Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Immanuelle (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 13 December 2023 (→‎Counter-proposal: Reply). 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 12 20 32
    TfD 0 0 0 2 2
    MfD 0 0 0 2 2
    FfD 0 0 0 0 0
    RfD 0 0 5 17 22
    AfD 0 0 0 1 1


    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
    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
    Ebrahim Raisi 2024-05-19 22:02 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBIRP; upgrade to WP:ECP, 2024 Varzaqan helicopter crash-related; aiming for the short term (remind me) El C

    2,000+ admin actions in violation of WP:BAN

    General Discussion

    As the dust settles from [1], something has been nagging at me: There are now about 1,000 blocks and 1,000 deletions, plus some other admin actions, that were performed in violation of an ArbComBan. To my knowledge, this is the first time this has happened in the modern era of Wikipedia adminning (i.e. since c. 2012). Now, editors have broad discretion to revert actions made in violation of a ban, and WP:RAAA would not apply here for multiple reasons, but in this case most actions will be trivially valid, anti-vandalism and -spam actions. But not all of them. Some will be judgment-calls, even tough ones, where we deferred to the discretion of a fellow admin, and where that discretion should maybe now be reviewed.

    Should there be some kind of review, particularly of the blocks? I could put together a list of outstanding tempblocks and p-blocks, plus indefs of any established users, and admins could reblock in cases where we're willing to assume responsibility. Maybe that's too much, and I'm aware of the WP:DENY aspect here, but at the same time, if I got blocked and then found out the blocking admin was a sock, I'd be pretty damn pissed, and I think we owe it to those people to at least take a look at whether the blocks were any good. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 17:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there any actions that stand out to be particularly egregious after a cursory glance? The Night Watch (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Probably, most of the admin actions she did are ones that no admin would have declined. Such actions should be left alone.
    2. You probably won't get admins to mass-review her actions. Even her deletions, which non-admins can't.
    3. If you believe any specific action she did was incorrect, feel free to request admin review.
    4. Any admin may undo her actions without it being wheel-warring.
    Animal lover |666| 18:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reblocking will just give the user a longer block log, which they might not appreciate. I think it would be better to just list the blocks on a page somewhere (akin to a CCI), and have admins tick "yes, reviewed, I would have made that block". The willingness to assume bad faith shown in this thread suggests that yes, there might be some blocks which need to be undone. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally agree with above that we should 1) apply the reasonable admin standard and 2) not change blocks or other actions unless they don't meet that standard, which I think leads to 3) probably should only list the "currently active" things, whether deletion, block, or protection (or other action). WP:VOLUNTEER as to the utility/necessity of such work. Izno (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone wants to do the hard work of going through 2,000 actions and bring them up for community review, I guess I can't stop them. But I don't think its necessary. The right thing is to do what we would do with any action committed by an admin removed for cause: review it when it comes up, and add that admin's conduct as a factor to be weighed. For example, ArbCom already does that. We occasionally get appeals from users who were blocked by now banned or otherwise disgraced users. We don't automatically undo the block because of who made it. But we do investigate more deeply than we usually would into whether the block was right in the first place. I would be opposed to unblocking or reblocking accounts sua sponte. For unblocking, we don't allow third party unblocks. Why unblock an account banned 5 years ago if the user is long gone? For reblocking, not only does that consideration apply, but further, reblocking after a long time is inadvisable because you weren't there when the inciting incident happened, and thus might miss something. That would also serve to obfuscate who got blocked by Lourdes in the first place, which might make undoing a bad Lourdes block harder. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know how this slipped through my radar, but that is an absolutely stunning turn of events. My jaw literally dropped reading that diff. It might be worth looking through anything active, but that is a lot of work that might not have much benefit. If there was ever consensus to undo actions en masse, bot ops with admin bots (like myself) could be pinged/contacted to assist. --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't this the posterboy for a legitimate WP:XRV use? jp×g🗯️ 23:54, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would oppose a blanket reversal (which I don't think anyone has suggested yet, but it seems inevitable) but don't have an issue with more contentious blocks being listed for review. If someone is willing to do the excruciatingly boring work of compiling those, they have my thanks in advance. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't envy the work. This is like when a crooked cop gets caught and then all of the arrests the cop made need to be looked at. Lightburst (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't envy the work, and I've been involved in some of these mass review projects, from GNIS (still ongoing) to the one with all of the sportspeople. This seems worse. CaptainEek, I have sympathies for someone who might have been illegitimately blocked and as a result just walked away thinking that Wikipedia was run by idiots. We cannot necessarily rely on people coming to complain as a driving force. We should at least look. And we should differentiate between blocks to enforce bans (Are there even any?) and blocks that are not part of banning. Uncle G (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Marking this with future timestamp (2 weeks) to stop bot from automatically archiving sections that still needs actions. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that anyone who wants to say anything on the blocks has more or less done so. Are there any other things we need to review? Fermiboson (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Three blocks that still have "unfinished business" (Darshan Kavadi, Omer123hussain and Timfoley50). OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Here's my blessing on whatever is needed for the Foley potential unblock. They asked me to stay off their page and happy to oblige while simultaneously not obstructing you or any other admin @OhanaUnited Star Mississippi 03:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    AN/I boards

    As Lourdes herself noted, comments given on AN/I also carry admin authority, and randomly scrolling through archives I do see that she was quite active in terms of participating in discussions, threatening (or recommending) admin actions, or closing threads and sending people elsewhere. Is there a point in looking at those actions as well? Fermiboson (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    IP Blocks to review

    ipb_address actor_name disposition
    Special:Contributions/65.28.77.182 Lourdes removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/136.34.132.39 Lourdes removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/172.58.63.16 Lourdes removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B03E:3864:0:0:0:0/64 Lourdes removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/2600:1007:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 Lourdes removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/2804:1054:3010:0:0:0:0:0/44 Lourdes checkY OK - there's an LTA sitting on this range and major disruption re-occurred immediately that a previous 1-year block expired. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/49.145.0.0/20 Lourdes checkY Only a partial block on four articles, and appeared to be justified. Black Kite (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/2600:4040:AA53:F500:0:0:0:0/64 Lourdes removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/104.226.30.18 Lourdes removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/86.157.242.237 Lourdes removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/2603:9009:800:B1A7:0:0:0:0/64 Lourdes removed — xaosflux Talk 00:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/2600:1700:10E1:1D20:0:0:0:0/64 Lourdes checkY This one is good - persistent falsifying of BLP birthdates over a period of months. Black Kite (talk) 09:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/172.97.45.5 Lourdes Question? This is the Martin Bayerle spammer, also User:Imagixx. Could probably be dealt with via a few pblocks from particular articles. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/1.152.104.0/21 Lourdes checkY Persistent disruption and vandalism over many months, previous blocks. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/1.136.104.0/21 Lourdes checkY As per the entry immediately above. Black Kite (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/45.237.49.1 Lourdes checkY Absolutely good - admins can see why. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/109.228.71.226 Lourdes Probably OK, expires in a couple of days anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/109.101.69.23 Lourdes removed - Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/182.228.179.154 Lourdes removed, and then restored after they began vandalising again. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/154.180.107.122 Lourdes Block evasion, expires in a couple of days. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/62.4.55.186 Lourdes Same user as 109.228.71.226 above, expires shortly - Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    These are the IP blocks made by Lourdes that are still active as of today. I suggest that an admin review each one and decide if it should be removed or kept (I've done some already). This is a very small subset of the above. There were no indefinite IP blocks. — xaosflux Talk 00:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For anyone interested, here are the username blocks (most are indef): Special:PermaLink/1183546654. — xaosflux Talk 00:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at two random username blocks. I suppose that a reasonably thorough administrator would not overlook deleting the page User:Journal of BIoresources and Bioproducts (obvious copyvio etc.) when blocking for the very reason of creating such pages. There may be omissions of this type or of some other type. —Alalch E. 00:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocks of users with 100+ edits

    Without prejudice against looking at the full ~900 account blocks, I've triaged this to a list of users with at least 100 edits. My reasoning is that blocks of low-editcount users are much more likely to be routine vandal/spam blocks, and that a brand-new editor who was wrongly blocked will probably have either just created a new account, WP:SOCK be damned, or been scared away for good.

    Username Expiry Disposition
    Amitamitdd (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Kthxbay (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Sockpuppetry confirmed (although not necessarily to master) @ Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive § 08 May 2020. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jib Yamazaki (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nlivataye (talk · contribs) infinity checkY User talk:Nlivataye#June 2023 is not inspiring. Izno (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AlhyarJy (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Saucysalsa30 (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Had community support at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1130#Block consideration for Saucysalsa30. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wallacevio (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    GRanemos1 (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Donovyegg (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Chamaemelum (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Validly-enacted siteban. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gbe Dutu (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Reasonable failure-to-respond block. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Abdel hamid67 (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Had community support @ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134 § Unreferenced articles by User:Abdel hamid67. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DaleEarnhardt292001 (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1134#User:DaleEarnhardt292001; user did not request an unblock. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Darshan Kavadi (talk · contribs) infinity exclamation mark  See below. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked, see below. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A E WORLD (talk · contribs) infinity Question? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Mass overlinking and poor grammar 'corrections' by relatively new editor was the report. Whilst I am not convinced that the accountholder can write, at User talk:A E WORLD#August 2023 2, Lourdes and others seem to be putting up more and more hoops for the accountholder to jump through. Exactly how is the person supposed to prove that xe will do something that xe has stated xe will do? Uncle G (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Chuachenchie (talk · contribs) infinity exclamation mark  See below. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Golden Mage (talk · contribs) infinity Not confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Datu Hulyo/Archive, and although the block was for disruption it was for disruption that was the same pattern as that sockpuppteer. Tamzin? Uncle G (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Knew there was a reason this one rang a bell. I was quite confident on Golden Mage being Datu Hulyo at the SPI, and Courcelles backed that up on technical evidence. I might have waited a bit longer for an answer on why they were running three accounts, had Lourdes not blocked GM, but 2+1⁄2 months later GM/DH/John still hasn't explained what they were doing, so this block checkY should probably stand. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 04:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ptb1997 (talk · contribs) infinity ☒N Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1139#User:Ptb1997 might have been a trigger-happy block, but the rest of the community shares in the shame of this given Special:Diff/1176584689. The accountholder promised to do better back in September, and our collective response to this for two months has been massively bureaucratic, including ignoring that diff twice over simply because it wasn't put in an unblock request box. Uncle G (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked, see below. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 16:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Egerer12 (talk · contribs) infinity Question? This was discounted as a sockpuppet by Tamzin, but is one of the accounts that has heavily contributed to the fact that Draft: namespace and the article namespace are now full of duplicate Country at the 2024 Summer Olympics articles, e.g. Mozambique at the 2024 Summer Olympics and the identical Draft:Mozambique at the 2024 Summer Olympics. This is a massive waste of AFC reviewers' time, especially as there's a backlog of several thousand drafts to review, and would that there were a speedy deletion criterion for getting rid of all of the duplicate drafts! Uncle G (talk) 05:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A full block for WP:Communication is required may be warranted here rather than the article space block. This editor has literally never edited user talk namespace. Izno (talk) 06:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    574X (talk · contribs) infinity checkY Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#574X already had support from ScottishFinnishRadish. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yafie Achmad Raihan (talk · contribs) infinity Question? Non-English speaker blocked for not communicating at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Concerning page moves by Yafie Achmad Raihan. Account's Indonesian Wikipedia block log is clean for that and more page moves. Uncle G (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblocked by Mackensen. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 01:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Silveresc (talk · contribs) 20231105051320 checkY Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141 § Long term POV disruptive editing at Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Not sure the situation was handled optimally, but it's a p-block and expires imminently, so meh. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sinwiki12 (talk · contribs) infinity Not a sockpuppeteer per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sinwiki12/Archive, but the block was for repeated whitewashing of Chinese topic articles and diffs such as Special:Diff/1138585762 (Hello, Bbb23!) do indicate that there was a problem here. The account definitely had an article editing agenda that what Wikipedia said about China was all lies put about by American newspapers, and edited several articles in that vein (e.g. Special:Diff/1175736935). See also Special:Diff/1019125984. I suspect that this account would have ended up being blocked in the long run. Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AbrahamCat (talk · contribs) infinity Incivility block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#User:AbrahamCat at Choke (sports). Worth a quick peer-review by someone here, but on its face it's likely good. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Omer123hussain (talk · contribs) infinity Nota bene* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1141#Omer123hussain: persistent sourcing issues definitely needs peer review. It's in the Indian topics area that Wifione was restricted from. Uncle G (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 00:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darshan Kavadi

    Resolved
    • I would say that the block on User:Darshan Kavadi (DK) deserves a second look (and possibly reversed for being a bad block). DK was first warned of their disruptive editing behaviour on July 26. DK disengaged and edited other articles on August 1. No other edits were made by DK after August 2. ANI report was filed on August 8 but closed because Lourdes went straight for indef block on first instance. The appearance of non-communication by DK was a self-fulfilling prophecy because DK never had a chance to reply (or saw it too late). It's almost like DK was punished for disengaging from the disputed page in question. No admin would have issued a indef block on a single warning on an account who hasn't edited for a week, which makes Lourdes's actions punitive instead of preventative. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chuachenchie

    • Here's another questionable block. User:Chuachenchie has been editing since November 2020 and had 9k edits. Edits are a mixture of bad (OR, BLP) and good (ITN noms). Lourdes once again went right to indef block and not start off with short blocks and escalate from there. Editor remains active on zh.wp. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • That block was made as a result of this report. That editor managed to make over 9k edits without once talking to anybody or even leaving an edit summary. Communicating with other editors isn't really optional. Lourdes did leave a warning, which was ignored, and there were numerous previous attempts by other people to talk to this editor, which were also ignored. The block doesn't look unreasonable. Hut 8.5 14:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The fact that Lourdes went for an indef block as the first block shows a series of trigger-happy blocks that dish out maximum sentence from the get-go (at least I wouldn't in that circumstance). OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For a lack of communication I would generally go with an indef since editors who don't communicate will usually ignore a short term block - an indefinite block forces communication. I don't really see an indef as a maximum sentence here, just "blocked until they communicate". Galobtter (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Has anyone tried contacting them on zhwiki in Chinese? I may be able to if someone tells me what to say. As far as I can tell the issue here is language proficiency and CIR, which can be discussed with the editor. Fermiboson (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, looking at their edits on zhwiki, they have no edits outside of template and mainspace there either.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I warned them with {{Uw-editsummary}} on zhwiki. Got ignored there too. NM 02:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @OhanaUnited, an indef for refusing to communicate is not a "maximum sentence". It's IMO a completely reasonable way to require communication commence rather than simply allowing someone to wait it out. An indef can be lifted five minutes later by any admin. Many admins are reluctant to lift a timed block, so an indef can actually be much shorter. All it takes is convincing someone the person is able and sincerely willling to address the issue. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      This exercise is to review the indef-trigger-happiness by Loudres. We already have two indef-block accounts overturned by other admins (and another two accounts that has the potential to be overturned) because the block length is not in proportion to the severity. And in my opinion, this is more borderline than those cases. But this user continues to edit in zh.wp, which makes a stronger case that we should review the possibility to reattract this editor back into the en.wp project (unlike other dormant accounts) with a clear explanation of communication expectation by the community before being unblocked. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd be willing to consider a conditional unblock: the editor agrees to respond to messages on their user talk (which they've never done, not even once, literally zero edits to any talk page including their own, and if I'm reading it right, has also never done on zh.wiki) and to start using edit summaries (which they've done once in 9000+ edits). Valereee (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've left a message at their talk. Valereee (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I am the original author of the ANI discussion. Just for the record, the editor still continues to exhibit the exact same behavior (OR, BLP, no edit summary, never respond to TP messages) on zhwiki that should have got them banned there a long time ago. NM 02:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Omer123hussain

    • I made the report on Omer123hussain that led to the block above. I think it's justified; there's serious OR issues there; but nobody else seems to want to engage with it. I will not be taking any admin action, though I'm not necessarily capital-I Involved. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I saw that ANI report and didn't have time to look into it, but I was glad someone did and took action (those kind of ANI reports get very little attention). I checked Talk:Hyderabad#Dubious which Lourdes linked to and Omer123hussain's use of a 100 year old source and simple refusal to provide the quote from the source that supports their material looks very problematic. I can look into this more and take over the block if needed, but I don't think this block should be overturned simply because of the situation with Lourdes.
      • It seems these block reviews are less "that was a bad block" but more some admins think Lourdes should've been more lenient, 🤷🏾‍♀️. Galobtter (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the block needs to be looked at. I've raised it with Omer123hussain and I'll see if the is an option that doesn't involve going straight to an indefinite ban from mainspace. I agree that there is an issue with their editing, but with 9000+ edits and multiple GAs I'd like to look for an alternative solution. - Bilby (talk) 05:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the contrary, Lourdes was Wifione and per Wifione's Arbitration Committee restrictions should not have been involving xyrself in this at all. They were Indian topics and at least one was a biography of a living Indian person. This was most definitely bad. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Uncle G:, I believe what Galobtter is saying is that the block stands on its merits. We're not planning (I assume) to revert every one of Lourdes's ~24k contributions; by the same logic we shouldn't reverse a block that another admin endorses. Your logic is applicable to any block Lourdes made, including the obvious vandals, because Wifione didn't have any restrictions that were ARBIPA-wide; just Indian BLPs and educational institutions. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, it clearly only extends to topic that Wifione was prohibited from, not any blocks. This block is squarely an administrative action in the prohibited topic area. At least one of the articles in the complaint about Omer123hussain was a biography of a living Indian person, and as it was about more than the specific edits cited but about Omer123hussain's editing history in general, which extends to a lot of India-related stuff, that would have likely touched upon more prohibited Indian topics. Lourdes should never have touched this. Xe was prohibited from it as an editor, let alone as an administrator. Uncle G (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ptb1997

    Resolved
    • I'm on the fence about Ptb1997. As is sadly often the case when an admin places a block "Until user resolves issue X", the implied promise there hasn't been upheld in subsequent unblock proceedings. Sadly the accept/decline-focused nature of unblock requests leads to a lot of situations like this, where a user has said most of what they need to say but maybe needs to go into a bit more detail, and instead just gets declined on with little explanation. So with all that in mind I'd tend toward an unblock, with a warning about communication. However, there's also the matter of Ptb19975555, their sock. Evading a block imposed by someone who was in turn evading a ban is not something that WP:SOCK as a policy has ever contemplated, but either way, first offense for socking by an otherwise constructive user is normally 1-4 weeks, so I think commuting to time served, with warnings about communication and socking, would still be reasonable. Or at least I've mostly convinced myself of that in the course of writing this comment. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 06:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I'm in favour of forgiving the sockpuppetry (which was also handled bureaucratically, with its edits reverted because it was a sockpuppet), unblocking, with a statement that the community expects Special:Diff/1176584689 to be made good on, and will be found a more welcoming place for editors who talk to other editors. Especially as the warnings going back "8 years" turn out to be disambiguation 'bots, bracket 'bots, people talking about where punctuation goes in lists, why not to boldface things, birthdates in biographies, and which sportsperson gets player statistics. Only 7 of the warnings/requests were over the whole of 2023, and 3 of those were 'bots. And clearly the accountholder does communicate on occasion: Special:Diff/841858412. Hence why I think that it was a trigger-happy block. Uncle G (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • This seems a case of someone who genuinely wants to contribute but made some communication errors. I'd favour unblocking, at least as a trial. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with Espresso Addict. I think we can unblock and keep an eye. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblocked with warnings for non-communication and sockpuppetry. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 16:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yafie Achmad Raihan

    Resolved
    • I am involved with this in the sense that I raised the initial discussion about this user. Luck has it that they have just requested an unblock on promise that they will not do any more wrong page moves. There is something weird with their usage of the unblock template so it may not have turned up on any admin's radar yet. – robertsky (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem was that it was in a <nowiki> section. Animal lover |666| 19:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Restricting someone editing from article space just because they messed up on moving articles appear to be unproportional response. This is another case of using the sledgehammer-size block on something minor. Could have simply impose a "don't do any more moves or you will be blocked" warning. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The block served its purpose; the editor has acknowledged it and promises to avoid the disputed behavior. I'll unblock. Mackensen (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I realise I'm not an admin, but would it be of help if I was the one to go through the 900+ other account bans and raise anything that I find here? I want to help to clean up the mess in any way possible. Fermiboson (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fermiboson Yes please. That will be appreciated. Most of the activities that resulted in blocks can be viewed by anyone. It'll benefit from more lights shining onto this issue. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked accounts with 100- edits

    A non-admin review of the rest of the blocks which could potentially be mistakes. The log has been reviewed up to the date of 19 March 2019. There are also a number of promotional userspaces which were not deleted, which I have CSD tagged on my own.

    Username Expiry Concern
    Anarkaliofara (talk · contribs) infinity Edits were in the area of Indian castes, and not much community input appears to have happened at the AN/I thread, although there is undoubtedly some form of incivility/personal attack at minimum going on. Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A Big Cold Moon (talk · contribs) infinity Single revdel'd edit. Appears to be in relation to Esomeonee7 (talk · contribs), a Saudi POV pusher/vandal. Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thegreatbooboo! (talk · contribs) infinity Does appear to be a nonsense-only account, but it would be better if someone checked the deleted contribs. Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    TheSharpBlade (talk · contribs) infinity Nothing at all in the logs. Revdel'd BLP? Fermiboson (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Germanicus44 (talk · contribs) infinity Block for disruptive/POV editing w/r Ottomans, but nobody except WP:INVOLVED editors seems to have taken a look.

    Given editing area is CTOP, probably best to confirm. Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sequel5 (talk · contribs) infinity No controversy, I think, on the block itself. Having looked over the history though, should the block reason instead be something like undisclosed COI, incivility or WP:ASPERSIONS? Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wfynde (talk · contribs) infinity Account does appear to be promo, but should their talk page entries be treated as COI edit requests? Also, sounds similar to Wifione, though I don’t doubt that’s just a coincidence. Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    KG IT 7143 (talk · contribs) infinity Block for sock but nothing in logs. Evidence on deleted page? Also, edits relating to Indian (Nepali?) company. Fermiboson (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Timfoley50 (talk · contribs) infinity Courtesy ping to original blocking admin @Star Mississippi - while I think that the user has clearly been incivil on the user talk page, there appears to be genuine objection to the indef applied by SM at AN/I which was cut short by Lourdes' block. Lourdes' interpretation of the quoted sentence as a legal threat I feel is borderline, so err on the side of putting this here for review. In addition the block reason should also be changed from WP:NOTHERE to WP:NLT, if it stands. Fermiboson (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Searchingforaground (talk · contribs) infinity Block reason is promotional, but the user appears to not have made any obviously promotional edits (or any edit at all), nor is the username obviously that of any group or company. Fermiboson (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The username is identical to a musician's name. One deleted contribution on a draft page that's written about this said musician. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Multimilkp (talk · contribs) infinity Incivil, I suppose, but an immediate indef seems even more unnecessarily inflammatory? (FTR I haven't been able to find the AN/I thread in question so maybe there is something there which justifies it.) WP:ASPERSIONS of socking of the editor this person is in conflict with also appears to not have been dealt with, excepting a sock ban. Lourdes then claims on another user's talkpage that this account is a sock as well. Ultimately, it's not clear at all what the block actually is for. Fermiboson (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Experiment77 (talk · contribs) infinity Hints of WP:ASPERSIONS but, looking through contributions, nothing that could come close to an immediate indef block. The editor does appear to have left, and Lourdes cites that as her rationale for an indef, so maybe slightly moot at this point. Fermiboson (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Riteinit (talk · contribs) infinity Appears to be a WP:BITE block. Editor was given no warning before the indef, and while I can see the case for incivility, I can also see the case for an excitable Midlander who's had a pint. Editor has also left TP message that could be interpreted as remorse/unblock request (although possibly WP:ASPERSIONS?) that should probably have been engaged with, in my opinion. Fermiboson (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Anything beyond that is probably very, very moot. Fermiboson (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    TheSharpBlade

    I don't see how [2] counts as an attack page or is a negative unsourced BLP. Perhaps I'm missing some context here, though I'm also not sure if this user should be unblocked. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 07:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I wouldn't have deleted that as a G10 either. That said, it appears to be a hoax (unless anyone else can find evidence of a landscape architect named Donald J. Guest), and with the account's only other edit being this, I'd say it'd be best to let sleeping dogs lie at this point. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have deleted it G10, but I see what Lourdes meant in terms of the tone of the second paragraph. I sometimes delete things G11/G10 where there's a mix of adulation with "struggled with drug abuse"/similar without any reliable sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This may be borderline on the attack aspect, but it's very clearly not a serious attempt at an encyclopedia article; it's a joke at best and is probably trolling. I might not have blocked immediately, but I'd have given a 4im warning at the very least. There are multiple real-world people named Donald Guest, FWIW. I would not reverse this block. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1, not an obvious attack page afaics; block can stand. Lectonar (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thegreatbooboo!

    The deleted edit, from 18 October, is basically identical to User:Thegreatbooboo!/sandbox. I don't understand why Lourdes blocked more than three days after the last edits, but the account is obviously WP:DISRUPTONLY and there'd be no benefit to unblocking. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted the sandbox too; block can stand. Lectonar (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A Big Cold Moon

    The account's sole comment can be read here (it was just caught up in oversight collateral): Support Clearly a bad actor bad faith etc. Does this ring any bells in terms of sockpuppetry? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say almost definitely. I've done a CU and it's exclusively on proxies with another single edit account that's been blocked by another admin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse, received email harassment from the account. Not sure if that appears in the CU logs, but the block is good. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    KG IT 7143

    That's where three single-purpose accounts intersect, only one of which was blocked. The second is named after the article subject, and is a very clear conflict of interest editor. The third is a simple partial-blanking vandal. There's an acknowledgement of multiple accounts on one of the first two's user talk page.

    Draft:Himalaya Jet is a different situation, and clearly the single-purpose account that did it, taking over almost immediately (which is highly suspect), is far more experienced with editing a wiki. The edit summary (non-)usage is very different, too. A cynic would no doubt say, given how quickly the second single-purpose account took over, that someone else picked up the undisclosed paid editing gig. ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wfynde

    This might well be one for the Project:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. This is one of those what-you-are-saying-about-me-without-any-sources-is-wrong-but-I-cannot-edit-a-wiki-for-toffee situations. The article discusses 2020 and one of its only two sources pre-dates that by quarter of a century.

    It's also one of those which-band-members-are-the-"real"-band situations. ☺ Clearly the account is named after the band. We should regard this as an attempt to challenge unverifiable content, for which the rationale on User talk:Wfynde should not be overlooked, and the onus is on the people wanting to claim events happening in 2020 to provide some actual sources from the current century.

    Uncle G (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Timfoley50

    Thanks for the heads up @Fermiboson:. While I stand by my initial block and don't think he'll be a net positive, I reiterate what I said then, that I welcomed any additional input. If editors, admin or otherwise, feel it should be lifted, that's fine with me especially with so much time passed. That talk page got unecessarily ugly and I'm not going to engage with Foley directly as he asked me to stay off his Talk, and I'm happy to respect that. His immolation was a good example of why it's hard for editors to work in areas with which they have a COI. Star Mississippi 14:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I find BrownHairedGirl (BHG)'s initial complaint on ANI that led to Timfoley50's block flawed at best, disinformation and misleading at worst. So many things were wrong in the initial report (characterizing someone as SPA, making it sound like someone with COI didn't declare), spinning "part truth" into a narrative that suits her goal (suggesting that Tim was forumshopping when it was spread out over 5 years) or coming up with her own metrics about talk page discussion length which is not backed by any policy (very similar to ArbCom's portal case). IMO this looks like a bad newbie-biting block. OhanaUnitedTalk page 14:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • My first-impression 0.2c is that, while the editor in question is clearly incivil, the BDP issue could very much hvae been resolved with methods other than a block. No comments or opinions on BHG's behaviour, and I haven't delved into the content dispute itself. Is reopening the AN/I thread a good idea? My main concern here in the context of this mass review is the fact that Lourdes stepped in in the middle and cut short a developing AN/I discussion, even if there is a case for NLT, and had Lourdes not done that AN/I may have reached a different conclusion. Fermiboson (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having seen no end of this sort of stuff over the years, that has escalated to Arbitration, full-blown user RFCs, and banning discussions, this does seem to have all of the makings of yet more of the same, and I echo Star Mississippi's prediction that this will not go well. Would Star Mississippi's block have been overturned had discussion progressed further? It possibly would have, although that's not a certainty. There's not much to fault about Star Mississippi's offer at the end of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1132#User:Timfoley50 and the explorer Tom Crean and it might have been taken up.

          Wifione/Lourdes's legal threat block did rather curtail that possibility. I agree with you that it's a bit borderline. I don't think that we need to re-open AN/I, though. After all, here is the Administrators' Noticeboard. ☺

          Uncle G (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm probably not going to have much on wiki time this week so if you (collectively: @Fermiboson @OhanaUnited @Uncle G) think an unblock is the best way forward, feel free to do so. I'm never attached to blocks should they no longer prove necessary. Whether it needs to be here & ANI, I agree with UncleG. I feel like it can be handled here after or in conjunction with extending an offer of unblock to Timfoley50 and semi independent of the Lourdes block since mine was the basis. Star Mississippi 03:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What about status quo ante? We can restore TP access, and if the user continues down the path they are continuing down, we can reblock per NLT or civility; and if they don't, we continue the conversation as a standard unblock appeal. If they don't say anything, they don't say anything. Fermiboson (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I suggest to leave a note on Timfoley50's user talk page to see if we can reconcile and move beyond that. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I've left a message on his usertalk and lifted the block on editing his usertalk page so that he can participate in the discussion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:36, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Riteinit

    There are warnings on this user's talk page, albeit relating to edit warring not incivility (which is what the block was for). The incivility in question was very mild, so I agree it should have been met with a (further) warning instead of a block. However it's from so long ago that I suspect their interest in Wikipedia has long since waned. If they request an unblock I think it would be looked upon favourably but I don't see much merit in unblocking an account that's going to remain dormant anyway. WaggersTALK 11:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the account is a suspected sock, which would make an normal unblock moot. – robertsky (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for review of editing restrictions

    I have had several editing restrictions in place since march.

    • Immanuelle is limited to one user account.
    • Immanuelle is prohibited from using any AI-assisted editing tools, or machine translation from any language, in any article or draft. They must also ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright.
    • Immanuelle is prohibited from self-publishing articles to mainspace or reverting draftification. Any new articles must be submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
    • Immanuelle must not merge content into other articles as a response to having a draft declined or an article nominated for deletion.

    I have been having a lot of success with making high quality articles recently.

    I want them to be reviewed and possibly loosened now.

    I have two main requests

    1. Some kind of review of the merging restriction. I do not believe it is fulfilling its purpose
    2. The opportunity to attempt to prove my translation competence

    Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Merging

    • Immanuelle must not merge content into other articles as a response to having a draft declined or an article nominated for deletion.

    This one causes a lot of problems because a lot of draft declines are done with explicit requests to merge the content into articles, or are declined because the article already exists under a different name. I want some kind of a system in place to allow for the merging from a declined draft, or the lifting of the restriction altogether. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to clarify here that I have violated and received a 24 hour block in the past over this. @Galobtter can speak more on it and how I have found this one particularly obtrusive. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proving translation competence

    • Immanuelle is prohibited from using any AI-assisted editing tools, or machine translation from any language, in any article or draft. They must also ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright.

    I want to have an exemption to this restriction for Draft:Horaisan Kofun to attempt to prove I am competent. I want that draft to be reviewed with a lot more scrutiny than a typical submission so people can judge my competence with it, because I believe I am more competent than people have thought I was, and want to attempt to prove that to the community. This was suggested by @Knowledgekid87 who has also agreed to help with looking over my translation, and who already established the notability and good sourcing of the Japanese article.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Knowledgekid87's userpage lists their level of competence in Japanese as 0.5 (i.e. between "none" and "basic"). I don't think they would be the best person to verify the accuracy of Japanese translations. Spicy (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spicy ideally I would want either @Eirikr or @Dekimasu to do the reviewing. They are the people I personally trust the most in this area. But KnowledgeKid87 is the only person who has volunteered so far. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My time is limited of late, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future. That said, if a review is either short, or can take place over an extended period, I am happy to help as best I can. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarifications

    • Immanuelle is prohibited from self-publishing articles to mainspace or reverting draftification. Any new articles must be submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

    I want to clarify whether I am allowed to create disambiguation pages without going through AFC

    • Immanuelle is limited to one user account.

    I want to clarify whether I am allowed to ip editImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:28, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    • Immanuelle is prohibited from self-publishing articles to mainspace or reverting draftification. Any new articles must be submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation.

    The AFC restriction used to cause me a lot of issues, but since the backlog drive, I have been receiving timely reviews for all my submissions. I am happy with this and do not want to appeal it now. But I have had some comments from AFC reviewers saying my submissions seemed like they shouldn't have to go through AFC. So long as the backlog does not become massive again, I do not have much desire to get this lifted.

    Tagging @Galobtter the restriction imposing admin. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Immanuelle: this is a very long request, but doesn't show that you fully understand the problems this was imposed for or how you will prevent it in the future. You have a recent block for violating one of these restrictions, which does not give me confidence to support loosening restrictions at this point. You should have been upfront about this in your request. See WP:GAB for some help with what makes a good request. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Femke I apologize for that. However I did tag the admin involved with the block.
    This particular violated restriction is one I believe no longer serves the purpose it was imposed for. It was put in place to prevent me from merging in content from articles rejected due to bad translation or ai generated content. As I am not producing said content it now generally has played the role of preventing me from merging not independently notable content into articles. @Asilvering and @Galobtter have both experienced situations of ambiguity where I was really unable to do simple requested merges or partial merges from such drafts. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 20:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The block occurred when I attempted to merge Draft:Content I want to merge into Mechanical and organic solidarity into Mechanical and organic solidarity as it was an already existing article and the draft declined on the basis of not establishing notability. This is an example of a situation where I have no way of actually getting permission to merge the content. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 21:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Immanuelle, thanks for tagging me here for clarification. I'm glad you've been focusing more on quality recently and have made efforts to find better sources. Your success rate at AfC is going up, and that is very good to see too. But I don't think you are ready for any of these restrictions to be removed yet. For clarity, it is my understanding of your restrictions that you are allowed to edit in mainspace, and that there is nothing preventing you from editing a mainspace article in response to a draft decline at AfC; what you can't do is directly merge declined content into an extant article. I have not yet declined a draft of yours that has made me think "this should go as-is into mainspace, just in a different article", so I don't see any reason why you would need a restriction lifted that would allow you to do that. Moreoever, if you want to lift editing restrictions that were applied after consensus on an ANI thread, you're going to have to show people that you have been editing successfully with those restrictions. You were only just at ANI a month ago for the issues with your drafts, so I don't think you're going to be able to do that. Please - you need to be patient, and you need to slow down. -- asilvering (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering Yeah it might be prudent to be a bit more patient
    At the same time though I am made a bit afraid of lots of edits. I feel I'd like at least something of the form where I can ask for approval from an AFC reviewer or admin or similar to get an exemption for the first restriction. Such as being able to rewrite a declined draft into a paragraph or section and ask for approval. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 00:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as not ready yet, and I still have concerns about hat collecting and needing credit for creations. This is an example of a situation where I have no way of actually getting permission to merge the content. if someone else thinks it's necessary, they'll do so. There is no reason you need to be the one doing the merge. Focus on quality over quantity and also maybe do something about the sig? Not a policy issue, but doesn't seem appropriate for an encyclopedia. Just my 02. Star Mississippi 02:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Star Mississippi you make a good point about that tbh. Would you consider it against policy for me to post on the talk pages of articles that I want to merge these paragraphs from the draft but have the restriction in place, or to ask other users to do it? I am concerned that declined drafts will just end up being never seen. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 03:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that would fall afoul of WP:PROXYING. What's the concern about them never being seen? That's the case for many drafts. YOu might be able to leave the suggestion as a comment for an AfC reviewer but that's a question for @Asilvering Star Mississippi 03:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It looks like WP:PROXYING has an exception for content that is verifiable and productive, with the proviso that whatever editor does the edit takes full responsibility for it. I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I wouldn't want to do that. -- asilvering (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lengthy observation that might clarify some otherwise strange-seeming claims above: Immanuelle seems to create content like someone creates a scrapbook: assembled from pieces they've taken from elsewhere. I don't mean (necessarily) plagiarizing. I mean more fundamentally that if they don't already have a sentence in front of them to shuffle/reorganize, they are effectively unable to produce content at a pace faster than a slow crawl. That's why so many of their 50k edits are just shuffling sentences and paragraphs from other articles and other wikis into different arrangements. That's also why they've introduced copyright/close paraphrasing problems, and why some of their recent AfC successes contain basically the same structure and statements as entire passages of cited sources, just with simplified vocabulary and grammar.
    I think this observation explains two otherwise inexplicable things about this request. First, to Star Mississippi's point, why bother copy/pasting rejected content wholesale into an article rather than just writing new content directly into mainspace? Because they can't, at least without slowing waaaaaay down. To go fast, they have to assemble content from other bits. But the bits are in the rejected drafts, you see, so they're basically stuck, from their perspective. Second, to Ivanvector's point, why use machine translation if you're sufficiently capable in the language that you can verify the sources anyway? Because they can't quickly or easily produce new sentences/paragraphs that summarize claims in their own words. That's why they "need" machine translation: to generate the pieces that they can rearrange/rewrite. If they have to actually slow down and manually translate into their own words, their productivity will greatly decrease. In my opinion that's good for the encyclopedia, but I can also see how it's frustrating for Immanuelle personally. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Indignant Flamingo with AFC as it stands right now I'd be happy to adhere to your older proposed restriction of only 20 drafts at a time, and really put high levels of effort into them and spend long periods on them. That was not a feasible restriction back when every draft took 4 months to get reviewed, but now that it is more like a week, it is quite feasible, although I am afraid it will rise up to a 4 month wait period again.
    I am currently at 2,491 drafts now, down from a high of 3,946 drafts so almost a 40% reduction in the count, and I have no doubt that I will be able to get the count down a lot lower in the future. There's a lot more pages out there that I am not bumping.
    My ideal workflow on Draft:Horaisan Kofun if the request were accepted would likely go something like this
    • Make a machine translation of the Japanese article and have the original text
    • Go through each sentence painstakingly correcting and writing comment notes about how I interpreted each part, and in edit histories
    • Once that is finished go through all the claims, try to find English language sources and compare what they say. Maybe try to find Japanese language sources myself, but stay on the simpler side for Japanese language sources
    • Then add any new information I think is missing or necessary in the article.
    • Ask someone like @Eirikr or @Dekimasu to look over everything I did
    • Submit to AFC if they think it was well done
    This would take a long time to do. But I'd be very happy to do it. It's an area I'm passionate about, and I believe I have the specific competency for this, but just as with earlier, last year I needed to slow down to actually do it well.
    I think your heart is really in the right place with the appeals to slow down, but I feel without being given the opportunity to edit more freely, it won't let me improve as much as you are hoping.
    Among my drafts I am through a lot of the drafts that I considered my best ones or the ones most likely to prove notability. And I am also not under the pressure to rush everything through that ANI gave. I also don't feel the strong temptation to attempt to get everything through the short AFC queue because although it is lengthening. It looks like it will long term be more like this, and the ones I was most concerned with are already through. I currently have only one active draft submission Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 02:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But why would you do this, and use up a lot of another editor's time checking your work, when you could write articles for which sufficient English-language sources exist? There's no shortage of these topics. -- asilvering (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asilvering ideally I would be able to gain enough trust to not need my work checked long term, only short term, and I feel if I manage to achieve this, then I will be able to offer something to wikipedia that I couldn't otherwise.
    An example is my attempts at investigating this quote

    In Shinsen Shōjiroku, the descendants of Amatsuhikone, Ame-no-hohi, and Amanomichine, together with the descendants of Amenohoakari are referred to as Tenson-zoku. The Tenson-zoku descended from Takamagahara (Plain of High Heaven) to Owari and Tanba provinces, and are considered to be the ancestors of Owari, Tsumori, Amabe, and Tanba clans.[1]

    However, it is clear that Amabe-shi Keizu, which records these four clans as descendants of Amenohoakari, is a forged document,[2] and that these clans actually descended from the sea deity Watatsumi. In addition, Owari clan's genealogy includes the great-grandson of Watatsumi, Takakuraji, as their ancestor, and this is considered to be the original genealogy.[3]

    — 太西, [4]
    Which revealed a lot of interesting context I believe I could add to it if I was allowed to use Japanese sources. This is a topic that I do not think any English publications have been written on yet.
    There are definitely a lot of areas that I could help with that I think would be worth at least giving me a shot for. In the end I am just requesting to do something in draftspace that won't be overwhelming editors. It isn't like I'll submit 200 such articles all at once to AFC or anything. I'll be taking my time with this to be especially careful I get everything right. Eirikr said he'd be willing to help and he is really competent with Japanese.
    This won't be disruptive if done at a small scale in draftspace, even if I end up completely failing at it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 07:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you machine translate an article, then you would not be interpreting any of the parts. Your point 3 is also highly worrying, why would you not go directly to sources instead of having prior steps? CMD (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis I would be interpreting parts because I would not be doing a pure machine translation, I'd just be using it as one of many components in my translation efforts.
    It would be probably more useful for me to directly interpret Japanese sources for a lot of situations. But I cannot offer as much transparency about what I am doing there since it would involve hosting copyrighted materials on wikipedia
    As far as english language sources go, I could definitely make an article on Horaisan/Horaiyama Kofun entirely with English sources. But the problem is that it will not accomplish this goal of demonstrating competency. In reality the steps will be mixed together and not always firmly differentiated, but I generally believe this will be able to demonstrate competency and help create articles which are better than ones that would be made otherwise. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 06:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Immanuelle, you say But I cannot offer as much transparency about what I am doing there since it would involve hosting copyrighted materials on wikipedia. This sounds very much like you're planning to violate the WP:User pages guideline. Why would you do this? You could 'host copyrighted materials' on your own device. Or if you haven't space there, in cloud storage. Why must everything be stored on Wikipedia servers? (See also my unanswered question from last month about the possibility of Immanuelle's keeping drafts on her own computer.) BlackcurrantTea (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BlackcurrantTea I think you are misunderstanding
    Translating wikipedia article content due to the licensing is something I could easily show transparently through edit history what I am doing and my thought proces for it.
    I can definitely copy the text of a website I find into a word document, write my own translation with notes and such and send it to another editor for review. But that is harder and requires me to actively send it
    This is why I believe for proving my competence, wikipedia pages are preferable. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I read this yesterday, and thought I'd come back to it with fresh eyes today and it would make more sense. It sounds as if you're saying that it's preferable to keep copyrighted material in your user pages because that way it's easier for another editor to compare the copyrighted material with your translation of it. Is this what you mean? Please explain if I've got the wrong end of the stick, because there aren't any exceptions listed for keeping copyrighted material in WP:User pages. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks @Indignant Flamingo: I think this observation explains two otherwise inexplicable things about this request. is absolutely true. @Immanuelle:, you've made it clear why you want to do these things, but not why the project needs them. AfC review time is low now, but it will go back up. It always does after a backlog drive. You're going to need to learn to be patient, as there is no rush to create content. Several thousand drafts is not necessarily a good thing. Improve those you have, and then maybe worry about the restrictions. Things will get to mainspace eventually. Star Mississippi 15:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal

    I'd propose that the following occur, perhaps as a way to give a little rope while still keeping the restrictions basically in place:

    • The first restriction, titled Immanuelle is limited to one user account. is interpreted to prevent the intentional usage by Immanuelle of an IP address rather than their user account, as this would prevent transparency regarding their editing and compliance with the restrictions placed on them.
    • The second restriction, titled Immanuelle is prohibited from using any AI-assisted editing tools, or machine translation from any language, in any article or draft. They must also ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright. is modified to read, "Immanuelle is prohibited from using any AI-assisted editing tools, or machine translation from any language, in any article or draft. They must also ensure that no content added to articles violates copyright. This restriction may be lifted on individual drafts by any administrator, so long as an experienced translator, in the opinion of the administrator, is actively working with Immanuelle on the draft in question."
    • The third restriction, titled Immanuelle is prohibited from self-publishing articles to mainspace or reverting draftification. Any new articles must be submitted via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. is interpreted to include disambiguation pages.
    • The fourth restriction, titled Immanuelle must not merge content into other articles as a response to having a draft declined or an article nominated for deletion. remains in effect. Any uninvolved editor remains able to merge content for Immanuelle, in accordance with WP:PROXYING.

    The basic summary of the proposal above:

    • Immanuelle cannot edit from an IP to conceal their contributions. (Pretty much covered by WP:LOGOUT anyways.)
    • Immanuelle can only utilize AI-assisted editing tools/machine translation under the supervision of an experienced translator, and must gain permission from an administrator prior to doing so.
    • The restriction against self-publishing to mainspace or reverting drafticiation shall include disambiguation pages.
    • The restriction against merging content remains. WP:PROXYING already covers any merging that needs to take place, and I don't see any way that the community would consider lifting this restriction given the block not even a full month ago for violating the restriction.

    EggRoll97 (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're under a restriction that you must use one account, then editing while logged out is evading the restriction. Fine to clarify that here but the restriction doesn't need to be amended. The second restriction, that they may not use AI assistance or machine translation, does not restrict them from manually translating an article (with the proper attribution please) and having an editor experienced in both languages review it, and copyright violations are not allowed anyway; that restriction also needs no amendment but I oppose the amendment proposed, since nobody should be publishing AI- or machine-assisted translations anyway. The rest I have no comment on. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector machine translation is allowed on wikipedia if you properly verify it with your own knowledge. My intention would be to mostly rely on English sources to verify things, but occasionally cite Japanese sourcs. I do believe I have the required knowledge, but was being negligent earlier. I wouldn't be doing raw content Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 23:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Hanawa, Hokiichi (1983). Shinsen Shōjiroku (新撰姓氏錄). Japan: Onkogakkai. OCLC 959773242.
    2. ^ Hoga, Toshio (2006). Kokuho「Amabe-shi Keizu」he no gimon, Kokigi no Heya (国宝「海部氏系図」への疑問 古樹紀之房間). Japan.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
    3. ^ Hoga, Toshio (2006). Tango no Amabe-shi no Shutsuji to sono ichizoku, Kokigi no Heya (丹後の海部氏の出自とその一族). Japan.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
    4. ^ "Amenohoakari", Wikipedia, 2021-03-24, retrieved 2023-12-05

    Counter-proposal

    Why are we even entertaining this? This is a well-meaning editor who takes away an enormous amount of community time and patience with their edits and with AN sections like this one. Meanwhile, they are editing like this[3][4][5][6][7][8][9], which was already an improvement over [10][11], with the edits before these being more of this. An unlucky run? Well, not really, they did the exact same thing to some 20 other drafts 3 hours earlier, and again to dozens of drafts yesterday evening, and a minor variation to again dozens of drafts yesterday morning[12]. Or the day before[13]They are clearly running some automated tool in unsupervised mode and are making a mess with it again and again and again.

    Deny these appeals, stop them from appealing for a year, and give them a restriction against using automated tools. Fram (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not using automated tools. This is all manual. I am trying to avoid the disruptive effect of too many drafts getting warnings all at once, which renders my talk page unusable. In those cases I was disabling a category I inappropriately added earlier, while also scheduling some articles to get g17 warnings on weekends when I'd be more able to decide whether they were worth keeping.
    Doing something quickly does not imply the use of automated tools.
    The results speak for themselves. I have been very effective at reducing my draft count. imo I will clearly be at a reasonable amount of drafts in 6 months if not sooner.
    Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 12:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree completely with Fram's counterproposal. The most important resource of the encyclopedia is the time, energy and optimism of constructive editors, and they're all being squandered here, by Immanuelle's editing and by this great big discussion. It's pretty shocking that Immanuelle made the edits Fram gives diffs for today (please click on them if you're going to comment, dear reader!), and even more shocking that Immanuelle responds to Fram without any explanation or excuse for them. I don't consider "This is all manual" to be an explanation. The question is whether declining the request and stopping them from appealing for a year is enough. If that's really all manual — and we are of course expected to AGF that Immanuelle is telling the truth — they need a CIR block, IMO. Bishonen | tålk 14:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    (PS, adding: and by a CIR block I mean an indefinite block.) Bishonen | tålk 17:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    +1. CIR because otherwise volunteers' time, energy, and goodwill is wasted. Levivich (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. I've spent so much time on correcting Immanuelle's drafts and articles, including adding edit summaries on what they should do instead, only to never have those comments acted upon. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CIR block for the reasons above. I don’t see evidence that her behaviour wasting the time of other editors who have to fix it will change. Doug Weller talk 21:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every edit is a chance to prove competence. 55,000+ edits into this account, we're still having to ask questions like "does Immanuelle understand basic content policies?" and "can Immanuelle accurately summarize sources in their own words?" and "what is Immanuelle even doing right now?". Instead of clear answers, we get a pitch to prove competence in translation by...not translating? Enough is enough. Having already put a lot of time into AN(I) efforts to harness Immanuelle's enthusiasm productively, I now think that Immanuelle's motivations and priorities are simply incompatible with the goals of this project, and well-meaning efforts to fix that discrepancy are both futile and a waste of valuable editor time. So I support CIR indef. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for more or less the same reasons I opposed above. I don't think Immanuelle is ready to edit without restrictions, nor has a case been made for why we need the majority of these 2,000+ drafts. Let them expire unless edited by someone else and impose an AfC quantity restriction to avoid this in the future. Star Mississippi 17:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support the proposal to deny these appeals and stop Immanuelle from appealing for a year. (I believe Immaneulle is telling the truth about not using automated tools, and so therefore adding a restriction against automated tools might as well be added since it will have no effect.) Most important I think is the ban on appeals: it shows very poor judgment on Immanuelle's part to have brought this back to AN so soon, when the original drawn-out discussion was clearly a drain on everyone. I can't find it in my heart to support an indef block for such a clearly good-faith editor who is improving -- the junk edits that Fram highlights make logistical sense in Immanuelle's draft-management system, and I have seen Immanuelle making more constructive edits at AfC -- but I think Bishonen is right that we need to take action to make sure the time, energy and optimism of constructive editors is spent wisely. Evaluating Immanuelle's behaviour as an editor is even more costly in time, energy, and optimism than addressing their individual edits: no appeals until it is plausible that something can have lastingly changed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support It was clear in the last thread that Immanuelle should slow down and focus on improvement other quantity, instead we have this thread. I feel editors have been patient enough dealing with all this. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Immanuelle: I haven't been involved thus far, but looking at your appeal it looks like restrictions on your drafts are causing you a lot of headaches and interfering with your enjoyment of editing. Can I ask why you don't just spend a while improving existing articles? Reading things like a lot of draft[s are] declined because the article already exists under a different name makes me think you're not putting enough effort into even looking for an existing article before starting a new one. Why focus on creation? Also a reminder that you can move drafts to your userspace to take your time working on them without worrying about deletion. Speaking of which, I see Star Mississippi and others mention that other folks should be the ones to merge content from Immanuelle's drafts. It occurs to me I don't know the typical process for doing that while preserving the history/attribution once the draft is deleted after six months? Is an edit summary saying ~"written by Immanuelle" really sufficient? Attribution aside, I don't love the idea of saying someone else is required to merge their content even when they've been encouraged to do so by a reviewer. Volunteers aren't unfeeling robots -- even though there's no authorship here, we do certainly feel a sense of pride/gratification from having good edits attached to our usernames, as meager a kind of "credit" as that is. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rhododendrites with respect to the merger and attribution, I think that once Draft:Immanuelle's Coverage of Ninjas is merged to Ninjas, the draft would redirect and therefore no longer be subject to G13 which solves that. I think Immanuelle means well in her creations, but there's been a lack of demand for the content. They're encouraged to do so to save their (reviewers,etc.) time, but no inclination it's necessary. Like @Asilvering, I have yet to see one of her drafts where I thought mainspace had a need for the content. Just my .02. Star Mississippi 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The focus on creation appears to be a product of how Immanuelle finds topics to work on: by finding articles in other Wikipedias that have no corresponding article in English, and attempting to create it. I don't think the issue here is "not putting enough effort into looking for an existing article" so much as it is "assuming that every article ought to exist on every Wikipedia". That is, I don't believe any effort is being put into looking for an existing article, but I don't see that as a problem per se. The problem is more that Immanuelle has not demonstrated a strong grasp of notability, or of what defines a reliable source.
    Speaking as someone who has reviewed many of Immanuelle's AfC drafts, I think "reviewers are encouraging Immanuelle to merge content into existing articles" is not precisely correct. Yes, one of the declines you can use when you think "this doesn't belong in a separate article and should be dealt with in some other article" is called "mergeto" and does include the canned message The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article on the same subject. But I'm not sure most reviewers really think of that as encouragement to merge so much as an expression of "please don't resubmit this, and why aren't you editing the article that's already in mainspace?!" I know I personally tend to say "please don't merge this directly, but articlename is where this information belongs, not in a separate article" or something similar. -- asilvering (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rhododendrites well the big issues I have with the restrictions really come down to the fact as I see it, they are ambiguous, and the ambiguity puts a lot more issues on me than the restrictions would on face value.
    I fear that even citing the same book chapter in a related mainspace article could be construed as self plagiarism violating the rule, since you can't look into my head to see what is going on there.
    This is similar to how no machine translation equals no foreign language sources at all.
    @Asilvering is right generally I'd say, about the drafts. I am most concerned just that even if the content itself is good, there might be only 3 people who are interested in the particular topic and active editors, so it might take oer six months for such a person to find the drafts.
    @LEvalyn explained to me that there was a lot less of a demand for me to go through my drafts as I had thought. I appreciate their attempts to help me on this. They have changed my perspective. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 01:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dealing with WikiEdu editors adding complete junk to articles.

    Over at Rabbit, WikiEdu student Asi102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding completely unsourced, unencyclopedic junk [14] [15]. Given that they are are a WikiEdu student, what am I supposed to do in this situation? Am I just supposed to let them add it for the duration of the class? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering you're the vastly experienced editor and this student has made a grand total of 19 contributions, I'd hope you could avoid shouting at the student (in edit summary) as if they're totally responsible for your apparent resentment against the program. Adding feedback as opposed to merely reverting the entire work would be the preferred behavior. BusterD (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, no, this was pretty much a WP:TNT case if I've ever seen one. However, the edit summaries were way out of line, Hemi. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. If you see a student editor adding unencyclopedic content to articles, you should give them some feedback and encouragement, rather than a cryptic warning and then bringing them to ANI and calling their work "junk". Please show some respect for editors who are learning. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The one at fault here is WikiEdu, who compels these students to add poor work like this as part of college courses. People just want to pass the class, and I understand that, but it puts burdens on real Wikipedia contributors. WikiEdu editors should not be allowed to put content into mainspace unless it has been approved by volunteers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Student editors basically never go on to become long-term contributors, so there's no reason to encourage them, especially if there initial work is very bad like in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The above may be the single worst take on WP:AGF I've ever read on this board. BusterD (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My nineteeth edit. Hemiauchenia's nineteenth. I give the student editor full credit for their boldness. BusterD (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I have stated earlier, the problem here is WikiEdu compelling people to do add stuff like this for college credit without there being any quality control by the instructors before the content is added, not the individual students themselves. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the percentages, almost no one does: from Template:Registered editors by edit count, only 2.5% of registered editors who made one edit end up making at least 100 edits, and only 0.75% end up making at least 500 edits. (Select "Table 2 – successful editors" or "Show all" to see the stats for registered editors who made an edit.) isaacl (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note over on the Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Western_Illinois_University/Teaching_Writing_in_Middle_and_High_School_(Fall_2023) page that one of the other WikiEdu students is apparently assigned the task of creating an article at Patrol Base Abate -- I've never heard of this, and a quick Google search turns up almost nothing -- setting aside videos and images or the "did you mean" suggested alternative spellings, there are only five hits, one of which is the WikiEdu page I just linked above.
    I might be mistaken and Patrol Base Abate might actually be a noteworthy topic. If it isn't, however, this causes me to worry that the WikiEdu program coordinators might not be sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia norms to be coaching others on how best to write Wikipedia articles... ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eirikr, it seems to be some type of veteran organization. (Spelled Abbate, not Abate) Schazjmd (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I tried to fix that for them. Let's see if it will take.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schazjmd, @SarekOfVulcan, thank you both. 😄 ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, thanks SarekOfVulcan, I've watchlisted the page. ——Serial 17:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On what talk page did you engage with this editor before dragging them to AN? Shells-shells (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Student editors in my experience basically never directly respond to attempts to try to talk to them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you engage them with the professor or Wiki Ed staff then? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly do not know how that process works and did not really know the formal process for drawing up a complaint. I wanted to go to AN for advice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This might be a good time to review WP:HOLES. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Treat a student edit like any other newbie edit. They don't deserve any special treatment, and likewise don't deserve to have to put up with Hemiauchenia's ranting in edit summaries just for the fact of being a student while making a bad edit. Here are the differences between a student editor and any other new editor: (1) when it comes to how to apply policy, there is no difference. Revert, warn, block, etc. exactly as much as you would any other new user; (2) student editors have to go through some basic training that other newbies do not have to go through, ideally making problematic edits (which these edits to rabbit certainly are) less common than your average new user's; (3) there are three people you can ping/nag/poke to deal with problematic student edits. In this case, that would be the student, the professor (BuchananR, and the Wiki Ed staff person (Brianda (Wiki Ed). Rather than complain loudly about how all students are terrible, why not take advantage of the support system that exists specifically to help you deal with this, which doesn't exist for other new users? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how Jesus christ the complete crap put into Wikipedia by WikiEdu students never ceases to amaze me. Zero sources whatsoever or don't care about you being a student editor. This is crap. There's zero sources, a basic requirement of Wikipedai editing, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources are appropriate edit summaries at all. SilverserenC 01:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I equally would throw the filer's behavior here right back at them. The student here seems to be trying to make edits in good faith, and the filer is essentially engaging in attacks against them because they're a student. I'm fairly sure if anyone said these kinds of things to a veteran editor, talk of sanctions would ensue, or at the very least quite the stern warning. The filer gave the student a singular templated warning prior to bringing them to a noticeboard, and is violating essentially every tenet of WP:BITING. I'm more inclined at this venue to ask if I've missed some reason why the filer at this rate hasn't been blocked for biting the newbies, other than that the other editor involved just so happens to be a student. Likewise, much praise is in order to, for example, BusterD, seen here engaging with a new editor appropriately. EggRoll97 (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no angel myself and I don't need to see User:Hemiauchenia grovel. They said something suboptimal. I have confidence they'll remember this AN thread they started. Every one of us is liable to misspeak occasionally. Hemiauchenia is quite correct in saying we don't normally get good communications, useful wikipedians or great work from these WikiEd students. I have zero disagreement with that frustration. For my part, I just wish there was a way we could take this thread and help move THAT effort forward. BusterD (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, and I don't expect perfection, but generalizing all student editors as only adding "crap" is a brazen attack, and filer's communication here has been heavily lackluster, especially prior to bringing it to a noticeboard intended for severe problems, not two reverted edits. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that all of what WikiEdu students add is crap. I have seen some genuinely good contributions. The problem is that of lot it is bad and that there is no proper vetting by instructors before the material is added, and ultimately that mess is something that regular Wikipedia editors have to clean up. As I have previously stated I am frustrated with the WikiEdu process, not this particular student, who is a symptom rather than a cause. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we get great work from most editors. Instead I think WikiEd editors often give us work that ranges from serviceable to good as with another student's efforts from this class at Concrete mixer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we get great work from most editors Concur. Sad, but true. This is true even among prolific editors in my experience. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's too bad WikiEdu doesn't have some sort of vetting process for the instructors beyond their completing some module or whatever. Someone with 16 mainspace edits, 15 of them to Western Illinois Leatherbacks sports teams or coaches (and including a season article on the women's basketball team sourced solely to non-independent websites), done strictly between 2017 and 2020, is not even close to experienced enough with Wikipedia to be guiding new editors on proper Wikipedia editing...
    Honestly I find it baffling why professors would even want to run a course using a system they have essentially zero background in. It just seems like it would be frustrating and unproductive for both instructor and students to be at basically the same level of skill in the subject with evidently no desire to actually improve in or engage with the subject outside of class. This is like a marketing prof deciding that the semester project will require collaborating on GitHub, a tool no one, including the professor, has used, plus every time the students submit something it bypasses pull requests and just gets merged directly into whichever random person's external repo it forked from. JoelleJay (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, another of this instructor's students managed to contribute 2200 edit-summaried bytes of seemingly DUE material, including mostly-well-formatted grouped references, to their chosen editing subject, "concrete mixer". So who knows, maybe the class is actually effective overall... JoelleJay (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I looked at that one after this thread was filed and saw nothing problematic. While it's true that WikiEd professors could often correspond / teach Wikipedia better, we can't blame them or the general program for every student who does a bad job. Folly Mox (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, clearly Hemi is being kind of a dick here, but it's kind of flabbergasting that we have to do this stuff in the first place. Keep in mind that college professors get paid money -- a lot of money usually -- what we're being asked to do is do their job (i.e. evaluating and guiding the students) for free. Which we're happy to do, but on the other hand, some effort is required on the other end. How about this: every time someone has to copyedit, verify, trim or otherwise mess around with poor-quality student writing, we let them send the university an invoice? (Not to speak for other editors, but I'd also accept a non-paying faculty position, an honorary degree, and a .edu email address in lieu of cash). jp×g🗯️ 09:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Having previously taught briefly in higher education, I think if I were held personally responsible for every bad behaviour any of my students engaged in, I'd be in jail for plagiarism. Folly Mox (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      a lot of money usually - lol. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      sob. -- asilvering (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The amount of cluelessness packed into this short paragraph is impressive. --JBL (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, a "lol" I will suffer gladly, but for "cluelessness" I have to offer a response. For the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics gives an annual mean wage of $87,960 for college/university/professional school instructors, which is about $42/hr. University graduates and programmers and such are disproportionally represented among Wikipedians, so this may not feel like a lot, but for reference, the last time I worked in a plant (as a fabricator with a few years of experience) it paid $18/hr, and the minimum wage in the US is $7.25/hr. Of course, professor salaries are a rather small component of overall spending by colleges (less than a third). Still, it is a lot more money than most normal people make (10th percentile hourly wage is $13.14, 25th is $16.03, 50th is $22.26, 75th is $35.32 and 90th is $53.03). But regardless: if college tuition costs, on average, between $10k and $42k per year, it's hard for me to really get on board with doing free labor for the sake of companies that already receive substantial funding (from both students and the government, i.e. taxes, i.e. everyone). It's one thing to put work into assisting other editors, even inexperienced ones, who are volunteers who contribute here out of a desire to improve the project. But, I think, it's a different thing to assist inexperienced editors who are being directed here by an organization they paid $30,000 to give them experience. jp×g🗯️ 01:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with your sentiment that we aren't being paid so the student editors aren't our concern. However most academic staff in the United States are on insecure temporary contracts working as Adjunct professors which have much lower pay. Some of the WikiEdu staff are paid quite generously though, over $100,000 per annum. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Today, these itinerant teachers make up a whopping 75 percent of college instructors, with their average pay between $20,000 and $25,000 annually. (USA [16])
      University staff who can’t afford to eat ask for campus food banks (UK [17])
      The first article deals with a case well-known enough that the instructor in question has a Wikipedia article: Margaret Mary Vojtko. -- asilvering (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The cluelessness is not limited to the assertion about faculty salaries (about which others have responded; I was not able in 10 minutes to figure out the BLS methodology, and the numbers you quoted are perhaps conceivable for tenured/tenure-track faculty but certainly not for people who perform the bulk of post-secondary education) but also every other part of the paragraph: the bizarre idea that fixing poor student contributions to Wikipedia is "do[ing] the job" of a college instructor, the incoherent grouping "non-paying faculty position, an honorary degree, and a .edu email address in lieu of cash", .... No part of it appears grounded in anything beyond a feeling of indignation. --JBL (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Invoicing when you clear up other editors mistakes? There's a couple of long-term editors I could make bankrupt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      And if I screw up smth in my editing something should contact my dean to let her know. (I am actually surprised nobody had done this yet given that I get death threats for my Wikipedia editing on a weekly basis, and just some shit on a daily basis). Ymblanter (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I got someone threatening this in one of my first months here. Sure made me glad I have a pseudonymous account! (Not that my dean would care. She's seen worse.) -- asilvering (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah OpIndia started harassing me on Twitter after my edits to Ayurveda lol. JoelleJay (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If we are looking in this direction, my Facebook account was disabled after three false copyright complains, then I had to make my Instagram account non-public after two complaints (the third one would lead to shutting it down as well), and then the same person send e-mails to me and my family members with such content that we had to report to the police. Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've personally had mixed experiences with student assignments, but there's always the education noticeboard for issues with a class; I don't think the original post would've gone down well there either though. Graham87 (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with others that say that Hemiauchenia made the right point the wrong way. Calling a new editor's contributions "crap" flies in the face of several core policies that we all know about; however I have seen problematic edits from instructors eg: User talk:Tesleemah#Solomon Oladunni moved to draftspace that makes me question what the qualification requirements are to be one. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Responding to the comments about vetting professors and their motivation. I'll give my personal take, having taught with Wikipedia before WikiEdu existed and later being involved with WikiEdu (call that bias or insight or both, I guess). I started teaching with Wikipedia because I was responsible for teaching students about digital media studies, media/information literacy, online rhetoric, etc. and here was this website they all used every day, even while teachers told them not to use it, and none of them knew how it really worked. Turns out, the best way to actually communicate all the lessons Wikipedia has to offer is by having students engage with it directly as editors. It can also be an effective way to teach about course subjects via an alternative writing genre that requires summarizing a bunch of literature. The moment I knew I was onto something was when I overheard one student tell another about how they'd been bragging about the article they wrote at a party. Students who do it well take pride in contributing to this resource that helps the public, as opposed to a term paper that just gets thrown away as soon as the class is over. And I took pride in their contributions, as someone who cares very much for Wikipedia. In general, professors who teach with Wikipedia are doing so because they care about this site, not because they hate it, and see it as a great way for students to learn.
      Here's the thing, though: students probably won't have a great learning experience if they contribute junk and just get reverted/scolded. Nobody wins in that scenario. Tons of instructors, especially those teaching around the time I was, learned the hard way that running a Wikipedia assignment can be a downright miserable experience for everyone involved if done poorly.
      So the question is how do you give them the best chance to succeed? That's what the whole Education Program, and later WikiEdu, was/is intended to figure out. When I started, it was really hard for anyone who didn't invest an unreasonable amount of time to understanding how it all works. There were help pages, sure, but they were scattered all over and often outdated. There was no teahouse. I had a leg up in that while I wasn't an active contributor yet, I'd been researching/lurking/hanging around for a while, but still struggled to find good resources for students and wound up making some of my own. The value of the Education Program/WikiEdu isn't that they bring lots of classes to Wikipedia but that they form a support system for those professors/students. It's not reasonable to expect that only professors with tons of experience can do this, and it would do a disservice to both students and our project. So there's a system where the instructor gets some training, but it's more about how to run this assignment rather than how to edit; students get editing training; and paid staff jump in when there are problems.
      It's far from a foolproof system. Anyone who's ever taught a class can tell you there are some students who manage to ignore all of the instructions. That seems like what happened here. It doesn't take a 15-year veteran with 100,000 edits to say "include citations". That kind of thing is in the training students and teachers both get and isn't exactly difficult to understand. It's a "students don't always follow directions" situation not "who's vetting these professors" situation. If there are course-wide problems, which happens maybe once in a while, that's another matter.
      I still say we should much prefer student editors to typical newbies. They come here with some training and motivation to do the right thing (even if it's extrinsic rather than intrinsic, many non-student new editors don't seem to have either), and they have not just a professor but paid staff who can respond to problems. What I really don't get is why some people seem to think student editors are somehow less deserving of basic decency than a typical new editor. Oof, this went long, sorry. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      While I'm not defending Hemi's comments, I think the issue is student and paid editors are alike in that they can be a drain on volunteer resources while drawing external benefit (payment, a grade, etc.)
      If there were a better system for managing either of those, it would be less problematic. However, there aren't enough WikiEdu staff to handle the pressure that students are under to publish content leaving the cleanup work to us. With fewer active, experienced editors-it's a lot of work for zero reward while seeing content degraded. It's a broken system where no one benefits and everyone gets frustrated. Star Mississippi 16:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Why is a student being assigned to edit a high-level article like Rabbit in the first place? And does anyone else think those diffs smell like the content has been copied and pasted from somewhere? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Absolutely copy pasta, and because the system as a whole is broken. Are there areas where students could improve our content? Almost certainly. Are articles about basic subjects that are well covered and maintained it? Nope. Star Mississippi 17:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I can tell, articles are self assigned by students. This has often led to absurd choices, like a student choosing Hamas right at the start of the current conflict even though they did not have ECP, or picking one of the main COVID-19 articles right at the start of the pandemic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      They have to be self assigned, if the instructor assigns topics and edits thats WP:MEATPUPPETry which wiki-ed is not an exception from. What the instructor should be doing is telling their students how to pick an appropriate page for their first edits (avoiding controversial topics or feature articles for example). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems to stretch the definition of meatpuppetry beyond our typical meaning. If I tell a friend, "Hey, the Wikipedia article about that TV show you like could stand some fixing up," and they go and create an account and start editing it, is that meatpuppetry? I'm not recruiting them to create spurious support for my side of an argument; I'm just giving them something specific to get excited about. If a professor, say, assembles a list of articles needing attention and lets their students pick desired topics from that list, I don't see how that would automatically be unethical. Where's the actual puppeteering? Of course, it could in practice cross a line, but that could happen even without the professor assigning specific articles; e.g., if Prof. Smith tells their students to add citations to the groundbreaking works of Prof. Smith, and the students go and do that across pages they find themselves. The issue of whether the conduct is ethical is orthogonal to the question of whether specific articles have been chosen. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      That seems like a classic Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest? which is outside of our understanding of meatpuppetry. This would be the equivalent of telling your babysitter that as a condition of employment she had to fix up the wikipedia page of the show you liked. Making a list of suitable topics (but also allowing students to pick their own) is a completely different thing which I don't mean to disparage at all, IMO that is best practice and is not normally an issue as long as students are not restricted to the list. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      But even if the professor picks a specific topic, I'm hard pressed to think of how that would be intrinsically unethical. Yes, if the professor tells the student to push a particular POV, that would be bad, but again, that could happen without the professor pointing to a specific article. Yes, it would be bad for a teacher to say, "As a condition of getting a passing grade, make me look good on Wikipedia." However, that's not the same as a teacher saying, "The Wikipedia article on circles is in mediocre shape. Your term project will be to write a replacement draft. I will grade what you have in your sandbox page on the last day of the semester." Picking the topic for the student might be excessively strict pedagogy, but that's a separate question from whether it violates Wikipedia policy. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that this is a separate topic, I don't think our two positions are all that far apart but this might be a good topic of conversation for later. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If it's a copyvio or ChatGPT product then they're both degrading the encyclopedia and cheating on their school assignment and so deserve much worse than BITEy edit summaries. JoelleJay (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It would be great if instructors really were choosing to run WikiEd courses because they care about Wikipedia, because that would suggest they care about doing it right when it comes to contributing and they would put in the time and effort to actually learn at least the surface level of our P&Gs. Like, enough to be able to recognize the problems with editing CTOPs or high-level articles, or creating BLPs (or really creating a new article at all). Or to notice when a student adds 3 kb of unreferenced COI trivia, or to intervene when they see several of their students' "peer reviews" contain recommendations[18][19] to take screenshots of (potentially) copyrighted videos and add them to their articles. And if they legitimately cared about improving the encyclopedia, wouldn't you expect them to edit themselves, even if merely to give their students some examples of good edits? JoelleJay (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to interject that the Western Illinois University class being taught "Teaching Writing in Middle and High School (Fall 2023)" is not about writing on Wikipedia, but does have a writing on Wikipedia component. I can only imagine what it takes to teach writing in such an environment (or to subject oneself to take a class on such a topic). I wish we could help more with that effort. Teachers and wikipedians should be natural allies... BusterD (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't bite newcomers... They should be treated with every kindness and patience than any other new editor would be. But I would suggest giving the instructor a short sharp shock. Perhaps we need a multi-level template for "Your wiki-ed student isn't doing great" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the ping Rhododendrites. To address the concerns brought up in this discussion, we do provide significant support and resources for students and instructors. They are encouraged to reach out to their assigned Wikipedia Expert at any point in time during the project with questions. But students are humans like all of us and sometimes don’t engage with the support offered, and think what they’re doing is correct, when it’s not. When there are editing concerns, usually it’s one or two students that struggle to follow WP:PG in a class that otherwise does good work.
      To emphasize what was already mentioned above, treat the students as you would any other new editor. Enforce policy as you would any other new editor. Editors are of course welcome to offer constructive advice to students if you come across them, but if you see poor content and don’t want to bother, click through the student’s user page to find the course page, and on that page it’ll list the Wikipedia Expert (either User:Brianda (Wiki Ed) or User:Ian (Wiki Ed)) that you can ping. We take WP community alerts seriously, and I try my best to reply to pings and address concerns as soon as possible, and I know User:Ian (Wiki Ed)) does as well. Also there’s the WP:ENB that’s on our radar, where you can drop a note for us.
      If anyone's interested to see/learn more about the wide breadth of student work, you can check out all the articles being edited by the 6,000+ students currently enrolled in our program here: https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/campaigns/fall_2023/articles. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Brianda (Wiki Ed): we all appreciate the work of wiki-ed, but when I followed the given link and clicked on a random article in the article creation list I got Ang Casein, which as you will note has already been removed from main space. Draft:Ang Casein bears reviewing, its a mangled translation into Cebuano (maybe?) which was created in main space on en-wiki. It would not be unfair or inaccurate to characterize the presence of this sort of thing on en-wiki as "complete junk" even if I would probably be more diplomatic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It has been on Cebuano Wikipedia since 28 November. Whether or not it is a mangled translation is something not worth speculating about unless someone here can read Cebuano, though Google Translate seems to understand it pretty well. I don't see how anyone could fairly characterize this as complete junk. It was just put in the wrong place at first—a situation that seems to have been resolved quickly and with little fuss. Shells-shells (talk) 18:53, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      So something being somewhere it shouldn't be and serving no purpose where it is and has been discarded... What is the definition of junk[20][21] if not that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess it's just that, in the spirit of fairness, I wouldn't want my own work to be called complete junk simply because I put it in the wrong place at first.
      And, I mean, your definition seems a bit strange to me. If someone puts the Mona Lisa in a dumpster I don't feel that it suddenly becomes complete junk just because it's somewhere it shouldn't be and serving no purpose where it is and has been discarded. Shells-shells (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      But the Mona Lisa doesn't fulfill the standard, it would still have value and purpose even in a dumpster. A Mona Lisa in this scenario would be an article which actually is notable and does have a place on our wall so to speak. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Precisely. So, in our analogy, remove the Mona Lisa (ceb:Ang Casein) from the dumpster (enwiki) and put it in an art gallery (cebwiki). It's not complete junk. Shells-shells (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      One wiki's junk may be another wiki's treasure, but that doesn't mean it isn't junk here on enwiki. If you would like to make a policy and guideline based argument that it isn't complete junk here do so now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One key concept for me around this topic is "induced editing" and "mitigated editing". What I mean by that is that by its very existance WikiEd causes some editing that was going to be happening regardless - because the teacher wants to use Wikipedia for whatever reason - to be more productive htan it would have been without its existance. That is some amount of bad edits turn into neutral (e.g. happen in Sandboxes rather than live articles) or good edits thanks to the training and support WikiEd provides. The existance of WikiEd also means that professors who would never have wanted to teach with Wikipedia now do so and so bad edits happen that if WikiEd weren't around wouldn't happen. I think it's the sense of problems being created that wouldn't otherwise that really create frustration among volunteers. I know I've experienced that frustration when dealing with some classes. This is especially acute because when something's not a problem, we're just not seeing it or at least not feeling it in the same way. So WikiEd gets dinged a lot for the induced problems it casues, doesn't get much credit among volunteers for the positive edits it induces among students, and gets no credit (because how would we even measure it?) for the problems that its training mitigates but which would have happened otherwise. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that they also get little credit for the positive edits of student veterans (especially those who chose to WP:CLEANSTART because they were instructed to include personal identification information in their student editing name). They might be under wiki-ed's purview for a semester but they could edit for years and years to come and if they would not have been exposed to wikipedia editing otherwise to me thats a more impressive figure than the ones for student edits while within the student editing program above. A single prolific editor can do what those thousands of students did in a semester over a career. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hemiauchenia I want to report I experienced this exact same thing right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women_and_religion&oldid=1189036156 I didn't know they were with wikiedu earlier and warned them on their talk page User talk:SabrinaRD Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 08:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Other than identifying them as a newbie and as somebody who might be under pressure to edit (both of which call for extra empathy and helpfulness if only to compensate for the roughness of our environment) why should someone in a such a program be treated differently based on one's opinion of the program? The program itself is a separate issue. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've had a cheerfully shameless request on my talk, after my changes at Pisa Griffin were reverted, to please lay off until today, when his "project is due". Then I can do as I like. Pragmatic, anyway. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two things: (1) Shakedownstreet120, please go through the training again and find slides like this one. If your professor is grading you based on what "sticks" in the article, they're doing it wrong (professors are explicitly told not to do this). If contributions are graded, it would be based on evidence of what was added (even if it was removed). I'd recommend giving it another shot, though, perhaps asking Johnbod for advice on some draft text before implementing it. It's hard to see what the purpose of the changes to the lead were -- they seem to reword/condense things, but the reason for that is unclear. You changed the translation but didn't provide an alternative citation (and removed the one that was there). Adding the original Arabic text may be useful, but probably as a footnote if anything. Would be good to open discussion of the changes on the article talk page. Asking for special favors because of an assignment is a sure-fire way to generate resentment from volunteers, as you may have noticed. :) (2) Hemiauchenia decided to swoop in and plop down According to [this thread], your school project doesn't matter to Wikipedia, and you still need to get consensus for your edits. If there is a consensus in this thread for anything, it is that your approach to students is needlessly hostile and doesn't help anything. Of course the project "matters" to Wikipedia -- it's a new user making changes to the article, and we all want it to go well. If what you meant was more or less what I said above, the precision got lost in the antagonism. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That edit summary is definitely newbie biting at best, incivil at worst. And just published less than 24 hours ago, this peer reviewed paper's title is "Toxic comments are associated with reduced activity of volunteer editors on Wikipedia". Bit of an irony when Hemiauchenia claimed "Student editors basically never go on to become long-term contributors" while generating that type of toxic environment. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't been able to confirm this yet (I need to apply for API access to the classifier program), but the dataset indicated by this article seems like it may categorize vandalism warnings as "toxic comments", and the methodology seems to categorize indefinitely-blocked users as having "abandoned the project". jp×g🗯️ 06:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples of comments and their toxicity ratings are provided in Supplementary Table S4 (they are quite enlightening). A boilerplate notice of speedy deletion for vandalism gets a toxicity score of 0.21. Note that We define a toxic comment as a comment that has a score of at least 0.8 on any of the six dimensions provided by Perspective API. The 0.8 score means that on average 8 out of 10 raters would mark it as toxic. Shells-shells (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) The state that the main results are based on comments with a "toxicity score" of 80%+. Based on Table S4, a standard G3 CSD notice (vandalism or hoax) clocks in at 21%, so that would suggest that this is not a driver. However, it would be nice to see what a direct block notice, received after inserting "poop" into five articles, would score at - because those could well account for a bunch of those day 1 full stops show in Fig. 1. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, I got myself developer access to the API they mentioned in the paper -- {{Uw-own3}} does indeed give 0.8039029 for ATTACK_ON_AUTHOR -- but at this point I fear we may be getting somewhat far afield of the AN thread (I would be happy to continue discussing wherever else). jp×g🗯️ 08:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Creator of a competing wiki with advanced user rights

    Most participants agree that VRT access is not something enWiki can do anything about. Similarly, the off-wiki activity of on-wiki editors isn't really anything we can be policing when there are no clear or obvious breaches of policy. Primefac (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    A conflict exists that the creator of a competing wiki that is extremely critical of enwiki has a number of advanced user rights on this site. Justapedia's slogan, repeated consistently throughout their marketing, is: "With the benefit of hindsight, Justapedia is restoring the spirit of objectivity and neutrality Wikipedia has long since lost." Juspapedia is seeking donations and promising their editors that they are "getting closer to attracting big donors". It would be in the interests of Justapedia for sub-par articles to be published on Wikipedia. It would be easier if the creator would voluntarily resign their NPP or autopatrolled rights, but if not it seems they should be removed. 163.182.131.62 (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We generally don't ding editors for their off-wiki projects if these do not affect their on-wiki behavior. Can you provide any diffs suggesting that the editor in question is causing "sub-par articles to be published on Wikipedia"? I see no evidence of this. BD2412 T 13:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the OP is saying that this is affecting their on-wiki behavior, that they are deliberately sabotaging Wikipedia by introducing sub-par articles in order to build a case that their own personal project is superior and worthy of "big donors" contributing. Not saying I agree, just summarizing their argument. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that the complaint has been specified, we can agree this is silly. We don't believe that our content can easliy be sabotaged by a small number of villains, do we? SPECIFICO talk 14:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion here, but I'll just mention that Atsme — I don't know why people are pussyfooting around saying the name, it's surely not a secret? — was asked by Doug Weller in September to resign from the VRT, a request which she declined. Bishonen | tålk 14:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    IMHO, I should think Atsme is a less than ideal voice of Wikipedia irrespective of this subject. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Objective3000 my concern is that a competitor has access to what should be confidential information and which could, hypothetically, be used in ways not helpful to Wikipedia. And do we really want a competitor responding to messages on VRT?
    I believe this is all hypothetical as I think she is inactive. In which case there is no reason not to remove her rights but that can only be done by a VRT admin. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes to the concern. I additionally think that an editor with a history of disagreement with some of our most active articles and about whom DrMies once said exhibits “cynicism toward reliable sources and reputable media” is not a good face of Wikipedia. Just my opinion. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand the concern around "a competitor". Forking and reuse of Wikimedia content is encouraged, so long as proper attribution is in place. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Proper attribution is not in place. Take, for instance, [22] which is copied content from Wikipedia of a now deleted page. The only attribution given is "This page may contain content developed from Wikipedia." There is nothing in the page history. As the page cannot even be found on Wikipedia this is no way compliant with the Wikipedia CC-BY-SA license. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is somewhat of a separate topic, but regardless: the content there is licensed under CC-BY-SA as required, and the attribution text you mention links back to the corresponding Wikipedia article. That seems acceptable per Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#License. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:31, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But it doesn't, does it? Can you tell from that page who wrote the content? I can't. So no, it does not meet CC-BY-SA. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia's main license, the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), requires that any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under that same license, must state that it is released under that license, and must acknowledge the contributors (which can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem that Sirfurboy is raising is that the original Welsh crown jewels that Justapedia forked, was deleted eight months after they imported it. Because the original page is deleted on enwiki, only those accounts with the deletedhistory permission, which on enwiki is limited to admins, CU, OS, and researchers can actually view who created the content. In this circumstance, the requirement to acknowledge the contributors seems to be unfulfillable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thank you for explaining that. That would seem to be an issue for any fork, though, no? Surely wikis that fork Wikipedia content are not required to delete any article that is deleted back on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, I suspect it would depend on whether or not they imported just the latest revision (as Justapedia did), or all of the revisions. Special:Export allows for you to export the full history of a page, but defaults (at least on enwiki) to only exporting the current revision. If a fork imported every revision, then us deleting the page they imported wouldn't matter, as they would still have a full copy of the contributor log locally.
    But if the fork is only importing the most recent revision...I don't know. Wikipedia:Copyrights#Re-use of text gives three possible ways to provide attribution history; link to the original, or link to another copy of the original that conforms to the license and provides credit in an equivalent manner, or provide a list of the authors of the original. You could maybe achieve the second way, if you provided a link to an archived copy of the Special:History page of the original on the Wayback Machine or archive.today, made at or shortly after the export. But I'm not fully up to date with the intricacies of how CC-BY-SA works in this scenario more generally. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, so I asked the lovely folks at WP:CCI over on Discord, and the gist is that Justapedia must provide one of the alternate methods of attribution, similar to those mentioned at WP:RUD. An example of this in practice can be seen with EverybodyWiki, like Justapedia they forked the Welsh crown jewels article prior to its deletion, but they also have a separate namespace (Edithistory, note can't link this because that Wiki is on our local spam blocklist), which contains a local copy of the page history that we've now deleted.
    If Justapedia don't do something like this, and provide attribution to the original enwiki authors in some form, then they'll be in breach of the content license. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But would the WMF pursue legal action to enforce the content license in this case? 331dot (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a question for the Foundation's legal department I'd assume. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IIRC no, as the copyright lies with the contributors. Good luck tracking down the author of Welsh crown jewels and getting them to take action. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 20:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to Sideswipe9th for following that up. No, I don't suppose anyone will take action. Why would they? There is no recoverable loss, and that site is justanotherfork. But they are not compliant with the license, and that's the point. Incidentally, I know who wrote that article but it was just an example. All the deleted articles have this issue, and it is possible to find others too (for instance, any move without a redirect) Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maddy is right. The guidance at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process lays out the process an aggrieved editor can take, if they so desire, up to the point of issuing a DMCA takedown against Justapedia's hosting provider. I'm not sure the DMCA requires there to be a recoverable loss however, just a breach of copyright. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sideswipe9th: Thanks for hunting that down. (I'm replying to the CCI comment if that's not clear in this jumble of replies). This seems very much like an edge case Justapedia didn't consider, rather than an intentional flouting of Wikipedia's licensing requirements, given that most of us didn't really know what's required in this case. It'd probably be best to just notify the folks over at Justapedia so they can handle it, since they seem to be trying in good faith to follow the forking and licensure requirements. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [Heck if I know where to indent to in this maze either.] The WMF does publish - very inconveniently - the list of editors of deleted titles. See for example quarry:query/78531 for Welsh crown jewels, and it's also available in the database dumps. In particular, suppressed and revdeleted edits are not shown, and neither are edit summaries; which is why I've always thought it insanity that we recommend providing authorship information in edit summaries instead of requiring history merges. This has been the case since before I started editing in 2005 (and for a while in 2005, before I became an admin, it was shown on-wiki too - anyone could see what admins do at Special:Undelete/Welsh crown jewels, sans edit summaries).
    I'd still be furious if it my CC-BY-SA content that I'd published off-wiki and some random person on the Internet imported onto Wikipedia were attributed only in such a manner. That "You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license" line under the edit summary box has effectively made the license unusable by anyone anywhere who doesn't want to assign credit solely to Wikipedia, even without taking the issue of deleted pages into account. —Cryptic 08:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 to GorillaWarfare's comment. --JBL (talk) 19:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JayBeeEll sorry, I can’t figure out what you replied to. Doug Weller talk 20:26, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doug Weller: No kidding, impossible to make out with the tower of comments in between, sorry -- I have clarified. --JBL (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no issue with forking and reuse in general. If a fork is created because a group of people have an ideological problem with Wikipedia (which in and of itself is fine), that group then has a vested interest in shifting traffic from Wikipedia to their fork, and as such are not well-placed to be handling VRTS tickets that are asking for help or sharing confidential information. This is particularly true when the fork was created for political reasons; I'd be concerned, but much less so, if the fork being discussed was from the roads wikiproject, or the film and television one. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "With the understanding that Justapedia's content was forked from the vast corpus of Wikipedia, which includes over 6.5 million articles, and numerous templates, projects, categories, and other freely licensed content, we face an equally large task in adapting and refining or completely changing this content to comply with Justapedia's five fundamental principles and core content policies. Many of the Wikipedia articles that have received widespread criticism from academics and the mainstream media have been forked to Justapedia, where they will be rewritten by volunteers who (a) share our mission and goals of preserving and protecting history, (b) want to restore the spirit of neutrality and objectivity, and (c) believe in the power of diverse perspectives. Happy editing!"[23]
      Breitbart as described in Justapedia (which does say that some content may be from Wikipedia) "Breitbart News Network (commonly known as Breitbart News, Breitbart, or Breitbart.com) is an American tabloid-style news and opinion website co-founded in 2007 by the late Andrew Breitbart and Larry Solov during their trip to Israel. They founded Breitbart News based on their beliefs that a strong democracy depends on accurate reporting and the free and open exchange of ideas. After Andrew's death on March 1, 2012, co-founder/CEO Larry Solov, along with Andrew's widow Susie Breitbart, and the Mercer family retained ownership of the company.The company is headquartered in Los Angeles, with bureaus in Texas, London, and Jerusalem.[24]
      Our article:"Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart, or Breitbart.com) is an American far-right syndicated news, opinion, and commentary website founded in mid-2007 by American conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart. Its content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists. The site has published a number of conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading stories. Posts originating from the Breitbart News Facebook page are among the most widely shared political content on Facebook." Doug Weller talk 16:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Don't get me wrong, I don't think the site's content is an improvement. But forking an encyclopedia — even if motivated by the desire to divert traffic — is hardly a reason to yank NPP/autopatrolled. I'm also skeptical that it's a reason to remove VTRS access, without any evidence that that access is being misused, though I do understand the reasoning behind it. That said, if Atsme has indeed been on an indefinite break since June, it would seem her VRT account will be disabled shortly for inactivity anyway. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Atsme is active. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      On VRTS? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:17, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Ahh, got an EC trying to clarify that I don't know about VRT activity. But she is active on the project despite the edit on her UTP saying she is on indefinite break. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      For me, the crux of the matter is in the VRTS activity policy. The VRTS admins only select the VRTS agents that they have the utmost trust in to represent the Wikimedia projects. While Atsme met that requirement when she was granted the permission, is that still the case when she's the founder and key driving force of a forked project that actively disparages Wikipedia (a Wikimedia project)? This is different from holding the other advanced permissions she currently holds, because they don't have that same requirement of being trusted to represent Wikimedia projects. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Per Doug Weller, the VRT issue seems like a valid concern, easily resolved. All the otherstuff is classic Otherstuff, (not our special OTHERSTUFF} and can be addressed apart from any behavioural questions concerning our friend and longtime colleague, Atsme. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't know that forks included non-mainspace pages such as List of administrators/Timezones and a table of admin numbers (complete with table heading 'Average number of active English Wikipedia administrators per month (January 2001 – present)'. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or that, for instance, User:Acroterion and User:331dot were Admins there. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That must be the other me(j/k). 331dot (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, RfA must be a lot easier over there. Acroterion (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ping Emufarmers and Matthewrb as the current English-speaking VRT admins, given VRT membership is discussed above. My $0.02 - as an OTRS admin from what feels like decades ago (probably is actually a decade ago now), potential removal is definitely something that would have been considered based on these facts back then, but would naturally be a judgement call as to whether removal is appropriate or not. Daniel (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This entire discussion saddens me, but it doesn't surprise me. FYI, Justapedia supports 99% of Wikimedia Foundation projects, and that includes Commons, Phabricator (and when we can, we work with mediawiki techs), and other projects that are either dependent on or independent of the WMF. I don't know why there is even a discussion here about Commons or my work as a VRT volunteer, but quite frankly, what I do on Commons is not Wikipedia's concern. Commons is completely separate from Wikipeda, and Justapedia uses and contributes to Commons. Wikipedia does not have an exclusive. Perhaps the time has come for you to come to that realization. I have contributed over a decade of my time and efforts to help build Wikipedia, and while I may completely disagree with editors who use WP as a weapon to further their own agendas and biases, I have not broken any policies or guidelines relative to my work here as an editor, or NPP reviewer. Yes, there have been times that I was embarrassed by some of the criticism of WP launched by others, but the criticism was justified. What I consider even worse is the criticism of the WMF and Jimmy Wales by WP editors, as it brings to mind biting the hand that feeds you. As for proper attribution, I am not aware of any practicing copyright attorneys in this discussion, but be aware that our attorneys have already advised us that our method of attribution aligns with the licensing requirements of the WMF. As GorillaWarfare kindly pointed out, the link back to the article attributes the origins which provides access to the complete editing history including the psuedonyms/IP addresses etc. of whoever added the material, unless that material has been removed. If the material is no longer available, or has been deleted by WP, then those with a complaint about their material being missing resulting in it not being attributed properly need to take it up with the WMF. IOW, WP erased the attribution, we did not. Happy editing. Atsme 💬 📧 22:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Atsme: If the material is no longer available, or has been deleted by WP, then those with a complaint about their material being missing resulting in it not being attributed properly need to take it up with the WMF. I'm not sure that's the case, specifically for pages that have been deleted after Justapedia (or any other mirror or fork) has imported them. The Reusing Wikipedia content policy puts the requirements for demonstrating attribution on the part of the re-user, and gives three options for proper attribution on re-distribution; provide a hyperlink or URL (where possible) to the page you're re-using, or provide a hyperlink or URL (where possible) to an alternative stable online copy that conforms with the license, or to include a list of all of the authors of the original work. In this circumstance, it is no longer possible for Justapedia to provide a hyperlink to the original article, because it has been deleted, so in order for your site to be compliant it seems as though you must either provide a hyperlink to an alternative stable online copy that conforms to the license, or you must have a local copy of the list of original authors.
      Could I suggest that you please re-check with your legal team on this specific set of circumstances, where a page that Justapedia has imported has since been deleted by Wikipedia and the attribution method you had previously chosen is no longer available, as it is an edge case that they or yourselves may not have considered? As I mentioned above, one other site that forks enwiki (EverybodyWiki) includes a local copy of an imported page's history on a separate namespace, to avoid the break in attribution issue where an imported page was deleted after it was imported. For everything else, I would agree that you are in compliance with the relevant policies surrounding content reuse, it's just this edge case that you might not have considered or been aware of. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Intellectual property attorney hat on. It cannot possibly be the case that making a legally sufficient copy of content on Wikipedia imposes upon the copier a permanent duty of continually checking as to whether Wikipedia has chosen to delete the original and its attribution. If this were the case, it would require even printed copies to be updated to reflect such changes, and even if the change was made decades later. I would submit that referring readers of the copy to Wikipedia remains sufficient even if Wikipedia deletes the content, because there are custodians of Wikipedia's data who are able to retrieve and provide the deleted data if needed. Intellectual property attorney hat off. BD2412 T 03:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I am not a lawyer but I agree with this interpretation; Wikipedia's own policies on forking and copyright also state that the copier has met their duty of care by providing a link to the original article, whether or not that article is still present or has been deleted. Since the WMF only owns copyright on the various logos around the website, the responsibility falls to the original authors if they feel that their work has not been properly attributed, and their grievance would necessarily have to be against the WMF, as they do continue to maintain the deleted content regardless of whether or not it's visible on the user-facing website. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Since the WMF only owns copyright on the various logos around the website, the responsibility falls to the original authors if they feel that their work has not been properly attributed, and their grievance would necessarily have to be against the WMF, as they do continue to maintain the deleted content regardless of whether or not it's visible on the user-facing website. This much is clearly incorrect. It is the one making the copy who infringes copyright by making use of copyrighted material without permission. The grievance is against the infringing party, the one who made the unauthorised copy. But let's not get confused by copyright here. What we have here is licensed use. The issue is not copyright itself, but terms of a license. If the material is copied and used according to the terms of a license then all is well. If the terms of the license are not met then remedies exist or may be found in law. This is all hypothetical. The point BD2412T makes, however, is that if a copy was made according to license, and if the license is irrevocable, then what Wikipedia does with material cannot affect the licensed use.
      Of course, the license is not quite irrevocable. It says: The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. So it is irrevocable as long as (for instance) the licensee provides attribution, according to the licenser's terms. That the site owners have decided to rely on Wikipedia to maintain the attribution is a grey area, particularly considering the advice above from WP:CCI on how the license terms should be met. BD2412T says I would submit that referring readers of the copy to Wikipedia remains sufficient even if Wikipedia deletes the content. And that may be correct. But it may not be, and I do not see any prospect of this being taken to law to test that, for a whole bunch of reasons. The argument about printed copies is, I believe, quite different, because the spaghetti publishers I have seen who have printed Wikipedia's material merely credit Wikipedia, and not the authors, and so are already in breach of the license. You don't meet the license conditions for identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material by crediting Wikipedia. The CC-BY-SA license does not supersede an author's moral rights. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      The grievance is the one making the copy who infringes copyright by making use of copyrighted material without permission. In the context of this discussion, my argument was assuming that a link has been provided to the original article, whether or not it has been deleted. The rationale I gave does not exist without that premise being in place. That said I will admit that despite my opinion and interpretation, determining whether or not the link is valid is indeed still an open legal question. Given such cases as Philpot v. Media Research Center there's absolutely no prediction about what courts would consider sufficient attribution for Creative Commons or if it's even a valid form of licensing. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • it is no secret that Atsme and I tend to be polar opposites on a lot of things but CC by SA is what it is and while my political ideology is vastly different, well, again CC by SA. I don't see any evidence that her editing have changed to promote this, so I am unsure what the point of this being posted at AN of all places is.GRINCHIDICAE🎄 23:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Because it's highly effective advertising to disaffected editors on en.wiki. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Random two cents: (1) there seems to be no actual evidence that Atsme has vandalised Wikipedia by publishing "subpar articles" as suggested above. Without evidence this allegation goes nowhere. (2) Anyone unhappy with VRT team membership they should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team#Dispute_resolution. Debates about VRT membership can't be resolved at this noticeboard. (3) People who fork Wikipedia articles are required to follow the attribution requirements, but they surely can't be expected to watch every single WP article forever and repeatedly update their attribution if the original source material is deleted or moved. Someone might perhaps email the WMF for a view, but resolution of this issue is off topic in a thread about one specific editor who contributes to both wikis. (4) More generally, why should we care if Atsme or anyone else also edits at some no-name wiki fork? If they're not doing any harm to en-WP then it doesn't seem like any of our business. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree entirely with Euryalus, just above me. If someone has any diffs of Atsme making bad edits here in order to damage en-Wiki's reputation, then please post those diffs. Otherwise, there is nothing to deal with here at AN. (And if you don't want anyone to fork your contributions here, don't hit the save button.) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      +1. I am also reminded of Veropedia, another unsuccessful fork where many admins and other people with higher permissions (more significant than VRT if you ask me) were involved. —Kusma (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no problem with Atsme editing Wikipedia, so long as it is not in the political arena. My concern is only with VRT. I think she is a poor choice for VRT irrespective of Justapedia given her disdain for reliable sources and acceptance of poor sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two very different issues being discussed here - whether User:Atsme should retain her permissions having founded a Wikipedia fork and whether that fork complies with copyright. I certainly do not agree with some of Atsme's political views, but I can see no behaviour that justifies removing any rights, and the right to fork is very important - it demonstrates that the Wikimedia Foundation does not own the content of this encyclopedia. On the copyright issue we should defer to our legal counsel, but I would say that this fork complies much better than some of the other forks that exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are the diff's showing Atsme violated editing policy? So far this seems like just opinion's so I'll offer mine barring evidence being presented. I don't think off-wiki activity should even come in to play unless it's egregious and there has to be some on-wiki evidence that Wikipedia is even being affected negatively. --ARoseWolf 19:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clear WP:SNOW here, we can close this out, Atsme is fine. --GRuban (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @GRuban just checking, you’re happy about her having VRT? Doug Weller talk 21:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm ecstatic about her having VRT. We have admins and arbs with Wikipediocracy accounts, after all. It is great that our shining lights recognize our flaws, and are not a monolithic hivemind. --GRuban (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @GRuban So far as I know, unless User:Atsme has edited recently, she hasn't used VRT for at least 15 months. Should someone have that right who isn't active? Doug Weller talk 09:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Wait a minute. Is this about her not using VRT, or is it about her running a competing wiki? Is there a requirement for VRT use? Because if there wasn't, but suddenly one is being proposed, just for Atsme, because she has a branched wiki, that is starting to look pretty fishy. --GRuban (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment unless there is actual evidence of on-wiki COI activity and editing (no evidence has been provided), this thread should be closed. As far as I can tell Atsme hasn't actually done anything wrong. Polyamorph (talk) 09:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      There should be no sanction of an editor here for off-wiki activity and the right to create a fork of content is an essential aspect of Creative Commons and open source licenses. I think you (and GRuban's SNOW comment) are correct on that. There is no question of any editor sanction of Atsme. But there is an open question about VRT, and there is no unanimity on that one, and I cannot even see how the community can take a position on that. Can the community require VRT be withdrawn? I don't know. But should it be withdrawn?
      On that last point, I agree with Doug Weller. If Atsme has the access but does not use it, and if the reason for that inactivity is because she made a POVFORK of the whole encyclopaedia and is busy with that, then I find it astounding that there is any question here. VRT should be withdrawn. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      If it is true that Atsme has not been active on VRT for fifteen months then the permission should probably be withdrawn per meta:Volunteer Response Team/Activity policy, but as the VRT applies to all WMF wikis then that is not a decision that can be taken by en-wiki alone. Go to Meta. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

      but as the VRT applies to all WMF wikis then that is not a decision that can be taken by en-wiki alone.

      I'd go further. en-wiki as an entity has no particular role to play in the decision. People who happened to be en-wiki editors are welcome (and ecouraged) to share their individual views, but I don't think there is a formal role for en-wiki as an entity. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I sincerely appreciate the feedback and the knowledgeable responses from my colleagues, despite the unfortunate attempts by my detractors to unjustly profile me as either untrustworthy or a detriment to the project, simply because I agree with some of the criticisms about WP articles, and decided to create the Justapedia Foundation and Justapedia. Try reading the criticisms that WP publishes about itself, and its own systemic biases. If you have time, take a look at what comes up in Google scholar about Wikipedia's systemic bias. I will just summarize my position with a quote from Wikimedia under the section Wikimedia stakeholders More generally speaking, Wikimedia stakeholders may also be part of the Wikimedia movement, i.e. readers of Wikimedia content, donors, schools, GLAM, similar-minded institutions, and companies co-operating with the Wikimedia Foundation or other Wikimedia organizations. Nowhere does it say stakeholders have to be like-minded. They say "similar-minded", and Justapedia fits that requirement, as do I in my position as an editor here, and as a VRT volunteer. And let's not forget the times when Wikipedia and Wikimedia have butted heads, which speaks much louder than anything I have ever done personally or in connection with Justapedia. Again, Justapedia supports the Wikimedia Foundation, and to this day, I continue to support the WMF movement as a productive volunteer here, at NPP, and at VRT. The same applies to JPF and JP per our participation at sister projects, Phabricator, Commons, and wherever else we feel our contributions are needed and appreciated. Happy editing! Atsme 💬 📧 19:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thread should be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed. jp×g🗯️ 06:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    INNACURATE AND HURTFUL/FALSE INFORMATION

    This is Our business and not updated by us - but by a racist hurtful person. If you want to have facts about our school - fine - but the information contained is not factual and was not placed there by anyone affiliated with the school. We have many families from all different backgrounds and the information does not represent our institution

    This is libel 64.203.186.69 (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference: Liberty Christian Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    it's not libel, it's just adding what sources say. See NPOV, or possibly, in this case, COI. Babysharkboss2 was here!! (Talk to me) (Waif Me!) 13:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No one edits the articles affiliated with them or their businesses. That's the point. Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view. Please raise your concerns at Talk:Liberty Christian Academy. Folly Mox (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    64.203.186.69], please be careful using terms such as libel. See WP:NLT. If you believe the information in the article does not reflect what the citations claim, or if you believe the citations do not meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources (WP:RS), you definitely need to specifically state that on the article's talk page. --Yamla (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The third paragraph of the "History" section looks somewhat irrelevant to this school, but everything before that appears to be sourced. I'm not sure why the OP is massively concerned, to be honest, because it clear states that this was a segregation school that became one of the first to not segregate. That is surely a positive. Black Kite (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll concur with the editors above. I see nothing hurtful, inaccurate or false data. Reconciling history is sometimes painful when it is ignored for a long time. This is why Wikipedia draws on WP:Reliable sources, not a connected person's emotional reaction. If wikipedians had found any material which WAS placed there by anyone associated with the school, we likely would have removed it and sanctioned the contributor for undisclosed connected editing. BusterD (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well yeah, but having the segregation school stuff included at all is probably a concern from where they're sitting. What perhaps could be done is expanding the history section with more content on other stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I note they removed "Lynchburg" from their name, good call IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that a "good call"? Buffs (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Any information that could be construed as hurtful is clearly marked as history, and supported by independent reliable sources. If you wish to add some more content about the school as it is now (also supported by independent reliable sources) then please do so, or, if you work for the school, put your proposed changes at Talk:Liberty Christian Academy, but don't try to rewrite history. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The reality of human history is complex. It is full of every emotion known to us. Sometimes it can hurt to know the truth. What I could say to the IP as far as Wikipedia is concerned would look a lot like the editors above my post. We present what is in reliable independent sources. What I would say about their feelings is to understand that they are only in control of their actions right now. We all have a choice about how we live and our interactions with other humans today. So be the best version of you and nothing else really matters. --ARoseWolf 19:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    People have been trying to excise any whiff of the word "segregation" from the article for a decade. And "FALSE INFORMATION BY HACKERS" isn't even the worst edit summary. In Special:Diff/550418204 in 2013 someone made the spurious claim that a book was behind a paywall, so couldn't be used to support article content, and the word "segregation" disappeared then, too. Several of the IP addresses such as 64.203.186.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) geolocate to the institution next door. And the single-purpose accounts have made some utterly specious edits over the years such as Special:Diff/804557717 removing a pronunciation guide because the International Phonetic Alphabet, of all things, is somehow designed for the sole purpose of insulting a relative of the school's founder. Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've taken the opportunity to add Shared IP edu template to identify the IP to later editors. As it turns out, the ip was registered to the university and not the academy. BusterD (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • With that history, wouldn't an indefinite semi-protection be justified? It's infrequent enough that a definite-length protection would be just waited out, and practically every IP edit to the page (especially in the past year and change) has been revisionist. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 19:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably. I've got it on my watchlist now, so if no one acts and it gets "fixed" again I will protect. Primefac (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sad thing is that had editors used Downland's 2015 book more, instead of Downlond's 2007 doctoral thesis, there wouldn't have been so much fuss for 10 years. Downland does not actually paint things as one-sidedly as our article does. And there's at least a UCP book by professor Andrew Hartman that supports a more two-sided analysis here, as well, and probably others too. So it does seem to be in actual need of some fixing, albeit not of the section-blanking-vandalism form.

          Once again people who can only vandalize but who cannot write perpetuate a problem and don't actually fix it. And these are people going to a university!

          Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

          "OUR business"? Might be these are the people who work at the school, not merely attend. BusterD (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not seeing anything here that is explicitly wrong (NPOV is not wrong in any manner with respect to content), however, I think it's too heavily weighted on its segregationist past: 8 of 10 sentences regarding the school's history cover this topic. While contentious and it should be discussed in the article, I would encourage the OP of this thread to add to the content. On the flip side, some of this could be condensed without losing any significant information.
    If the OP has specific examples of something that is "hateful" or "false" information, please post here and we can discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Moko Koza

    This page was recently (re-)created. However, I can't see any of the deleted history. I went to check because I'd previously G4'd it a while back and want to see if this was another G4 possibility or if it would be legit. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Instead of looking at deleted history, look at the the deletion log. There you'll see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moko Koza and some other relevant items.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No yeah, I can see the deletion history itself, but I can't see the deleted history. What's up with that? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird, neither can I. Galobtter (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possibly because you undeleted the page on 28 July 2023 28 and moved it to Draft:Moko Koza? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the clear copy/paste from the draft to the article, I have histmerged them. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... how did I not see that? Thanks all! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All roads to Moko Koza creation lead to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Anonymous Earthling.-- Ponyobons mots 18:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    BanEX for potential spam

    Can I ask for clarification about the Wikipedia:BANEX policy for potenial spam? Example re: User:Joelphotofix (owner of Photofix). One of many diff
    Light show (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you clarify your issue with me? 94.10.15.143 (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Spam has always been an issue on WP. The article about the policy should help. Light show (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Light show, BANEX only allows for the reversal of "obvious vandalism" - spam does not fall into that category. When in doubt, just don't edit. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. However, my reading of BANEX states it includes reverting obvious vandalism . . . or obvious violations of WP policies. Per image use policies, "for images considered self-promotion,". . . "the Wikipedia community has repeatedly reached consensus to delete such images."
    Although Joelphotofix has used or uses his self-description (with his business logo,) image descriptions, and change summaries, in a way that would imply self-promotion, maybe some admin should warn him about such policies. The change I diffed came to my attention since Hal Linden is on my watchlist. Light show (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that better? Removed logo
    i. Really not interested in self promotion or spamm. Get a life. ing Joelphotofix (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joelphotofix: "Get a life" is a personal attack, and as such a violation of WP:NPA. Please strike it out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BANEX says "Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons." So the only exceptions are obvious vandalism and obvious BLP violations - nothing about general obvious violations of "WP policies". Seconding Primefac's comment about "When in doubt, just don't edit." Galobtter (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    BANEX goes on to say "cases in which no reasonable person could disagree". Primefac and Galobtter are both rather reasonable persons. A good rule of thumb about BANEX is that if you have to ask if an edit is allowed, it's probably not. Reporting the issue here was probably a better approach regardless. Anyway, I don't think these edits are blatantly promotional: the Flickr account these photos come from is titled "John Mathew Smith & www.celebrity-photos.com" and Joelphotofix is referencing that in their upload summaries, which I think the form suggests to do but it's been a while since I've uploaded an image. Joelphotofix asked a couple years back for advice on properly contributing photos to Wikipedia and seems to have been following that advice. Yes they own a photo restoration business but their intent here seems to be to contribute to Wikipedia, not to promote their business (at least not primarily). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Number of warnings

    HistoricPilled (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indeffed by NinjaRobotPirate Bbb23 as a sock. Sandstein 15:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    What is the maximum number of warnings a user can receive before facing a ban or block? A particular user (HistoricPilled) has accumulated more than six warnings within a week but continues to engage in edit wars and vandalize articles by adding unsourced information. Additionally, the user has removed these warnings from their talk page. Imperial[AFCND] 04:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Signal the user to ANI, if they got six warnings in a week it would be good to have an admin take a look. There isn't a fixed number of warnings before a block, but if a user keeps ignoring warnings and behaving in a non-constructive way, you should definitely bring it to the attention of admins. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 04:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is just mad and trying to make personal attacks, he's been vandalizing maratha pages and making fake articles HistoricPilled (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ImperialAficionadoOne warning from a guy on my talk page has already reverted his own edit which was made by me go check himself Gama Wrestler's page talk and history. Also, it's my person talk page so I can always clear it whenever I want. HistoricPilled (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been warned by any admin yet @ImperialAficionadoKeep trying. HistoricPilled (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoricPilled Warnings carry no extra weight if they are from an admin vs. any other user. Additionally, when you remove a warning from your user talk page, that is interpreted to be acknowledgment of the warning. —C.Fred (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The warning himself came from this vandalizer who's making this issue right here. I don't take him seriously at all. HistoricPilled (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism should be reverted. Thats all what I did. I am not only the one who warned you. Am I? Words such as "Keep trying" sounds like you are challenging about it? Imperial[AFCND] 05:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I reverted your Vandalism which is why you seem to be mad and making personal attacks nothing else...6 times 😂😂😂😂😂 HistoricPilled (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoricPilled @ImperialAficionado Diffs, please, both of you, for this alleged vandalism. Remember that calling a good faith edit vandalism can be viewed as a personal attack. —C.Fred (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made any personal attacks on you. The admins could make sure what really happened by checking our edit history aswell as the revisions of the articles such as the Battle of Balapur, the Nizam's Carnatic campaigns, and the Battle of Aror. @C.Fred, it would be helpful if you provide the assistance of a WP:MILHIST. Even though I am a member of it, I am sure that @HistoricPilled won't accept my advice because the user thinks that I have personal problems with him. It is clear from the statement "I don't take him seriously at all." Imperial[AFCND] 05:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both those Bajirao battles have already been talked about on talk page and I've not made any edits on them in 24 hours....Also, Battle of Aror was vandalized by you where you added a fake number different from the source which is also noticed on talk page. It was already solved and concluded on talk page and I didn't revert anything there from then. HistoricPilled (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For battle of Aror, it wasn't a "fake number". See this discussion. Imperial[AFCND] 05:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, it's hard to take you serious when you claim I was warned 6 times on my talk page when in reality it only happened 2 times by random users and 1 of those already restored the edit I made on Gama's page. Go check talk and history. HistoricPilled (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking...
    1. uw-unsourced2, Ekdalian, 25 Nov
    2. uw-unsourced3, RegentsPark (admin), 28 Nov
    3. uw-npov1, SKAG123, 2 Dec
    4. uw-vandalism2, ImperialAficionado, 6 Dec
    5. uw-3rr, SKAG123, 6 Dec
    6. uw-vandalism3, ImperialAficionado, 7 Dec
      uw-vandalism4, Philipnelson99, 7 Dec (warning not stricken, but user did self-revert their revert of HP)
    So, seven six warnings from five four different users, of whom one is an admin and two are one is an experienced editors. —C.Fred (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC), amended 05:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism mostly comes from him they're not particularly warnings. Reverts are normal. Also, I already mentioned the guy on my talk page who tried to warn me on Gama Wrestler's page himself returned to the edit I made. It's on the talk page. HistoricPilled (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoricPilled Please provide a specific edit by ImperialAficionado that you are labeling as vandalism, or stop labeling his edits as such. —C.Fred (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has been making Personal attacks, his own edits are often controversial and reverted by different users many times. HistoricPilled (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Provide the evidence where I vandalised any article, where I added information without any sources, or I removed sourced information repeatedly. Nor I harrassed any user. Could you explain the reason why you called be a "clown" in this rev. Imperial[AFCND] 06:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're going to attack my personal page multiple times, I'll definitely call you clown, just like I would do ang social media, I take it same as a dm. HistoricPilled (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you obviously haven't read WP:NPA Philipnelson99 (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an encyclopedia, not a "social" media site. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Battle of Aror - Here I restored a previous revision from a guy who made an edit without any reason or citation and removed an already existing text, this ImperialAficionado user reverted my revert when it was valid just because he feels uncomfortable with my edits. HistoricPilled (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summary clearly says why they reverted... Philipnelson99 (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoricPilled According to their edit summary, the revert was because the source did not support the claim. That is a good-faith, policy-based edit. —C.Fred (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred apologies for the warning I did not strike. Philipnelson99 (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Philipnelson99 HistoricPilled (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @C.Fred, what will be the conclusion? @HistoricPilled have made an allegation aganist me, even claiming I manipulated the source Imperial[AFCND] 06:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just like you made allegations against me while spamming my personal page for no reason. A lot of time I add source to my edit and you claim I just make random edits unsourced. HistoricPilled (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsourced addition on Battle of Aror
    1.) Revision as of 20:32, 9 December 2023
    Removal of cited information on Battle of Aror
    1.) Revision as of 12:57, 6 December 2023
    Removal of cited information on Battle of Balapur
    1.) Revision as of 17:45, 7 December 2023
    2.) Revision as of 16:18, 7 December 2023
    3.) Revision as of 14:59, 7 December 2023
    Removal of cited information on Nizam's Carnatic campaigns
    1.) Revision as of 17:48, 7 December 2023
    2.) Revision as of 15:41, 7 December 2023
    3.) Revision as of 14:22, 7 December 2023
    note: This articles are those which are on my watchlist. Other editors who warned @HistoricPilled may have noticed his edits on other articles. Imperial[AFCND] 06:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already mentioned those 2 Bajirao related articles which you posted of from 4 days from now and didn't make edit on them for more a very long duration, also I mentioned my reasons and even made a talk comment. HistoricPilled (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @HistoricPilled, How can you say that I was manipulating the facts where I provided the source? I read many other sources to conclude that it wasn't 2,000, but 20,000. For evidence, read page number 5 of the book :The Cambridge History Of India,. Vol. IIIImperial[AFCND] 06:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ImperialAficionado and HistoricPilled: Please stop trying to "own" each other, and either provide diffs to support the accusations you're making or quit wasting everybody's time by making them read gigantic walls of meaningless text. Nobody is impressed by this argument. jp×g🗯️ 06:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @JPxG, completely agree. I have provided diffs above. And will there be any action for the harrassment he made aganist me? Imperial[AFCND] 06:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Harassment I made against you? You're the one trying to spam my talk page and trying to personally target me. Keep making fake harrasment allegations and playing victim card. HistoricPilled (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's very evident that you feel highly insecure. HistoricPilled (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not make any more comments like this. jp×g🗯️ 06:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyways, I'll leave it to the mods. I will still continue editing as long I am here and try to follow rules as much I can for some reason this guy thinks he's admin himself. HistoricPilled (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Topic ban appeal

    I'm here to appeal my topic ban from caste related articles that i recieved on 21 June 2021 :[25] BLP, POV issues along with civility issues were cited as the reason for topic ban. :[26]

    In the future, I will only rely on broad perspective scholarly sources for the changes i wish to make and utilise venues such as WP:RSN and WP:DRN incase the dispute arises.

    I will avoid making any edits that might be deemed promoting a POV. If I get reverted, I will seek consensus on the talk page and refrain from edit warring . I will not accuse or cast aspersions against any fellow editor. I will maintain civility and take additional time to seek the consensus.

    It has been roughly two and a half years since I was topic banned from caste related articles, during this time my contribution has been constructive to Wikipedia, having brought Brajesh Singh to DYK section on Wikipedia's front page aswell as participating in recent NPP and AfC backlog drives. I have also been granted permissions such as new page patroller, rollback and pending changes reviewer. I have stayed out of trouble and I have not been blocked or received any other sanction other than this topic ban. I hope my topic ban will be lifted. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support Convincing appeal. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Ratnahastin deserves a chance to prove themselves. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I have been watching Ratnahastin edit since he was on a verge on getting topic banned. He has reformed big time as his appeal clearly shows and has been significantly productive for this site. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User keeps on posting to my talk page about a resolved issue. I've told him to stop and he refuses.

    Neilinabbey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now posted to my talk threetwo times after I told him to stop. Please make him leave me alone. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is at best a half truth. My last post on his page made it perfectly clear I was dropping the matter because it had been resolved but I was responding to his unnecessary rudeness with a warning that any repeat and he would be reported (he is already partially blocked for rudeness and trolling). The points I made were perfectly fair and valid and made in a perfectly reasonable way. However, his rudeness was/is not acceptable and I felt perfectly within my rights to point that out. Reporting me after he'd been told he might be reported seems a very childish response.Neilinabbey (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've begun a discussion at the page, you're both having a content dispute over. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If he tells you to stop posting on his talkpage, you are to stop. You don't get to get one last word in or "point out his rudeness" you stop posting on his talkpage. Don't do it again. 2603:7000:CF0:9E10:ACBC:5B6E:EB88:D2F2 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mis-click by admin Shirt58 has restored deleted history of article Storybooth and they are not sure what should be done next

    Good morning (9:30 am or so UTC) all,

    Shirt58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been described as someone who decided to take time from their busy admin duties to come to AfD themself, but also self-identified as a Wikpedidians who are a absent-minded creature

    • clicked on Storybooth just to look at its revision history and thought that it he was just looking at the page history
    • went off on a bicycle ride (Surly Disk Trucker with the standard wired disk brakes replaced with hydraulic disc brakes)
    • came back to find that I had restored that page's history.

    Obviously I've messed up something here: attribution, deletion review, any number of other things.

    I seek assistance about this. 10:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

     Checking... Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 10:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Should be fixed now. I just deleted the article and restored the most recent edits, starting from the most recent page creation. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 10:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My cat undeleted a page once while I was out for a bike ride (Miyata Triplecross with the squealiest canti brakes in the world). Afterwards I forced myself into a habit of always locking my computer reflexively when I step away from it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first time I used the undelete interface I thought it was a prank or something... it's so bad as to be comical. It is practically designed to make you embarrass yourself by undeleting articles. I think it's just that only a few hundred people ever have to deal with its awkwardness. jp×g🗯️ 18:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I suggest User:SD0001/quickViewDeleted.js, which automatically previews deleted pages for you? Without it I'd probably have had an equal number of embarrassing encounters with Special:Undelete by now... Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    Account disclosed. Consensus including original blocking editor is that an unblock is not necessary and the new account is not considered to be socking, so we're done here. Star Mississippi 17:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


    Resolved. Daniel (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I had created a vandalism-only account as an idiot 9 year old. Could my current account be considered a sock? I had forgotten about the previous account at the time of creating this account. DrowssapSMM 12:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There is some advice at WP:Clean start. As long as you don't behave like an idiot 9 year old now there will be no reason for anyone to investigate you for sockpuppetry. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, if the account isn't blocked, then you should be fine. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Thank you for letting me know. DrowssapSMM 13:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I'd like to reopen this to ask the question in some more detail -- is our official answer really that anyone, at any time, can cause OP to get got by revealing the identity of this account, and we have no choice but to block them as a sock, even if it was three peepee poopoo edits ten years ago? jp×g🗯️ 18:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think our official answer is if the account isn't blocked, then you should be fine; As long as you don't behave like an idiot 9 year old now. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But what if it is blocked? I think probably 99% of admins would WP:UCS and say "oh come on, that's not what sockpuppetry really means". The under-30 admins might have similar accounts of their own, in fact! But what about the other 1%? I'll ask any admin reading this: if, tomorrow, the OP says "yeah my previous account was ___" and it turns that account was indeffed ten years ago for a five-minute spree of the aforementioned peepee poopoo edits, would you block, and demand they request unblock from the original account? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is in fact indeffed, and I no longer have access to it in any way (losing both an email and a ). The account in question's vandalism was just content removal and number-changing. Not sure why I was obsessed with Billy Ray Cyrus, but there you go. DrowssapSMM 20:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as I'm the blocking admin... thanks for being open with it, but I'm not going to say you have to request an unblock. Letter of the law, yes you're "evading" a block, but I would say that you the person that's blocked, are more than OK to edit here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. DrowssapSMM 20:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the account is blocked then, as long it is a few years since the nine-year-old used it, an unblock request should be successful if the editor is transparent. I doubt if anyone would insist on that bit of bureaucracy, but who knows? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not block in this scenario nor I suspect would anyone else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope the account would not be blocked under such circumstances. Even if, strictly interpreted in most prosecutorial manner, we have IAR as a pillar for reasons such as this. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Review of a range block

    I've just issued a range block (or rather, expanded a page-specific range block to a site-wide range block) against Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:173C:0:0:0:0:0/46 because of the disruption documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Becausewhynothuh? (account creation included in case they try to make accounts again). None of the edits lately seem to be constructive, but since I know little about collateral damage etc. I'd like more experienced administrators to review this one, and to modify if necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks fine to me, definitely a justified block. From checkuser, the IP edits since about the start of November are pretty much all the same person. There are a handful of unrelated accounts using the range but your settings won't prevent them from editing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate, biased, false article prevented from editing.

    No, per WP:ARBECR. Daniel (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This article is prevented from editing "to prevent vandalism".

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_permit_regime_in_the_Gaza_Strip

    This article is a duplicate article as this one.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_workers_in_Israel

    The first article should be deleted since it's a duplicate and extremely biased. Gmanley253 (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:ARBECR. Non EC editors may use talk pages to make edit requests, that's it. No standing here. Selfstudier (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (after edit conflict)You wouldn't be able to edit it anyway, because the whole subject area is such that you would require 500 edits and a month's service. You have one edit and a few minutes' service. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Template talk:Did you know

    Wasn't sure where to report, but the text has gone tiny halfway through the page and needs fixing. Govvy (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I closed some unclosed formatting tags. Feel free to tweak as necessary. 57.140.16.1 (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User moving pages without any discussion

    User:ShivaniLocks is constantly moving pages without any discussion. He isn't replying in the talk page also. He just replies with an OK and nothing further than that. TuluveRai123 (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry ShivaniLocks (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've blocked ShivaniLocks as a sock. Perhaps someone could review the moves to see whether they should be reversed.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like everything's reverted now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1189632378"