Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thryduulf (talk | contribs) at 10:13, 3 October 2023 (→‎Proposal: 1-year transgender topic ban: close, consensus for topic ban). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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

    XFD backlog
    V Feb Mar Apr May Total
    CfD 0 0 11 55 66
    TfD 0 0 0 2 2
    MfD 0 0 0 2 2
    FfD 0 0 0 0 0
    RfD 0 0 5 18 23
    AfD 0 0 0 9 9


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (21 out of 7740 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel 2024-05-23 22:04 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Safia Khairi 2024-05-23 21:06 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Conservatism in Israel 2024-05-23 20:37 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Draft:Xxx 2024-05-23 20:31 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers
    Future of Honor 2024-05-23 03:55 2025-05-23 03:54 edit,move restore ECP Daniel Case
    Israel-related animal conspiracy theories 2024-05-23 03:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Justin Stebbing 2024-05-22 22:39 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: Substantive COI editing - propose changes on the talk page Anachronist
    Proximus Group 2024-05-22 13:44 2024-08-22 13:44 edit Persistent sock puppetry, COI editing, or both NinjaRobotPirate
    International Criminal Court investigation in Palestine 2024-05-22 12:55 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    Wokipedia 2024-05-21 23:50 2024-05-23 23:50 edit,move Shenanigan precaution. BD2412
    Draft:Zard Patton Ka Bunn 2024-05-21 20:22 2024-11-21 20:22 create Repeatedly recreated: targeted by Nauman335 socks Yamla
    June 2024 Ukraine peace summit 2024-05-21 18:38 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:GS/RUSUKR El C
    Template:English manga publisher 2024-05-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Draft:S S Karthikeya 2024-05-21 13:27 2025-05-21 13:27 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla
    Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel 2024-05-21 01:18 2024-05-28 01:18 edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Draft:Roopsha Dasguupta 2024-05-20 21:26 2029-05-20 21:26 create Repeatedly recreated Yamla
    Gaza floating pier 2024-05-20 17:36 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    Science Bee 2024-05-20 15:26 2027-05-20 15:26 create Repeatedly recreated Rosguill
    Screams Before Silence 2024-05-20 04:56 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Tyson Fury vs Oleksandr Usyk 2024-05-20 03:49 indefinite edit,move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Atom Eve 2024-05-20 02:53 2024-08-20 02:53 edit Persistent sock puppetry NinjaRobotPirate

    Ban revision request

    A couple of weeks ago I had asked to have my one-way interaction ban with user AldezD revised - not to drop the ban, but to narrow the scope. There was no consensus to do anything. That's OK. Much to my surprise, AldezD came out of a 6-month "retirement", apparently for the sole purpose of harassing me. Given this,[1] I would ask that the indefinite one-way ban be extended to an indefinite two-way ban. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure. If he's retired, it doesn't affect him, and if he isn't, it appears it might very well be needed anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking a second look, that PA is more than just dehumanising. I think in addition to an interaction ban a final warning against all personal attacks is warranted, and if AldezD makes any further personal attacks, they can be blocked from editing for any period of time or indefinitely. Assuming bad faith, calling an editor immature, and dehumanising the poster. I think the revision linked should certainly be revision deleted as well by an admin. I am considering the severity of the personal attack in this comment as well. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was also about to say the post in that diff link of AldezD's comments looks ageist but it is a bit unclear. I don't want to go too far and make a false accusation, but that is one of the reasons for this. If they don't come back to Wikipedia then it won't affect them, and if they do, it hopefully gets them away from the areas of dispute. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:42, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there was very recently consensus against loosening the restriction, and given the other editor's gross overreaction to being inadvertently pinged one time in a discussion clearly falling within WP:BANEX, I think it's reasonable to make this a two-way IBAN. As for your earlier request: sanctions aren't meant to be a Sword of Damocles hanging over your head forever. If you edit something and then someone goes through the history to find that the edit was actually contrary to your ban, apologize and revert and that should be the end of it. But also, if you want to be able to quickly check for a particular editor's edits to any page, the User History script here will add that filter to the standard history page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support (Non-anyone comment) I absolutely agree. AldezD has either retired (in which case they won't be affected) or they haven't, and they think that calling people "Goblins" is acceptable behavior. Their entire post yesterday was wholly disingenuous, up to and including the claim that they were 'harassed', an extremely serious claim, which was patently not true (since it appears that BB has not even mentioned them in the last six months). Frankly, I believe they deserved sanctioning for it at the time, but that's in the past. Incidentally, this seems to have originally been a six-month IB, which was extended following a self-request. Is that the case? Serial 18:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're asking me, yes, it was to be six months and I asked for it to be indefinite. If I had known he was going to "retire", I would have agreed to the 6 months plan, and wouldn't have asked about it a couple of weeks ago. And when I was hit with this unexpected barrage yesterday, at first I wondered if the account had been compromised. I also don't recall pinging (or "tagging", as he put it), but maybe something triggered it. He was talking about 10 years ago, or some such, but I never heard of this guy until sometime in the last year or two. So something's not making sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • When you added a link to their user page at the editing requests talk page, that would have generated an on-wiki notification for them, like this: User:Baseball Bugs. If you don't want that to happen then you can use {{noping}}, like this: Baseball Bugs. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh! I didn't realize that. I thought that a ping came from putting User:[whatever] inside pairs of braces. I'm either working off old information or had forgotten it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Non-administrator comment) Support two-way IBAN. The ANI discussion opened was unacceptable and the "coming out of retirement" to retaliate was also very unacceptable and uncalled for. Retirement does not provide protection against sanctions. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 01:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support two way IBAN. AldezD was way out of line hurling their bizarre "goblin" and "creature" insults. Cullen328 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support two-way IBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "goblin" comment was out of line but I'm trying to look at it from AldezD's perspective. Reading through all the archives and history shows Aldez was very, very much upset by the interactions between him and BB. It was continuous despite numerous requests to stop and it eventually ended up where a non-involved admin put the one-way iban on BB. Later on out of nowhere, the person, who from AldezD's perspective, harassed and annoyed the hell out of them without stopping, comes back with a ping out of the blue. I would say a lot of us would freak out as well especially if the history between them was as one-sided antagonistic as it was. Slap them with a "Don't do that again" for that comment at the very least (which has been done). I think escalating to a two way is premature. spryde | talk 12:56, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • A personal attack is a personal attack. Calling someone a "goblin" is dehumanizing at the least. If an editor is unable to keep their cool by accidental violations of WP:IBAN or even with behavior where there is consensus that WP:BANEXEMPT applies, then it probably means they should not be interacting with them to begin with. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sp: can you also explain AldezD's references to BB's "nonsense from 10x years ago" that harasses him? Serial 14:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        No clue about that. I am talking about the interactions 2020-2022. spryde | talk 15:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. The problem is that it's now harder to confirm the nominator's own statements if they claim to have had literally decade-old issues with BB. Serial 17:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is there a way to create a list of when one user has interacted with another over time? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Like if you have responded to each other? I don't know, I looked around and tools like this seem to show when you've both edited the same pages and what the time differential was. Zaathras (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I'm with spryde on this one. Given the reason for the ban in the first place, I would be more inclined to extend Bugs 1-way ban to explicitly remove any of the usual exemptions. Its not necessary to ping someone you are banned from contacting with to appeal the ban. Sanctioning an editor, who had to go to the lengths of getting someone forcibly restricted from interacting with them for harrassment and stalking, for reacting badly when said editor then pokes them? It seems far too much like enabling harrassment to me. Aldez has been sufficiently chastised for reacting poorly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was not aware that I was "poking" or pinging the user. I thought I was merely providing a link to the user's page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have been here long enough and are experienced enough, that that excuse has little credibility. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • You are mistaken. I don't do pinging as a general rule, so I didn't know that merely linking to a user page would generate a ping. I had thought putting the user name in braces was the way to do a ping. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            "Putting the user name in [double square] braces" and "[wiki]linking to a user page" are identical acts; they both involve writing two open square braces, the characters "User:", the username, and two close square braces. --JBL (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            Yes, I know that now. But was it always that way? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • No opinion on the actual interaction details, but I also have no idea what does or doesn't 'ping' a user. In any case, I would say the user should be 'pinged' or otherwise be aware if the other side of an interaction ban is asking for a change in the status of that ban. If the ban had been changed, should that have happened without AldezD knowing a discussion was ongoing? What is the appropriate venue/method for Bugs to make such a request? --Onorem (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The reaction by AldezD was grossly inappropriate. To quote WP:BANPOL, "A no-fault two-way interaction ban is often a quick and painless way to prevent a dispute from causing further distress or wider disruption." In this case, this would stop the uncalled retaliatory statements that came out. Retirement does not stop one from becoming sanctioned. Pings can certainly happen at accident; I did not know at the time that linking to a user page would generate a ping; when I figured out, I eventually figured that that is probably included in an interaction ban, except during appeal of the ban. I have also in my early days accidentally pinged people. That is when I made the edit to reword and clarify.
      There is no way to speculate on the future, but if this is how AldezD will react in the event of an accidental violation or if Baseball Bugs were to engage in dispute resolution about the ban, then a two-way IBAN is the appropriate remedy. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does it matter either way? AldezD only came out of retirement in response to Baseball Bugs's ping (Which we are told was inadvertant) so, if he has really retired from Wikipedia (I am trying hard to work out how that user saw the ping without logging on) then it makes no difference whether he is subject to a ban or not. Just toss a coin to decide the outcome and close this. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Phil Bridger AldezD mentioned that they logged in to see what had been going on since their retirement, and that's when they saw the ping. [2] Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    request to lift or narrow topic ban

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

    Link to discussion which led to the ban. [3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • oppose per User_talk:Fabrickator#Topic ban violations I'm afraid user has been in violation of the topic ban and has been trying to induce others to edit on their behalf.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 22:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's inaccurate to characterize my communication as a case of "trying to induce others to edit on [my] behalf". Admittedly, the involved admin had used this wording, though he did not actually allege that is what I had done. What I actually had done was to point out that the guidance as stated when adding a [disputed section] tag required providing an explanation on the talk page for having added the tag. While I'm not suggesting that you intentionally misrepresented the situation, it could leave others with the impression that I was actually attempting to work around the restriction that was in place, and discourage them from expressing the opinion that my request should be honored. Fabrickator (talk) 07:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Fabrickator, what do you mean by "the involved admin had used this wording"? To whom are you referring? DanCherek (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The post that called out the violation is at User talk:Fabrickator#Topic_ban_violations. It's actually an IP address, so I guess I misspoke referring to this wording as having been made by an admin. The point is that in the case of this specific violation, the wording in which I allegedly attempted to induce others to post content "on my behalf" was a request to the user to describe the reason for having added the {{dispute}} tag to the article, as per the provided guidance on using such tags (see edit of User talk:Fabrickator/Topic Ban Violations). Fabrickator (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have explained one of the edits. The editor also called out this one. Why do you ignore that when you need to be scrupulously honest to have your ban lifted? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for raising this point. I wasn't trying to hide anything, but I find it challenging enough to post something and make sure all the links go to the right place, which I paticularly want to be careful of in the context of this sort of discussion.
    Here is the 9 November 2022 edit of Cattle slaughter in India that I was alerting the editor to. As pointed out in the edit comment, the text present in the 23 October 2022 revision of Cattle in religion and mythology stated "scope, extent and status of cows throughout ancient India", while in the target article, it states "scope, extent and status of cows throughout during ancient India". (This is in the last sentence of the edited text.) It appears to be that the word during was extraneous and had been inserted as a simple editing error. I suggested to the editor to correct that, something that would not seem to reasonably be considered as nefarious on my part. Fabrickator (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Challange of RfC closure (will discuss first)

    Talk:Operation Underground Railroad#RfC: Reliability of sources

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

    Note that FMSky has not contacted me about the closure to try to resolve the issue through discussion per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. I see a clear consensus of editors agreeing that the RfC should be closed and the content included in the body and lede. I'm not sure what the objection here is. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The link says "other closures (including requests for comment[5]) are discussed at WP:AN."
    The rfc initally had no consensus. Then when new sources came out, there was consensus to CLOSE this rfc and start a new one with these new sources. Please read again --FMSky (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard" (emphasis mine). I would've been happy to discuss your concerns with you (and still am), but coming here minutes after my close is jumping the gun.
    And I'm still not sure how that's an objection as I made no comment about whether another RfC is needed, though more than half the people agreeing it should be closed explicitly mentioned that a new RfC is not needed. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, i will discuss it with you first then. This can be closed.---FMSky (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FMSky has been a disruptive presence at that talkpage and the related Tim Ballard, arguing against the consensus of other editors that mainstream news publications reporting on Vice's investigation means that it is due to be included in the article. They've also been a disruptive presence on the talkpage of What is a Woman?, Including at one point arguing that the term anti-trans "could mean anything, such as anti-transvestite or anti-transglutaminase antibodies" [4], seemingly as facetious trolling. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on the topic, not the user. The rfc initally had no consensus. Then when new sources came out, there was consensus to CLOSE this rfc and start a new one with these new sources. Please read again --FMSky (talk) 05:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you should read about the concept of WP:BOOMERANG. The problem here is you, not FormalDude's close. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you focus on the topic at hand --FMSky (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic at hand here is you, as all the problems at the OUR article that resulted in the RFC in the first place were caused by your disruptive editing. I'm not the only editor to have had enough of your behaviour, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#What Is a Woman?. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Trust me, that feeling is mutual. However I'm here to improve articles, and will continue to do so within the guidelines of this site. It is my right to challenge an rfc close i deemed incorrect. you attacking me for a completely unrelated topic doesnt change that. -- FMSky (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal: 1-year transgender topic ban

    TOPIC BAN ENACTED.
    There is a very clear consensus that FMSky should be topic banned from transgender-related topics for a period of 1 year. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Survey

    • Support as proposer - as raised by Hemiauchenia above, in September 2023, when another editor used this Pink News source, which gives the description of the anti-trans What Is a Woman? film, FMSky argued that the source doesnt say "anti-transgender", as that term could mean anything, such as anti-transvestite or anti-transglutaminase antibodies [5] [6]. Noting that the source Pink News is focused on LGBT content, and that the source does not discuss any anti-transglutaminase antibodies at all, and even mentions transgender in the source. Wikipedia:Competence is required to edit this topic, and FMSky has failed to demonstrate that by having egregiously misread the source. starship.paint (RUN) 01:52, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That's obnoxious and concerning, but that one exchange isn't really enough to add an additional tban. There is perhaps an argument that the tban applied above should've been a typical AP tban given the combination of issues at Ballard, etc. and What Is a Woman, but given where we are now I think you'll need more diffs to substantiate this being needed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Rhododendrites: - consider the context, FMSky first started editing the article by removing anti-transgender and transphobic from the lede, despite six sources cited, on 16 June, then did it again on 24 August, with the comments: WP:WEIGHT, just as many sources dont see it like that and no need to highlight these fringe viewpoints, especially in the lead respectively. Over this time, FMSky also shifts the anti-transgender and transphobic further down the body six times despite being continually reverted: 16 July / 24 August / 25 August / 26 August first time / 26 August second time / 26 August third time. After this clear campaign to de-emphasize these terms, FMSky then objected to equating "anti-trans" to "anti-transgender", but now admits that they actually know "anti-trans" means "anti-transgender", yet they decided to initiate a talk page discussion objecting to that characterisation, thereby wasting the time of six other editors, and now admits that they actually provided a sarcastic reply, despite never mentioning this before, not even in the above discussion. This is disruptive behaviour. starship.paint (RUN) 13:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That was a sarcastic reply, I thought that was obvious. It was to demonstrate that it was essentially original research as it didn't specifically say anti transgender and could theoretically mean anything. If you block me from that topic area you would have to do the same with the other user that agreed with me https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=next&oldid=1174314760 FMSky (talk) 05:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So, to be clear, I believe this is the reference in question? And if I have that right, then your position is that "anti-trans" as used in the subhead could "theoretically mean anything" and to say it refers to transgender is original research? Dumuzid (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I know that it means anti transgender. But it didn't outright say it, that's my point. Imo when citing text we should say exactly what the sources say FMSky (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "Anti-trans" is so obviously "anti-transgender" in this context, though? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 09:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Its obviously either transgender or transsexual --FMSky (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...am I being trolled? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 10:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No why? I think these are the most common meanings (I could be wrong though, I'm not an expert on this). Im really not sure what you guys want from me so I'm not going to comment here any further --FMSky (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support for deliberately disingenuous conduct at the What Is A Woman talk page as highlighted by the nomination - for example, the "anti-transglutaminase" thing in the nomination, and accusing other editors who voted against his RSC of wanting "info suppressed from this page to make them feel better". I also would not oppose an AP TBAN, because the conduct at these articles has been less than acceptable - see, for example, describing Vice as a "biased far left outlet" while trying to argue against inclusion of something, before a week later adding Vice as a source to the Tim Ballard article, which is a BLP. I could go on. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment was struck out by me afterwards https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:What_Is_a_Woman%3F&diff=next&oldid=1177214005 and there are actually doubts about WP:VICEs reliablitly --FMSky (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, so you doubt a source's reliability and call it "biased" and "far-left", but you add it a few days later to a BLP, for which there's even more stringent sourcing policies? Something's not adding up. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 10:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sound of Freedom is covered by being related to Tim Ballard, which i have been banned from --FMSky (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I noticed that error at the same time you did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: Honestly, I think there's a lot more evidence for a topic ban from AP, where FMSky edits frequently and is consistently disruptive, than from GENSEX, which they edit relatively infrequently. However, because of the large overlap between the categories and because of how egregious the "anti-trans" argument was I'm still in support of a GENSEX topic ban. Loki (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I am unimpressed with their intransigence and their generally disruptive nature; they would be better off editing a subject area that does not so thoroughly demand knowledge, carefulness, and a full understanding in order to edit constructively. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

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

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

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

    Your own behavior may be scrutinized any time you post at a noticeboard. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good to know, I will think twice about visiting this page again in the future then.
    I have obviously made mistakes in the past, i acknowledge that, no one is perfect. I try to improve as a user every day and i generally take criticism very seriously as to not make the same mistakes twice --FMSky (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    At least five articles have been mentioned along with a number of associated talk pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would anyone's behaviour change between different articles anyway? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    socks

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

    The following accounts are  Confirmed to each other
    -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Superpes15: I think I found a few more accounts -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guerillero: Many thanks for the ping! Indeed Tamilpoetrycritic and Aivazovkyan are not registered on tawiki, this starts to be a cross-wiki issue, will evaluate the situation better at this point ;) Superpes15 (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add these accounts as well
    this should probably get listed at WP:SPI -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I dont know where to put this

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

    Maybe I misunderstand you, but issues with Google knowledge panels are not our concern; you will need to contact Google. 331dot (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the Google algorithms have detected that the fully functional desktop site works just fine on mobile devices, and that the mobile site, on the other hand, is still an impediment to collaborative editing, after many years of unsuccessful efforts to improve it. Cullen328 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Many blocks shouldn't be indef

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

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

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

    Would anyone wait two years before contributing constructively? Assuming run-of-the-mill disruption, the blocked user could easily get unblocked by posting a plausible request after a period which might be as little as a month. Being nice to people is great except that doing that often involves disruption for other editors. A good editor can get tired of monitoring more and more nonsense and may leave if disruption is not controlled. Indefs play a valuable role in saving community time and energy, and they are not forever. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Define "forever". I think I have seen people indefd blocked for 15 years or more with no updates from the initial block if Im not mistaken. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I have seen people indefd blocked for 15 years or more Are you saying that you followed Wikipedia's internal matters for over 7 years before you started editing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been around since 2001, although not registered. Also, I was thinking in the date they got blocked not that I saw them getting blocked. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're here to be disruptive, they will create sockpuppets anyway (and these will only be discovered if the vandalism is distinctive enough to convince of aikely connection); there's no difference in this context between a month and indef. If they're here to be helpful, and simply don't understand the problems with their edits, a shorter term block will give them time to learn our policies better. Animal lover |666| 06:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    An indef block does not mean "forever". It means "until a convincing unblock request is made". We can't control if people think they won't be unblocked, which would apply even if an end date is put on the block. I've unblocked accounts where the user says "I was a stupid teenager 5 years ago and won't do that stuff again", no problem. 331dot (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Accounts whose first edits are vandalism virtually never go on to make constructive edits, which is why we block vandalism only accounts. Indef blocks are also not permanent - they can actually be quite short if the user posts an appeal in which they acknowledge their error and make a convincing commitment to not repeat it. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's say I created an account as a teenager, vandalised a few pages, gotten blocked, and then five years later came back with the intention of contributing legitimately: I would have two options available to me. Option A, assuming I could remember the original username and password (or was still using the same email address I was back then), I could log into the old account and request unblock. That would likely be granted, but I think I would be more likely to take Option B, to create an entirely new account and just start editing. Option B is technically a WP:BADSOCK violation, but who would ever know? Nobody would report my new account, because I wasn't being disruptive, and the old account would be stale for CU purposes even if anyone ever did suspect a connection. I expect there are many constructive contributors active on the site, who are technically evading blocks on ancient accounts they used abusively in the dim and distant. Does anyone care? Girth Summit (blether) 10:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Indeed, we've had at least one user elected to adminship who acknowledged having taken "Option B". See the examples at User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock. Part of me thinks we should formalize something like allowing cleanstarts for simple vandalism/DE blocks after 1 year, but at the same time IAR seems to work decently in cases where this has arisen—combined with the fact that, as you say, most people just never mention they're technically socking (cf. User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return and User:Tamzin/Lot's wife.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking generally: Indefinite is not infinite. Indefinite just means that the behavior is severe enough to warrant a full stop to editing until the poor behavior is addressed in a convincing unblock request. However if you want anything concrete to happen you should probably post specific usernames/blocks that you'd like reviewed. Hard to action anything without diffs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Proposal: Ok, what about putting a technical limit of 10 years to indef blocks so it doesn't become a permanent block? That means that after 10 years the account is automatically unblocked. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a solution to a problem that has not yet been articulated. What is the problem with the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of extant indef-blocked throwaway vandalism-only accounts remaining blocked? Girth Summit (blether) 20:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (About a million and a half. —Cryptic 20:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC))[reply]
    "giving chance to other editors to become productive and learn the ropes in Wikipedia." Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a "permanent block", as I said above. I don't think that 10 years would make a difference- this is a solution looking for a problem. Editors have the chance to return and be productive editors- request unblocking. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of the millions of "extant indef-blocked throwaway vandalism-only accounts" probably there is a margin of error of at least 1%. That would mean tens of thousands of potential legitimate editors blocked indefinitely. Regarding the appeal, the question is what's the proportion of editors who would be legitimate who are deterred by the sole look of their account still blocked after years vs the proportion who would submit an appeal. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How have you calculated this MOE? 331dot (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit said "possibly millions", then if a margin of error is 1% of possibly millions then it follows "tens of thousands of potential legitimate editors". Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't the question. 331dot was asking where you got 1% from. Mz7 (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that makes no sense to me. If you created an account years ago, and now want to edit constructively, you'd just create a new account. I see no reason to change the status quo. Girth Summit (blether) 21:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's quite a begging of the question. Assuming a 1% margin of error on no evidence and then determining that because of this margin of error that we have tens of thousands of falsely indeffed editors (who chose not to make an unblock request, to boot)? Rather than swinging for the fences, it'd be worthwhile to base your guesswork on some actual statistics. I'd be interested to know if there has been any research done regarding the block ratio of editors, specifically sampling those who were indef blocked but then eventually unblocked, and of that, what percentage of them turned out to be blocked incorrectly and for what reason. I think that's a better way to base the premise of your argument than just picking a random number. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't reach a conclusion. I left it at possibility (notice the key words "if", "probably", "would"). And in statistics a margin of error is included in formulas. I don't think it would be scientific to assume that all blocks are 100% accurate with no margin of error whatsoever, specially if there are "millions" as Girth Summit mentioned.
    I support the inquiry you mentioned. I am a regular user so I don't have access to those statistics. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually have pretty much the opposite view. Outside of logged-out editing, where an IP address could be reassigned to an innocent user, most blocks should be indefinite. Blocking is not a punishment; it is merely a technical measure by which we can prevent someone from editing while concerns about their editing need to be addressed. If those concerns are addressed in a satisfactory manner, then we will lift the block. Temporary blocks can and do have a preventative role, especially in edit warring blocks, where they serve to stop the edit warring in the short term and deter future edit warring in the long term—see WP:BLOCKDETERRENT. On the whole, however, I think that temporary blocks are actually more likely to be ineffective and/or seen as "punitive" because it allows a user to simply wait out the block without ever addressing the disruptive behavior. Mz7 (talk) 21:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I whole-heartedly agree with Mz7. Almost all of the blocks I have imposed on accounts have been indef. IPs are different, since they tend to be impermanent, and there is no point indeffing an IP because an LTA used it one time. But accounts - why do we block them? Because the people using them are not following our policies and guidelines. Does a break from editing make them follow those PAGs? Rarely. Better to say 'You can't edit until you read them, and agree to follow them'. Then, by all means, unblock early and unblock often.
    Here is an example: Koitus~nlwiki. I imposed a temporary block on their account, because they were edit warring and insulting people. They returned to insulting people almost immediately after the temporary block expired. It wasn't anything particularly egregious - I think he called his opponent a fool, or something like that - but I reblocked and made it indefinite. They badgered me on my talk page on meta for a few weeks, but I was clear that all they needed to do in order to be unblocked was to commit to abide by the no personal attacks policy. That seems to have been too much for them, so they remain blocked to this day. I see no reason why a block like that should expire automatically, when it would be so trivially easy for the subject of the block to get it lifted.
    Folk who genuinely want to contribute here constructively have plenty of guidance on what they need to do to get unblocked. The fact that there are so many indef blocked accounts is mostly due to the fact that some people make numerous accounts to cause trouble, and to a lesser extent because some people stick to one account, but are unwilling to follow the rules agreed upon and imposed by the community. The middle ground between those two positions is a bit of a grey area, but as I've said, people who find themselves there are most likely to just create a new account and hope that the connection to their naughty earlier selves will never be discovered. Girth Summit (blether) 22:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to have been too much for them, so they remain blocked to this day. I see no reason why a block like that should expire automatically, when it would be so trivially easy for the subject of the block to get it lifted. To me, I think this speaks volumes. Vandalism-only accounts who get blocked and then are specifically told what process they need to follow likely cannot think of a justification any more sophisticated than "I did it for lulz lmao" so they don't even bother. On the other hand, contributors who feel they have been grossly wronged or blocked by an egregiously aggressive admin will generally make an unblock request, and they are armed with all of the appropriate resources to do so. Possibly the only thing that our process doesn't really cover in WP:NOTTHEM is how to handle the latter case of an overzealous cowboy admin, but even then, it suggests asking for input from an WP:UNINVOLVED admin.
    Wikipedia has over 6.7M articles. Let's not bend over backwards for editors who want to ruin them. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed there seems to be a consensus against my proposal of 10 year limit for indef blocks. But I don't think such a limit constitute much of "bending over backwards for editors who want to ruin [articles]". I was thinking of potential legitimate editors who outgrow their vandalism phase and give them an automatic chance after 10 years. Not really the same like lifting a block after a month or even a year. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would oppose this, as this is neither kindergarten nor a remedial school. A new user to the site must have the competence to comport themselves to the social norms of the community they are joining, and if they cannot manage that simple task, then they do not belong here, frankly. A user who has made mistakes but shows a willingness to learn from them should be able to articulate an unblock rationale good enough to get an indefinite block lifted. Call it a Wiki-Litmus Test. Zaathras (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't 2006, when I started. The website is a big deal now, compared to what it was, so the standard for blocking have, and should, change. Most new users coming in vandalising, yes, should be indef. Sometimes I will block for a few days if they did some good stuff and some bad stuff, to see if I can get the point across. When I have followed up, the vast majority of time, they either never came back, or went back to vandalising. Rarely did any come back to contribute in a positive manner. So to agree with the above, we probably need MORE indef blocks, not fewer. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No This has loads of problems. As stated above, this is already meaningless. If an editor wants to be unblocked, they can request so. What this would do is unblock thousands upon thousands of bad faith accounts, some of which were operated by extremely abusive LTA's who would most certainly use this hypothetical update to their advantage, attacking this website with their numerous now-unblocked accounts, which would take forever to reblock. And, for all our hard work, they would just get unblocked again in another 10 years. No way. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Map Hoax of Inca Empire

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


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

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

    Yeah. Original research (or POV pushing, or just plain fantasy) is a frequent feature of maps found on Commons. Unless they can be verified to be cited to, and based solely on, a single valid source, they aren't WP:RS, and shouldn't be used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that they are. Specifically (I can’t speak Spanish or Occitan fluently to remove them there without getting seen as a vandal) the Occitan Article about the Inca Empire (labeled good article) has the second map on it, and the Spanish one uses these en masse. These https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pachacuti-conquest.png, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tupac-inca-conquest.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Late-intermediate-peru.png are also used quite often, including on the English wiki. More specifically I’ve removed them from Pachacuti, while theyr still on Topa Inca Yupanqui and possibly some other pages. On wikimedia you can see these last ones are used, tragically, on so many articles, that's a lot of work left. The Inca Empire being a subject where interpretation is often wide in historiography, this has probably gone through the radar.
    Regards, Reman Empire (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Heck the "source" for the Occitan map is literally "Own Work". Worse, the source for the first and main hoax (the one reverting the original by Rowe, and the one now easily findable on the web through a simple google search) is also "Own Work". That should be enough for deletion, right ? Reman Empire (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, Commons is run by people who don't think that being complete crap is a valid reason to delete content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we at least put some warnings on these maps? The only map that has a warning of "lacks source" on it is the only map that apparently is correct? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:37, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a Template:Fact disputed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    After further research the original version of this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inca_Expansion.svg, (i.e one of the two maps I think are correct) was also the potential hoax, but the user who created it changed it. I have seen this type of map (the current one, not the Hoax) on a lot of works, including Rowe's, and so I changed the source to one of Rowe’s books, before removing it again because of that History of the map. I don’t know when or how this came to be (I’m starting to think this has its origine on another site), but the one thing I’m sure of is that 1. This map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inca-expansion-map.png was never in any academic work, at least not before the 2010s, 2. Most often maps of Inca expansion don’t coincide fully with what the historian supporting it's use actually writes (Do to the wide range of possibilities and interpretations), but, for exemple, no historian has ever, ever, ever to this day, wrote that Inca Emperor Huayna Capac conquered all of that land south and 3. that some of these are clearly above all original research: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Late-intermediate-peru.png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Empèri_Inca.png. In other subjects this may be excepted since there are clearly outlined facts and data, but the Inca Empire, as a Precolombian state with no writing system we could decipher, is a subject where so much is possible that just making a map out of your head from what some XVIth century chronicle you’ve read says, and then slapping "Own Work" on it, can not correctly inform people. Reman Empire (talk) 09:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    IP range belonging to "49.206..." making disruptive changes against policies like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOINDICSCRIPT and edit warring. May be an LTA.
    IP addresses belonging to the range - [7] [8]
    Pages frequented by the IP range - [9] [10] [11] as well as numerous transport related articles from the southern Indian states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. So would like to request range-block or partial range block on these IP range. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging from the editing area (Karnataka, and transport related), seems like an IP sock of LTA User:Lokeshwaran V R, see the SPI case page [12]. See the editing history ([13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]) and the warnings for disregard of WP:COMMONNAME on their talk page [20]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    More IPs from the range - [21] [22]. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked 49.206.128.0/22 for a month. Please let us know if the disruption spreads outside that range. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: I would definitely. Thank you. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    block

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

    You have not left a notice on User:Herapalace's talk page, which you must do. I have done so for you. Tessaract2Hi! 20:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the actual issue at hand, it seemingly doesn't belong at AN, but there's merit to making a report. Herapalace and Muatsem90 are edit warring at The Escape of the Seven over the genre, but Herapalace's preferred version (fantasy) isn't supported by the source, at least by my quick glance, and their edit leaves an easter egg anyhow. I'll drop them a note in a bit. (edit: note has been dropped) Tessaract2Hi! 20:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleting an image I uploaded

    I uploaded the wrong image on Wikipedia commons and I want help removing it Capreolkid (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't worry, they will be deleted as copyright violations in no time. Bedivere (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I"m pretty sure you can just speedy delete it by tagging it. --RockstoneSend me a message! 21:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If no one else has edited it, tag it as {{db-author}}. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom Electoral Commission nominations open

    Nominations for the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections are now open. — Frostly (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Please Help Me

    Hello, I'm Aviram7 but I unable to edit our main account @User:Aviram7 due to lost of password and gmail or my main account protected from 2 Factor, so, I unable to recover to old data due to phone format, Then I created yesterday alt account of @Aviram7. please see this.ÀvîRâm7(talk) 04:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Aviram7 (alt): Admins cannot recover your password. You are allowed to start using a new account, provided the old account is no longer used. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tgeorgescu: Thanks for reply, my main account already stopped by probelm , no more edit but they contains specific user right like, Pcr, rollback etc,any admin can I transform userright from Aviram7 to Aviram7 (alt) because I going to continue editing on Wikipedia from this account. Kind regards ÀvîRâm7(talk) 05:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HJ Mitchell, ToBeFree, and Oshwah: Can you help about that because I'm in trouble and unable editing from main account on Wikipedia due to password lost, gmail lost and other phone data , I'm confirmed I'm Aviram7, please help me. Kind regards ÀvîRâm7(talk) 05:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The page of Geneva School of Diplomacy and International relations has been deleted

    Hello,


    We would like to bring to your quick attention that the page of Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Switzerland, has been deleted and no notification explaining the reason was sent.


    We would like the page reinstated ASAP. We suspect conflict of interest with such deletion. Thank you for your quick attention and action. GSD Communication Team (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You will need to change your username to something more individualistic, please see your user talk page. You will also need to make a formal paid editing disclosure.
    The subject of an article is not typically notified that the article is being deleted, unless they already have an account and are monitoring it in their watchlist.
    Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations was deleted in 2021 as a copyright infringement, but perhaps you are referring to something more recent? 331dot (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1178387997"