a Russian athlete, who world athletics states was born in 1979 [20]. Over the course of late 2018, IP users changed the biography to be about the academic [21], who seems to be an entirely different person. The biography of the academic on their own personal website makes no mention of athletics [22]), and their PhD thesis states that they were born in 1970 [23]. I suppose the question is here, how do we resolve this? At the BLPN questions have been raised about the academics notability, and honestly I don't think the athelete is that notable either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure that there is really a need for administrator action, unless some complicated history merging needs to get done, which I doubt. I think there's a content issue that needs to determine whether we are sure that these are two different people. (I'm leaning towards thinking so.) And if so, there are potentially two separate AfDs that might need to happen. But in any case, more eyes would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, probably notable as an athlete, so it's likely to be a matter of changing the page back, way back, with assorted attendant cleanup. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I have moved the underlying edit history for the athlete to Pavel Naumov (long-distance runner). If the article on the logician is deleted, and the athlete is kept, the athlete can be moved back to that title. Cheers! BD2412 T 03:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no need for anything else here. An AFD to delete either article, or an RM to determine which article should be at Pavel Naumov, may be opened by any user, and if opened it will run its course and be closed by an admin without any need for anything on this noticeboard. Animal lover |666| 05:52, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree. It's well under control. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ANI discussion getting a bit longish

Just a quick FYI that this discussion is getting kinda lengthy in case anybody wants to take a look before it becomes firmly TLDR. FWIW I put 1RR on the article Torture in Ukraine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's supposed to be enticing? I mean, a too-long discussion at ANI. Sounds like torture in Gpedia to me. I actually glanced at it (before this post), and if I were a drinker, I would run to the nearest bar. Cheers!--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought about closing it as the OP once you put the 1RR on, but I didn't know if that would be appropriate. For what it's worth, virtually every comment in that thread is accusations and content disputes (and if the discretionary sanction applies to ANI threads about the article, then it might already have been violated since you commented). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've closed the discussion. It's gotten far too long and ceased to be productive. The 1RR is likely the only admin action required for now. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well you tried to close it. It's just kept right on going since. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've applied 1RR to Human rights in Ukraine and reclosed the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:Standard offer for User:Orange_Mo

I am copying here an unblock request made by User:Orange Mo on their talk page, per WP:SO. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand if you don't want to unblock me, but it's been 2 years since I last edited Gpedia and I'd like to be unblocked for my 3rd (and probably last chance).

I understand that I was blocked for using multiple accounts in the wrong manner. I understand that this indefinite block is no longer necessary as I have not edited Gpedia in 2 years and I'd like to return. I understand that I will be blocked again if I continue to use multiple accounts to edit Gpedia. Because of this, I will make useful contributions on one account (this one) going forward.

I plan to contribute to local places in Southern California and edit those and help to improve the encyclopedia about those articles. There is a lot of unsourced and underdeveloped information.

My last block was declined to me because I took the standard offer, which is 6 months without editing on any account. I have waited longer than 2 years and would like a third chance, and I won't mess this up. I already have changed my password on User:Yay Dad and don't intend to edit on two accounts anymore. I understand that was the reason why I was blocked. I already have stated that this third chance will be my last and if I get blocked again for sockpuppetry, I could be WP:BAN (not block) from editing Gpedia. I guess a third chance is not welcome and I'll stay blocked forever (which according to WP policies, means that I'm banned).

If there is something I need to do to prove I can be given another chance, please let me know. However, as I have been blocked previously for the same issue, I understand if I am no longer welcome back. Please let me know if I am no longer welcome here, so I can log out and never be back here again, if that makes you feel better. Orange Mo (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Procedural decline User:Yay Dad is the master account, the unblock request should be coming from there, not a subsidiary sock account. Canterbury Tail talk 22:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I'm interpreting their unblock request correctly, they seem to be saying that they scrambled the password on that account. I don't think a procedural decline would make sense in that case. No opinion on the merits of the request otherwise. Spicy (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unblock per WP:ROPE after a request by the sockmaster. I agree with Canterbury Tail; Orange Mo still seems to have two accounts. Changing a PW may not mean scrambling it. All the best, Miniapolis 22:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    From their talk page: "If it helps, I changed the password on Yay Dad to something random and forgot it. It doesn’t have an email so basically gone forever." It's been unusable since 2020. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Conditional Support subject to a CU check. If nothing suspicious turns up, I support this request based on the terms laid out by Orange Mo. Their appeal pretty much ticks off the boxes I tend to look for in block appeals. But yeah; this is the last stop on this particular train. Don't screw up again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on a less than conclusive CU check, and noting OM's comt on their talk page about where they edit, I'm going to say yes to this. Reiterating that this drink is being served in The Last Chance Saloon. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support subject to a CU check, per Gpedia:One last chance. Quoting Ad Orientem's wise advice, Don't screw up again. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Checkuser result I don't see any evidence of recent socking. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This statement was too definitive even at the time I made it and another CU has made a compelling case that there was some IP editing in September. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For what it's worth, I was the one with that take – technical data is a bit messy and boils down to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯, but combined with behavioural elements I'd say it's more likely than not that they've edited logged out over the past few months; the edits are relatively few, harmless in substance (uncontroversial mainspace contributions), and there is remaining room for doubt. Assuming that they did make them, it's still not the sort of thing that I would consider "dealbreaker" evidence of bad-faith conduct, so I would encourage participants here to not give it too much weight. --Blablubbs (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Blablubbs, editing while logged out and while blocked without disclosing this is simply "bad-faith" editing. It doesn't seem reasonable that a user with a history of socking who can't even write their unblock request truthfully, should be allowed to return to editing while knowing they were socking only months ago. (that is, if the results of the check are correct and they did edit in September) — Nythar (💬-🎃) 22:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have trouble with Blablubbs statement "to not give it too much weight". Block evasion is block evasion, regardless of whether it's "uncontroversial". However, Blablubbs's statement about "remaining room for doubt" is more important. Perhaps we should at least ask the user whether they edited logged out in the last 6 months (remember, CU data goes back only 90 days).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Bbb23 and Nythar: To be clear, I'm not trying to say "this happened, but I think it's fine because the edits are ok"; I'm trying to say "I think it's more likely than not that this happened, but it falls short of certainty". In a perfect world, these edits would've been made by an account that I could dump here, say "this is  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) and a solid behavioural match", and let the community figure out the rest – but they weren't, and so I can't. I think I fall on the strict end of approaches towards sock puppetry and evasion, and I do agree that it matters (hence my bringing it up), but I also think there's a difference between "logging out to stir the pot at AN" and "logging out to fix some typos and add some refs while steering clear of the issues that led to your initial block". My comment above is an attempt to capture that difference because I think it may influence people's assessments (if not now, then perhaps during future appeals). --Blablubbs (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Blablubbs: Right, and my statement was not intended as criticism, although, in retrospect, I can see that it might have been perceived in that manner. Back to the substance, though, let's assume an LTA's case was reopened and it was alleged that namedaccount was a sock and a CU was requested. If the CU result was identical to yours above, I would block. I realize this is not a perfect analogy to the circumstances here, but I'm still relucant to unblock a sock who probably evaded their block and failed to disclose it. Again, if nothing else, we should challenge the user on the issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blablubbs, I understand what you're saying. Now, this user is suspected of using IPs only two months ago, and I think that when a user requests an unblock while saying "it's been 2 years since I last edited Gpedia" should at least explain this (or deny it was them). — Nythar (💬-🎃) 23:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support There seems to be doubt about whether or not the editor edited logged out so I'll break the ice and say we should still consider the request. If block evasion was a certainty, I'd say No but "possilikely" is still "possilikely". I think if the editor is unblocked we'll be able to tell right away whether unblocking was a bad decision. I'll admit that I'm a big believer in second chances but I've also seen when the unblock request was granted and it wasn't deserved, we could tell a mistake was made pretty much immediately. Liz Read! Talk! 06:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per WP:ROPE. Reblocking is easy if this user goes off again; this account is fine if it is the one they want to use, as long as they restrict themselves to one account and agree to play nice, I'm fine with unblocking. --Jayron32 14:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unarchive and close RFC

Request for a kind admin to unarchive this RFC and answer the closure request to determine consensus. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:49, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@IntrepidContributor: I went ahead and have done so given the discussion was relatively straightforward. Not an admin thoMJLTalk 06:05, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Find upload date + licensing

Hi, could a sysop please find the upload date + info. in the licensing section for this deleted image. I need to check whether disclaimers apply. Thanks, {userpage! | talk!} 22:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File was uploaded 15:47, 26 June 2004. File description page at the time of deletion -FASTILY 23:32, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Botteville wreaking havoc on Shaolin Monastery page

Apart from posting a number of borderline abusive/bullying messages on the Shaolin Monastery article talk page, User:Botteville has been making a series of erratic edits, including reverting my edits without explanation, duplicating entire sections, etc. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I note this deleted discussion which worries me slightly. @Revirvlkodlaku you need to inform @Botteville that you have opened this thread — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@talk thanks for chiming in. I want to make sure I don't misunderstand you: are you worried about the content of the "deleted" discussion that you mention (I'm worried about it too, hopefully for the same reason as you) or the fact that I removed it from my talk page and transferred it to the Shaolin Monastery talk page (here: Talk:Shaolin Monastery#Buddhism and God at Shaolin Monastery)?
I did inform the user, do you not see this on their talk page? (User talk:Botteville#Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That request was closed as invalid. There is no pointer to this discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

ANEWSicon.png

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible fake "Wikimedian In Residence" user accounts

I have noticed the recent proliferation of a number of user accounts where the user self-describes as the "Wikimedian In Residence" at some institution, then lists a set of "interests"; what caught my eye is the repetition in form from these supposedly unrelated accounts, such as:

User:VidEwan: Hi, my name is Ewan and I work at the University of Edinburgh as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland and the suffragettes. Resolved as ok. BD2412 T 14:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Vaishnodevimandir: Hi, my name is Elly and I work at the University of Texas at Austin as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland, Activists and the suffragettes.
User:Skmagar1500: Hi my name is ewan and i study at the University of Edinburgh as the wikimedian in residence. I am intrested in writing articles about film,Scotland and the suffragettes.
User:Fightersword: Hi, my name is Tom Peter and I work at the University of Edinburgh as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland, Activists and the suffragettes.
User:DonJovanie: Hi, my name is Don and I work at the University of San Diego as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interesting in writing articles about musician, film, and the suffragettes.
User:Hiteshsagarjatav: Hi, my name is Hitesh Sagar Jatav. I am working at Bloomberg as the Wikimedian in Residence. I am interested to writing articles in technology, religion, music and India.
User:Sayeedsam1234: Hi My Name Is Sahim Haneef And I Work At Digital Company As The Wikimedian In Residence I'm Interested In Writing Articles About Film, Graphic, Animation & Photoshop Tricks.

Unless there is some training program for Wikimedians In Residence that instructs editors to introduce themselves in this way, I think we're looking at some kind of account farm. Also, that's an unusual amount of interest in "the suffragettes". BD2412 T 15:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Stinglehammer: As you appear to be (or have been) a legitimate Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh, can you speak to the three accounts claiming that role above? Cheers! BD2412 T 15:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ran a quick check (I have to run, so I can't do as much digging as I'd like to right now). Vaishnodevimandir and Fightersword are  Confirmed to each other, and Vaishnodevimandir's creations look a lot like UPE. Blocked those two. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The others haven't edited in 2-4 years, so there's no rush in dealing with them. At this point, I'd guess they're 99% likely to be the same person (or using the same tactic). Good catch, BD2412. But what did you mean about a "recent proliferation"? All but the two blocked accounts are years old. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    First impression - the two new ones were the first two that I came across. BD2412 T 16:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Someone experienced in UPE might want to look at active editor User:Scoffworld, who has a few similarities of user page, and has recreated at least one article that shows up in the deleted contribs of one or two of the accounts above. Image in the article is claimed to have been taken by Scoffworld. I'll notify them after I save this edit. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for flagging this. My main account is User:Stinglehammer but I have other training accounts User:EMcAndrew and User:VidEwan for when I am creating video tutorials. So VidEwan is one of my accounts. I'll add some text to make that clearer. The other ones are interesting/problematic. During training, I do advise to add an introductory sentence of text to a) make sure we have content to turn the user page into a blue clickable link b) to provide transparency about someone's affiliations/motives for editing and any potential COI and c) I also demo how to create a short bullet pointed list of approx 2-3 things they are interested in editing about again for transparency. What's striking is that we have obviously written about Scotland and the Scottish suffragettes at the University of Edinburgh during my tenure to date and I do use my own userpage as a base exemplar. But they are instructed not to replicate but make their own. Clearly one or two here have just copied my base userpage too literally. which is obviously problematic. Can we ask them to remove clearly misleading/factually incorrect info or am I legitimated to edit these userpages in this case? not sure how active they are for instance and I don't want too many of these existing and causing confusion. Stinglehammer (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NB: looks like they are replicating what I demo in a 2018 video tutorial. I can mothball/archive that video tutorial if it is causing issues as we have newer video resources now which might be better in any case. Stinglehammer (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stinglehammer: Thanks for the clarification on that point. When I see a number of accounts created following a pattern such as this, my mind jumps to bots, an unfortunate effect of the times we live in. BD2412 T 14:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Having been a proper WiR in the past (Royal Society and Cancer Research UK), one problem is that there is no real control over the title. At WMUK some 10 years ago there were discussions about trying to at least assert an "official" status for the ones WMUK supported and usually paid (or the host institution or a charity did). But it was decided not to do this, so in effect anyone can claim the title - I don't think there is any legal restriction on doing so, just in terms of using the name. You can see from User:Pigsonthewing's (Andy Mabbett) user page that he has done a number of these, some paid some not, without asking anyone's permission first (and without causing significant problems afaik). Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My mistake, mixed up two people, apologies. Fram (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Perhaps it doesn't fall strictly under the WiR label but had some other moniker, but Gibraltarpedia shows that they did cause significant problems... Fram (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It didn't fall at all under the WiR label, as I recall, and the actual "significance" of the "problems" caused is a matter of opinion, though it was certainly an uwise initiative that was badly handled. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It shows no such thing, because I was not involved in running Gibraltarpedia. I'm not mentioned in the article to which you link. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nobody said you were! Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I'm still struggling to understand the difference between my Wikimedian residences and being "a proper WiR", I can state categorically that I have never claimed to be a Wikimedian in Residence at any institution without first gaining the appropriate permission to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pronunciation audio files

Over the last few days on my watchlist I have noticed a number of editors, majority brand new, adding IPA audio files to articles, particularly those involving African BLPs - see 1, 2, 3, 4.

Is this another one of those ill-thought out and only vaguely official competitions/campaigns that we see every so often with photos? GiantSnowman 18:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not see any problem with this. These seem to be Nigerian editors fluent in Nigerian languages recording pronunciations of Nigerian names. Why do you think that it is ill-thought out? Cullen328 (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have any evidence that these good-faith contributions are "ill-thought out"? What administrative action do you think is required? Have you told the editors concerned that you are discussing their work here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not say this is ill thought out. GiantSnowman 09:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you chose to insinuate it on an administrative noticeboard. Such conduct is unbecoming of an administrator. I ask again: Have you told the editors concerned that you are discussing their work here? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are the pronunciations incorrect? If they're not, then this instant jump to AN seems like assuming bad faith and WP:BITEy. JCW555 (talk)♠ 19:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three of the four editors have been active for several months. Cullen328 (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea - do you? Like Trey Maturin says below, how do we verify this? GiantSnowman 09:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Verify what exactly? These audios were recorded and uploaded by the users who added them to articles here. Did you bother to ask any of these users before hopping to ANI to fill a report? Or at least ask any of the dozens of active Nigerian editors here? Shoerack (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether the pronunciation is correct or not. This is not ANI. I was asking the community, rather than being seen to be BITEy by targeting individual editors. Why have a number of editors all decided to suddenly start recording and uploading these audio files? GiantSnowman 10:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's AN or ANI is not relevant. The tone of your report does not indicate that of someone who is simply asking a question. It was worded in a manner that suggested that they were causing problems (which was not the case). Shoerack (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it did not - I asked if it was a campaign (it is, nobody knew), I did not say there were issues, and I have not challenged or reverted. Stop being so defensive. GiantSnowman 11:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to speak for GiantSnowman, but we are all aware that these types of files are unsourced (or if they are sourced, there's no easy way I can find to find out the source from the article itself: I assume I can go into the history, find the editor who added it, see if they were the one who uploaded it, visit their contributions page, find the upload, see what they wrote on the upload page that might be on a different project... and no reasonable reader is going to do that)? That's a vector of abuse that would worry me, regardless of the likely good faith of the contributors. — Trey Maturin has spoken 20:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The basic principle is that we should Assume good faith unless we have evidence to the contrary. The three national languages of Nigeria are Hausa language, Yoruba language and Igbo language, each with tens of millions of speakers. And we have plenty of Nigerian editors. Has anyone knowledgeable complained about the quality of these pronunciations? Cullen328 (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody seems to have noticed. GiantSnowman 09:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noticed what? Please AGF. Shoerack (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • These pronunciations are correct. If there is anything that is "ill-thought out", it is this nonsensical false alarm or report. Shoerack (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Who says they are correct? Who says it is ill-thought out? GiantSnowman 10:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The wording of your report suggested that, and I am not the only one on this thread who interpreted the wording that way. Shoerack (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure you read the whole question. The first part said "Who says they are correct?" - and I don't see where you answered that? I have no opinion on how "well thought-out" it might have been, but if the answer to "Who says they are correct?" is "some wikipedia user called Shoerack" then that's perhaps not the level of reliable sourcing we'd usually like to see... Can you, please, provide something more reliable and authoritative than "because I said so"? Thanks. Begoon 14:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This one linked above by GS was uploaded to Commons by User:Frankincense Diala and according to their userpage, they are from Imo State, a state in Nigeria where the native language is Igbo and the official language is English. "Onuachu" in Paul Onuachu is an Igbo name. It is strange to think that a native speaker of a language would not be able to pronounce their native name. It's like saying a native speaker of English in the U.S or UK cannot correctly prounounce "Paul". Perhaps you are looking for a verifiable published source? Shoerack (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The grant page (linked below) says: The audio will be inspected to ensure it is of good quality and accurate pronunciation after which it will be linked to its corresponding article on Gpedia.
While I don't particularly doubt that this entry is accurate how would I go about confirming that? Is there a record of this "inspection" being done before the file was linked?
It should, in general, be possible to confirm the accuracy of information in wikipedia articles, so yes, a "verifiable published source" would be ideal, but failing that some way to look at the "audit trail" might help.
The grant mentions that "mispronunciation is often considered a micr[o]agression" so it would seem useful to have more to go on than: "user says on user page that they come from a place where this language is spoken", in my humble opinion... Begoon 22:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While verifying the pronunciations is a laudable aim and something mentioned in the grant, I don’t think there’s any local policy or guideline they requires it, or any sourcing requirements (which is not to say there shouldn't be, though I wonder how practical that would be). For example, there's nothing that I can see in wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Gpedia/Pronunciation task force that mentions any verification or sourcing requirement. –xenotalk 23:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of particular relevace is this section of the grant application:

Deliberate names mispronunciation is often considered a micr[o]agression.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is it relevant? @Pigsonthewing: I'm not seeing anything unsual about it? Deliberately mispronouncing someone's name is pretty rude. –MJLTalk 00:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • When we have a question about an editor's edits, the best move is to first ask the editor rather than first asking other editors. It's not "bitey" to ask, it's "bitey" to not ask and instead start discussing it in public with others (without even notifying the editors involved). It was a bad idea to post at AN before asking any of the editors involved, especially with a loaded question like "Is this another one of those ill-thought out and only vaguely official competitions/campaigns that we see every so often with photos?" We should treat new editors with respect not suspicion. Respect means talking to them directly, not talking about them with fellow admins. Levivich (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW, in my opinion there is already a problem with people adding unsourced IPA pronunciations in articles. It's impossible for anyone to judge whether such information is correct, whether it has been vandalized, what dialect or accent it reflects, etc. (I am less bothered by the audio files, which are more clearly just some person saying the word.) --100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not impossible to judge whether an IPA is correct. All you need is a WP:RS that has audio, like BBC Radio. Anyone can verify a pronunciation, so it complies with WP:V. (And that's true in any language.) Levivich (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, not everyone. :) Although I have a PhD in Linguistics, I am not fluent in IPA, and my hearing has deteriorated quite a bit. There is also the problem of which pronunciation to use. See Talk:Miami/Archive 1#Pronunciation of "Miami" in lead (from 2007), for example. I have since stayed away from discussions about pronunciation. Donald Albury 17:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Accepting “All you need is a WP:RS that has audio” arguendo, I doubt very much that most IPA pronunciations on WP are supported by any source at all, let alone this particular kind. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some one bullyied me

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


I was. Bully by C.Syde65 for having autism and trolling me cross wiki and wikia GoodKindFriendly (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judging by your only article edit so far, it looks like you are the one acting inappropriately. --Yamla (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They've also vandalized Black Friday (partying). I checked CentralAuth, they don't have any edits off of enwiki. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 19:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspect it's User:IAmACoolKindPerson with a new sock. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TS, İ and ı

Primefac (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blanking inactive LTA pages

Hello, I have been reviewing the subpages of Gpedia:Long-term abuse, blanking and marking as historical LTA pages like this that have been inactive for years. The material is still available in history if there is a need for it. From what I have seen, it is an acceptable practice to blank inactive LTA pages so they won't continue to exist as a shrine giving recognition to long gone vandals from years ago. This search shows 30 pages blanked this way from 2018 onwards excluding the 5 or so I blanked today.

User:331dot asked me to post a notice about this since previously it was usually done by admins. I became interested in this task as it is somewhat related to MalnadachBot task 13 (approved following this) which is to blank warnings and other stale message from inactive IP talkpages. If there is no objections, I will continue with blanking and marking historical. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks for performing this type of maintenance tasks in general. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LGTM as well. I have no concerns. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rescued from archive

The above may be OK, but is not ideal. The blanking of LTA pages should be done with visibility at WP:SPI. Ideally, clerking of LTA subpages should be done by accredited SPI clerks. If you are interested in clerking LTA subpages, why not get experienced and accredited at SPI? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As an SPI clerk, I have no interest in maintaining LTA subpages and don't particularly care about what happens to them. I suspect most other clerks and CUs feel the same way, which is why there is no policy or guideline about this. I wasn't aware we were accredited, by the way. How much do I have to pay to renew my SPI clerk license? Spicy (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your accreditation, trainee and promotion, are recorded in the history of [[this page. It’s helpful to know that SPI clerks have no interest in WP:LTA and this supports the option to shut it down completely. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LTA subpages have been occasionally helpful to identify some behavior, but I have no strong opinion on them. I think they should generally not be created in the first place, except in cases where it is useful to admins dealing with them. I have checked the list of LTA subpages marked as historical... none of them ring a bell, so I guess there are not relevant to current activity we see at SPI. MarioGom (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For transparency, here is a list of LTA pages I have blanked. I am not interested in becoming an SPI clerk for a one time sweep. LTA pages, unlike SPI archives, can be created by anyone, so I don't think editing it should be restricted only to them. Any editor in good standing should be able to edit LTA pages and blank inactive ones. It is questionable whether some of them should even exist. Take for example Gpedia:Long-term abuse/貴花 which was recently created by someone in their very first edit. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The lack of interest in clerking LTA, beyond sporadic driveby blanking of its inappropriate content, is a reason to shut LTA down. The creation of a new LTA page by the drive-by SPA is another reason. It is quite concerning, was it created in a WP:game to harass? How would anyone know. If a user’s LTAbuse doesn’t involve any sock puppetry, then why not use their user_talk page? Shut down LTA. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The disinterest of SPI clerks in LTA pages says nothing about the usefulness of these pages to the rest of us poor benighted souls who don't have advanced permissions and wish to find out about these people when we come across misbehavior. The pages are there for the community, not for the very small number of SPI clerks who, if they're not availing themselves of this information, are only hobbling themselves (and perhaps hurting valid SPI cases).
As for the deletion of these pages, I don't understand the purpose - are we running out of storage space? I suggest that the pages already deleted be restored, and if a culling needs to take place, which I doubt, it be done by an admin with more experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yup, SPI clerks know a lot and stuff, and are good at finding out who to ask, but it's the other people in the trenches who usually know about this stuff. I've been seeing the blanking, and haven't seen anything to complain about. LTAs have a coloured history at MfD, so it may be worth consulting before MfDing any more of them. One of us competent rouge admins might just speedy it. I do think these pages should probably remain categorised under LTA, so we can properly clean them up at some point. Blank uncategorised pages are not a lot of good. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I first saw this come up in the original thread I thought exactly what BMK has written: what on earth is the benefit in blanking these pages? I assumed there's some issue that I was unaware of that everyone knew about, that meant that blanking these pages was a good thing. It seems blanking is (a) pointless (b) takes away potentially useful information from the community. I second BMK's suggestion pages already blanked be restored. DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is I think a persuasive argument that too many pages only serve to glorify or inspire copycats (see WP:DENY). I've seen several LTAs who literally run through the lists joe-jobbing as many old MOs as they can. These pages should be considered a working tool, and if they're no longer useful we may as well get rid. Sometimes vandals do actually go away. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And sometimes they come back. Do joe-jobbers prefer MO's that appear dormant rather than active? That seems doubtful. Those all seem arguments for not having LTA pages at all rather than blanking older ones. There may be some validity for that but I'm very doubtful that they negate the usefulness of those pages on a day-to-day basis. DeCausa (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should only keep pages which are useful, and some of them are useful. I'd encourage a look through the list which was blanked, and ask if they're still around. It's notable (to me at least) in all the ones which were skipped. It seems to have been a well-performed exercise. And yes, on a broad scale, we still get WoW and Grawp copycats to this day, along with some others. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LTAs that fall in the category of often-copied should have a warning on them to look out for copycats and joe jobs - but it's not possible to disseminate such warnings if there's no page to put it on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep. Just as a curious aside I can't quite get my head around Spicy's earlier comments that they (and none of the SPI clerks) have any interest in the LTA pages and, more surprisingly, the sarcasm around being "accredited" given what it says in Gpedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Could they clarify? DeCausa (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Accredited" seems like a slightly pompous term for an informal volunteer position on a website. In case it's not clear, the point of my comment was that I don't agree with SmokeyJoe's idea that clerks/CUs should have authority over the community at large in regard to LTA pages. LTA pages were not a part of my clerk training and I'm not aware of any other clerk who uses them on more than a very occasional basis (in my experience, the SPI case archives are usually much more useful). That's all the more reason for these pages to be managed by the community. Spicy (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now reviewed all subpages, haven't blanked any that remotely look useful or active. no page to put it on is misleading, they are not deleted and removed completely, only blanked and can be restored if necessary. Of the two joe job targets mentioned above, Grawp is not blanked and Gpedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels was deleted 12 years ago and salted. The only MFD I have started is for a completely useless page Gpedia:Miscellany for deletion/Gpedia:Long-term abuse/Kiyanu Kim. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of my permissions

Hi all, I've decided to hang up the boots on Gpedia, can I please ask for an admin to remove the active user rights on my account? Cheers. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 04:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is a derivative under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. A link to the original article can be found here and attribution parties here. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.