Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Notices of interest to administrators

Open tasks

At, Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2023 January 20#21:21:37, 20 January 2023 review of draft by TonyTheTiger, I noted that my WP:AFC draft article had been submitted by an uninvolved IP, while I still had a {{underconstruction}} on the article. No one responded before it was archived. I was requesting the submission be undone since it is highly unusual for an uninvolved IP to nominate an article underconstruction at AFC.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of violation is alledged? Near as I can tell that's perfectly legitimate if unusual. WP:DRAFT states that Editors may also optionally submit drafts for review via the articles for creation process by adding the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft page. An article created in draftspace does not belong to the editor who created it, and any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion of any draft. WP:OWN applies to drafts just as much as they apply to articles. (loopback) ping/whereis 13:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I heartily disagree, especially as the rogue IP user had not contributed to the draft previously. It is a bit of a dick move to just randomly pop in and submit an in-progress draft with nothing but a flip "seems ready") edit summary. ValarianB (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not a nice thing to do, but is there policy somewhere that doesn't allow it? Otherwise I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with. If its the section highlighted in DRAFT that's a community consensus discussion and not just us saying we disagree. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence at WP:AFC says "The Articles for creation (AfC) process is designed to assist any editor in creating a new page as a draft article, which they can work on and submit for review and feedback when ready." It seems that it is a space where an editor can create a new page and get review and feedback when ready. It seems to be a substitute for a private sandbox. It does not seem to be a space intended for community editing. The first sentence seems to suggest that the creating editor is suppose to work on the draft and the creating editor is suppose to submit it. The they in that sentence grammatically seems to refer to the editor creating the page. That person is suppose to work on the page and that person is suppose to submit it for review. The 2nd paragraph also suggests that those not "required to use the AfC process" should not submit articles for review. The IP was not required to use the process and should not have submitted the article. Furthermore, the sentence at WP:DRAFT that says "any other user may edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek deletion" does not say any other editor may submit the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP's are actually required to use AfC, because they typically can't create new pages. Footnoote 4 on WP:DRAFT states Wikipedia's editing policy applies to all pages, including drafts. The editing policy is, as the name suggests, policy. WP:AfC, and especially inferences made and not stated can't really override it. That said, why is the decline a big deal? You can keep working on it and resubmit. --(loopback) ping/whereis 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, in terms of those not "required to use the AfC process" as it applies here, an IP is not required to use draft space to edit my sister's new article, but I am. If it were in article space, they could drop in and edit without any policy implications. Since I created the page, whether an IP would need to use AfC to create the page is irrelevant. By policy, since an IP is not required to use AfC to edit my sister's article, they should not submit articles for review, per WP:AFC. WP:DRAFT which enumerates a variety of permissible actions (edit, publish, redirect, merge or seek) clearly omits permission for anyone to submit. So per both WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT the uninvolved IP should not submit. You ask why is the decline a big deal?. It sort of changes the burden of my editorial involvement.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what you're disagreeing with, I'm disagreeing with the entirety of your response. Whether there's a policy or not is not pertinent, in a collaborative editing environment it is just extremely disrespectful to muck about with a draft others are working on, when they contributed nothing beforehand. ValarianB (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We make decisions and evaluate editor behavior based on our policies and the community consensus behind those policies. Arguing that policy is not pertinent is rather nonsensical and it leaves us without a common touchstone to guide our decisions as editors. When I returned after 10 years away from the project I had to do an enormous amount of reading to try and comprehend what's changed policywise since I last was active. I'm a little bit aghast to think none of that mattered and I could have just started plunking away based on what feels right. --(loopback) ping/whereis 15:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I agree. If editors aren't interested in collobrating then Wikipedia is not the place for them. So yes, this means if they expect that draft space is somewhere they get to place content and then only they get to decide what happens to it, they're wrong and should learn so, quickly. Note in this particular case, I don't think the IP's actions were helpful. Even assuming they made a careful assessment of the article and were sufficiently experienced to make such an assessment, the rejection means they were wrong. But just as importantly, the article was edited recently, tagged as under construction and was not of a timely subject. However if we imagine a different case, where an editor comes across a draft which hasn't been edited in months, finds the editor disappeared too and based on their experience is certain it's ready and submits it, and it's accepted and we now have an article we didn't have before, well that's for the benefit of Wikipedia so is a good thing. Even if it annoys the editor who hasn't edited Wikipedia or the article in months, sorry not sorry. Some editors may feel it better to ask the editor who hasn't edited in months anyway, that's fine; but it's also fine if they don't do so. Again if the original editor wanted to developed stuff without collaboration, they needed to do so somewhere else e.g. on their on computer of the plenty of cloud services that would allow it. I mentioned timely earlier which highlights another important point. If it's something timely, even where it has not been months it's IMO still fine for another editor to submit it for review, especially when they have the competence to properly assess it and feel it's ready for main space themselves. I see no reason why the editor needs to do any work if it's already good enough for main space. If they come across an article which is sufficient and is the sort of thing they would have written if the article didn't already exist as a draft then most would agree it's actually harmful if they ignore the draft and completely independently write a similar article just because the draft writer may want to 'own it' and get to decide when to submit. Nor should they need to get the article into a better state then is needed or they feel is worth the effort just because someone else already made the effort to get it into a level they feel is needed. That said in a case like that where it hasn't been months, while I still don't think asking first is necessary albeit may be polite, I do think they definitely should inform the original editor of what they did and why. Nil Einne (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nil Einne you have me pretty lost with your counterfactual if thens and such. Are you saying that I interpretted WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT wrong or are you saying you disagree with the current policies at WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point in fact neither WP:DRAFT nor WP:AFC is a policy one is an explanatory essay, the other a process description. Personally I don't consider that to be the be all end all, however it's probably best to avoid confusing the discussion (see both WP:PGE and WP:DCE). The more salient issue is that the consensus behind WP:DRAFT in particular is highly questionable review some of the recent noticeboard archives regarding WP:DRAFTOBJECT for just a snapshot, and so citing it is unlikely to add much weight to your arguments.

Now, and please don't take this personally because I'm confident your acting in good-faith and understandably frustrated with the situation, but even excepting that on the merits your interpretation would be flawed. We've never run on everything not expressly permitted is forbidden, rather the opposite actually, so trying to apply that framework to win an (and don't take this the wrong way) ultimately trivial dispute does not come across well. Further asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express is rarely going to persuade others. It's likely for that reason you've seen people discussing the principles underpinning draftspace.

Finally, it's unclear what sysop action you are requesting (if any). Why is this thread here and not at the village pump or other more appropriate venue? Removing (or adding) declines is not a sysop action and neither page protection nor a block would be appropriate at this time, what exactly is it you want a sysop to do?

So I'm happy to keep discussing this with you and trying to understand your perspective if that's what you want so long as I have your patience, but that should probably happen elsewhere, could even be on user talk if that's what you prefer, but I don't see any sysop action coming out of this. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have stated a couple of times, that I don't think the uninvolved IP submission was a valid action and that I wanted it reversed. I.e., return the article to the status it was prior to the invalid submission.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a sysop action.

Moreover it's not an action that makes sense for anyone to do at all. Contrary to your assumption that It sort of changes the burden of my editorial involvement, it in fact changes nothing. Every draft is evaluated on it's merits at the time of review and a previous decline is of no consequence following non-trivial improvement. Repeated resubmission without improvement is an issue, but presumably you don't plan to do that. Just continue working on the draft as though nothing had happened and try to calmly work through any issues that are noticed with your reviewers. If you want further input I suggest you inquire at WT:AFC, but I expect you'll receive the same answer.

Otherwise I'm a bit busy this week but if you drop a note on my talk I'll try to follow up in a few days or whenever I get chance. I know this was probably a frustrating experience for you so forgive me if I've been overly blunt. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the IP has said, I don't know why you TTT keep saying it changes anything. It doesn't except your ability to submit it for review without making substantial changes. If you had intended to submit it without making any changes then I don't get why you care who submitted it. If you intended to make minor changes then submit it this might be an issue although frankly I'm doubtful you'd get in trouble for resubmitting it with minor changes in these circumstances although it is likely to be a foolish decision since I strongly suspect it will be decline as it would have if the IP had never gotten involved. I'd also go back to my earlier point. You keep saying the IP's submission was inappropriate because they were uninvolved but that's simply nonsense. If you want to keep it in draft space then you need to accept it belongs to the community including uninvolved editors. The primary reason the IP's actions might be considered inappropriate has nothing to do with them being uninvolved, it has to do with them very likely making a submission when they lacked the competence to actualy evaluate the article and probably didn't really do a significant review we should expect from someone who is making such submissions. (Since if the IP is going to do be doing something like this they need to be doing something sufficiently productive. Reviewing an article and submitting it based on your extensive experience is productive. Randomly submitting an article after a cursory glance, especially in circumstances like this, not so much.) Ultimately as I mentioned in my first reply if you don't accept that anything you write on Wikipedia belongs to the community then don't post it on draft space. Even user space isn't ideal although we generally accept despite all content even in user space also belonging to the community, other editors should only edit them in minimal ways. Also the suggestion is just plain flawed anyway. Let's say the IP had been right and it had been ready for main space. Would we be returning it to draft space because the original creator isn't happy about it being moved to main space? The answer is almost definitely no, since it belongs to the community. Again, if you don't accept this then all I can say is don't post stuff publicly on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify my user space comment. While we generally accept editors should not fool around with userspace drafts directly unless they have permission, remember that by posting it here you've already released it under the appropriate licences. An editor is free to recreate the draft somewhere else using your text with appropriate attribution. And if the editor talks to you first and you say it's not ready but the editor disagrees we don't have any clear policy or guideline nor do I think we should, that the editor is forbidden from simply creating a copy somewhere else either directly on main space or as a draft. (I'm fairly something related happened before and after a long discussion there was no consensus that this sort of thing should be automatically forbidden.) Again if you don't want this to happen your only choice is to work on something privately since once you've posted it here you've given up on the right to decide what happens with it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now the OP can just resubmit after they have completed work on the draft, it has been declined not rejected. So is there anything that actually needs to be done? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am here because by both WP:AFC and WP:DRAFT (as I stated above at 15:48, 28 January 2023 following my 14:47, 27 January 2023 post) an uninvolved IP should not submit AFC works. Having an article declined shifts the editorial burden. In terms of whether there is anything that actually needs to be done, all I ask is that you undo that which should not have been done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less my view as well. Drafts are declined and subsequently accepted after being improved quite routinely. Submitting a draft you haven't made significant contributions is usually rude; however, I don't believe we would want to prohibit it absolutely since there are cases where it's appropriate. If I saw an eligible for G13 soon draft that looked mainspace worthy where the creator had apparently forgotten about it I would have no problems submitting it for them.

In point of fact, the premise behind draftspace is that, in contrast to userspace drafts, everyone is encouraged to edit there to promote collaboration the evidence suggest that premise is flawed but that's a discussion for another time so any restrictions on who can edit them are going to be suspect.

Bottom line, this is a rare phenomena so any additions to policy addressing it specifically are questionable WP:BLOAT. If someone, registered or unregistered, makes a single drive-by submission ignore it. The draft will be declined; it takes a bit of editor time, but far less then discussions like this one. If someone repeatedly makes drive-by submissions then revert their edits and p-block them from draftspace for disruption. Quite straightforward really. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! we have an opinion from an IP.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually still quite a few of us that are active in projectspace Though my own activity level has long been too low for me to truly count. But it is to your credit that you avoid the noticeboards enough to find this surprising. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the IP's comments earlier. The one nitpick I'd have with the IPs suggestion goes back to my other comments. I don't think we should or even would automatically p-block or topic ban an UP for making "drive-by submission"s. The proof is in the pudding as they say so we'd look at several things. Number one, does the editor involved discuss and explain their actions satisfactorily? This is a cornerstone of all editing here and while it can be difficult for IPs, ultimately if they're repeatedly doing something they need to find a way. And if they did discuss, this significantly lessens concerns. Two is and this is where the "proof" comes, what was the result of their actions? The important thing is whether the IP is doing anything productive. If the IP is going through draftspace, and with a high degree of competence picking out those which are ready for main space and submitting them then they're doing something productive. It doesn't matter that they're "uninvolved" or that these are "drive-by submissions". I think for good cause we'd tend to evaluate such actions harshly so maybe even demand a 80% success rate, perhaps even 85-90%. But I find it unlikely the community would support partial blocking or topic banning an editor who is clearly being useful e.g. with 95% success submitting articles for AFC no matter that it may annoy certain creators or whatever. I do think the success demands would probably go down the less their actions are "drive-by". Since such actions require some degree as review, probably not a full AFC review since it's fair for them to just stop once they see the article isn't ready, still it would generally be useful for them to explain somewhere why they feel the article isn't ready for main space rather than just submit articles which are ready and ignore those which aren't and discuss when queried. (Especially in cases where the article isn't so terrible that virtually in editor with experience will instantly dismiss it.) In such a case, I could imagine even 50% would be acceptable especially if the editor also engages a lot with creators where it's asked and generally avoids drafts with recent edits. (Although even there, I also feel the community will largely embrace the proof is in the pudding principle and if e.g. the IP has 95% success rates and this is based on the original article when they submitted not based on a later version the creator may have made which they rushed through because an IP submitted it before it was ready, the community is going to be reluctant to sanction them if as I said at the beginning they also discussed and explained their actions where needed.) Ideally the editor would just become a reviewer themselves but there are various reasons why an editor may not with to register an account or otherwise become a reviewer but may be interested in sorting through unsubmitted drafts. Nil Einne (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, I wrote in haste earlier lacking nuance. In fact we could actually use more people patrolling G13 soon eligible drafts and submitting those that appear mainspace worthy, and it doesn't matter if you make dozens of submissions in a day so long as the submissions are meritorious; even for edge cases we should first try to educate before moving on to sanctions. What we don't want is people blindly submitting drafts in a bot-like fashion or attempting to harass a specific user by repeatedly resubmitting a draft that user started, both of these are already prohibited under existing policy.

P.S. you can just refer to me as 74 since there's no other IP with similar numbers related to this thread. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion and the actions which started it have convinced me to write all my drafts in my sandbox from now on. Last time I used draft space, some rando (non-IP) user came along and accused me of vandalising a draft article to which I was the sole contributor.  Tewdar  17:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I always advise people to use sandboxes and user subpages for their articles instead of drafts. There are all upsides and no downsides. Especially since user subpages aren't automatically subject to the 6 month no edits speedy deletion criteria. Best just to avoid that nonsense entirely. Silverseren^C 18:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUD is also good-reading. Granted I've used draftspace to create articles before, even going back to when they were all in project talkspace, but there are a lot of downsides to familiarize yourself with before making the decision to use it. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a good essay. Userspace drafts are my default when I'm working through something. Once it's ready for more eyes I can link the userspace draft on wikiproject talkpages asking for input and making it clear that others are welcome to edit it, and once I'm satisfied I can push it to mainspace. Thats beat for beat the exact workflow I used to write Del Riley (clerk). --(loopback) ping/whereis 07:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also tag your userspace drafts with {{editable user page}} to further remove ambiguity so other people are more comfortable editing them. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oddly, it seems that instead of reverting the inappropriate uninvolved IP submission, I am being offered a course of moving the page to a userspace sandbox draft. It seems to me that this is a subversive action. I am asking you as administrators to endorse the claim that the IP submission was inappropriate and to revert the article status to that prior to the submission. By moving the page to a userspace draft, it undermines the reasoned review which categorized the article with a declined status requiring certain procedural actions to pursue mainspace. The move never "undoes" the review by making it the result of an inappropriate procedure. It just circumvents it. Furthermore, as a WP:COI editor, I don't even understand what would follow moving to userspace sandbox draft. What is the procedure for a COI editor to move a page from userspace draft to article space?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I do want to be clear that User:Scope creep, certainly gave a respectful and procedurally correct review. I do respect his opinion in that regard. I don't necessarily believe that 10 out of 10 AFC reviewers would decline my sister's bio in its current state, but his review is reasoned. I believe that in its current state my sister's article would have a better than 50% chance to survive at WP:AFD, and that WP:AFC may have a higher bar for source evaluation than AFD. I am here to assert that the review should never have happened because a submission by an uninvolved IP of a draft with a {{underconstruction}} tag should be regarded as inappropriate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If you truly believe there should be additional restrictions on who can submit drafts and when, and I can't see why we would want to add anything to the PAGs covering this kind of rare specific and trivial case (again WP:CREEP), or otherwise seek broader reforms of AFC due to perceived issues. Then the place to propose that or seek clarity on the community's current interpretation on existing PAGs would be at the village pump. Hopefully this succinctly clears things up.

    I'm not trying to be overly bureaucratic here, but AN in general is a poor forum for altering or reforming long-standing community processes. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not trying to propose the any reforms. I just think that based on the current set of PAGs, an uninvolved IP would be considered an ineligible/inappropriate AFC nominator.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    And several people have told you that interpretation is incorrect, and in fact directly at odds with long-standing policy. If you don't want other people to edit your drafts than make them in userspace. If you think the procedure in a community process may not have been properly adhered to, the best place to initiate an inquiry is usually on the discussion page for that process. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've heard a lot of people say that AFC is harsher than AFD and often rejects stuff which will easily pass AFD. I don't have enough experience to personally comment, but I suspect it's probably correct. I'd also note that I'm doubtful the community wants any AFC reviewer passing something that only has 50% of surviving AFD. But in addition to this, for good reason we tend to evaluate content written by editors with a COI even a disclosed COI more harshly even at AFD. Also, while this is more aspirational than something I can say plays out in practice, for good reason articles on living persons should really should be evaluated at both AFD and AFC much more harshly than articles on companies and the like. While we don't want spammy articles on companies, articles on living persons can easily go very very wrong when the person does or is otherwise involved in anything which receives any real degree of controversy. So such article are far more of a problem for Wikipedia and for the people involved. It's very common on BLPN to see such disasters, often by the history written by someone who almost definitely had an undisclosed COI probably a paid one, which I suspect the subject was happy with until something like that happened enough that I think most BLPN regulars are very happy with harsh notability standards for articles on living persons. Maybe most importantly though is any editor with a COI needs to recognise no matter how much experience they have and no matter how much they may try to avoid this, any assessment they make of a situation where they have a COI is highly suspect. They should welcome any feedback from editors without a COI and consider it very likely holds far more weight than their own attempt to evaluate. (Or in other words, if an editor with a COI makes an evalution X and an experience editor makes an evaluation and comes to conclusion Y, it's very likely Y is far close to how the community as a while will see situation and so the editor with the COI should say okay I'm very likely wrong it's actually Y.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I had the feeling it was women herself that submitted it for review,or more likely somebody from the company. Who ever did it, seemed to be overly optimistic in their assumption it would pass review, perhaps feeling it was finished when it clearly wasn't. It wasn't ready in any manner I think. But the Afc process has own state machine. It was submitted and I reviewed it. Not much else you can say about it. If it went to mainspace I would have to try and delete it. It has six month minus 2 weeks to be updated with some real secondary sourcing, to improve it. Plenty of time. I'm sure it will be in mainspace eventually. scope_creep^Talk 21:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If you help updating it, or help finding relevant references, WP:WIR is a good place to request help. scope_creep^Talk 21:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  User:scope_creep, I imagine that an IP confers some sort of geolocation information. I doubt my sister or her family did the nomination, but felt that the type of IP that would nominate such an article would be one of two types. I too assumed one of those types was an associate from her company. The other type of IP was someone associated with a reviewer with one of them having an axe to grind. However, the more I thought about the review and the role of AFC, I started to feel that AFC has a vastly different perspective than I am familiar with. Where as my content contributions have been through dozens if not a hundred plus AFDs, I have no familiarity with AFC. I feel AFD has a more binary RS evaluation, where as this experience with AFC makes me feel that AFC has a RS classification evaluation. AFC looks at RSes and says this is a high-class, medium-class or low-class RSes and without any really high-class RSes we can't support this. I feel that many of the things classified by AFC as WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SPS are things that AFD would probably allow as RS. Of course, I have never had the type of WP:COI role that I have and it is impossible for me to assess how much my own vision is clouded. My belief is that AFD just looks at whether there are RS and then evaluates whether notability is permanent or temporary (1 event) and that many of these sources would be viewed as RS at AFD. That being said, I do hope to get this page to a point where it can enter mainspace and be considered for and by an AFD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am also now understanding that the talk by User:Tewdar, User:Silver seren, Special:Contributions/74.73.224.126, and Del Riley (clerk) about the alternative course of User sandbox space is no longer an option here. At first, I thought they were telling me to move the article to that space.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you (or someone else) can just move the draft page to your userspace, no? If not, just make a new page in your userspace and copy n' paste your draft there. I'm sure it's very irritating having some rando submit your draft when it's not ready, even if it doesn't violate policy... yet another reason to avoid draft space.  Tewdar  08:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Tewdar suppose I move this to a sandbox in my user space. How do I later approach moving it to Main/Article space as a COI editor?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not that I'm really the right person to be answering your questions, but I'd say, when you're done in user space, move it back to draft space then submit it immediately through AfC? I'd wait for someone who knows what they're talking about, though. 😁  Tewdar  20:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know how Kosher that is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone who is following this discussion about my trials and tribulations about creating a page for my sister which has been reviewed at WP:AFC by User:scope_creep, may be interested seeing her launch Black History Month @Honest social medias such as Instagram, LinkedIn or Facebook today. I know none of this makes her any more notable, but you can get to know her this month on their socials starting about 2 hours ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everybody, particularly those with an interest in copyright cleanup. After seven years as the primary patroller assessing reports at CopyPatrol, I have reached the point where I am no longer able to work at the volume I have been doing all this time. For the last couple of weeks I have been suffering ill effects from too much computer time, and I have to protect my health. I would appreciate it if people could stop by at CopyPatrol daily and assess some reports. You don't have to be an admin to do this task; any experienced editor should be able to quickly figure it out. If you are just starting out, you might like to try assessing reports about biographies or schools – they are pretty easy as the issues are usually quite obvious. Please feel free to stop by my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ALL the gratitude, dear Diannaa; you are one of the most admirable and valuable people I’ve worked with on this project. Alphadeltafoxtrot, the Bravo-dog, and the Mike- and Sierra-cats join me in sending you our warmest thoughts. Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No damaging your health on behalf of Wikipedia, Diannaa. Rest! --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 20:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody for your understanding, and for your kind words and thoughts! — Diannaa (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention that the backlog currently is 51 hours (it was 58 hours before I handled a couple of oldest cases), and I have never seen a backlog longer than 24h before. We do not need to do a lot like Diannaa did, but it is very important to do it on a regular basis. I am personally trying to do at least 4 cases per day.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa with respect to copy patrol (and everything else she does) was practically the number 1, and it's hard to see how the work can go on without her. Dianna, thanks for all you did with copy patrol, please forgive the endless pings, and take care of yourself!!

I don't feel able to help out at copy patrol, but am trying to work as many different angles of the huge copyright problem as I'm able (see two threads after this one).

Before the issue a few threads below this one sidetracked the rambling brainstorming at my talk page, and while I was working to set up WP:DCGAR, the discussion at my talk had begun to focus on some specific ideas for bringing to a broader discussion somewhere. Might it be time to do that? Village pump or the talk page of one of the copyright pages? Are any of the ideas generated so far viable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove me from the AWB checkpage. I haven't actually used it at all, and don't have a real need for it either, so I think it's best for me to be removed from it. Invalid^OS_talk 19:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A friend informed me that you have banned the entire IP range of 109.178.128.0/17. That's 32,768 IP addresses from the most popular ISP of Greece (Cosmote). As a result, new users from Cosmote's network cannot register an account or edit articles. I believe that this is too severe a measure as it pretty much hinders an extremely large portion of Greek users from contributing to Wikipedia. TritonXVIII (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the block is anon-only. Anyone with an account can contribute without problems, anyone without can get an account via WP:ACC. The blocking admin in this case is Widr. TritonXVIII, you are required to notify them. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without actually looking at the edits from this range, I can say that the real question is the damage caused by anonymous users on this range vs. the damage from innocent anonymous users not being able to edit. A few considerations here:

1. This is not the first block. This is the fourth. Any innocent users would have had some time between blocks to create an account. And the block expiry is public information.
2. Each block was done by judgement on the edits since the previous. Each block was done because the disruption started up again after the previous block expired. Note also that while the first two were done by the same administrator, the last two were done by 2 different administrators - that's 3 seperate administrators who each decided that a block was necessary, based on a seperate set of edits.
3. Any user who has access to a different ISP - even if it's for a limited amount of time - can create an account there and use this account on the blocked range. Anyone who doesn't even have that option can request an account, as stated above. Asking a friend to create an account is also an option (did you create one for this friend?).

Animal lover |666| 13:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TritonXVIII: I have two comments to make about this.

1. The vandalism was so extensive that there was no reasonable option other than blocking the IP range. The only alternative would have been to allow massive amounts of vandalism to continue indefinitely. Several times shorter blocks had been tried, and each time the problem returned when the block expired. Under the circumstances blocking for a year was minimal.
2. Obviously IP blocks which may affect innocent users are highly undesirable, and I don’t suppose any administrator does so happily. I am well aware of how it feels to find one can't edit because of a block made necessary by vandalism from other people, because many years ago it happened to me. It was annoying, to put it mildly, but I accepted that it was, unfortunately, necessary, and got myself an account. That meant that there was a delay, until I got an account, but a delay of a few days was fairly short in proportion to the 16 years since then when having an account has meant that I have always been able to edit, never again being affected by IP blocks. JBW (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Amanda Lear, Amanda Lear discography (another IP) on Amanda Lear filmography. Thanks. Eliedion (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

193.207.128.0/17 page blocked from Amanda Lear and Amanda Lear filmography x 1 month for disruptive editing. 5.252.84.91 page blocked x 1 month from the discography page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant vandalism like this should be reported on WP:AIV, not here. Partofthemachine (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please restore this file? It was deleted as an orphaned non-free file after being removed from its corresponding article in this edit without any explanation given for this removal. This deletion has resulted in the NJCL article being the only NJT article that lacks its official logo in the infobox. I have restored the article to the version before the unexplained removal of the logo, so the non-free media will have have a use, and would like the image restored to match all the other like articles. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYK requires admins for the last couple of steps in the process, due to the main page being admin-only. At the moment, BorgQueen is doing most of the work, with me filling in most of what's left. We had a larger admin crew until recently, but other commitments (school, etc) have reduced our ranks. So, we need a few more admins to help out moving prep sets to the main page queues.

It's a job that currently needs to be done once per day. Most of the work is reviewing the hooks for DYK rule compliance. I can do it in about 20 minutes if there's no issues that need to get fixed. It'll probably take a new person more like an hour until they get the hang of it. If we got a couple new admins who could each handle 1 or 2 sets per week, that would go a long way towards reducing our bus number. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In an off-wiki conversation, an admin that you probably all know told me, "you would have to pay me to do frontpage admin work". Well, I'm happy to report that the WP:Ad-Hoc Committee to Recruit More DYK Admins has authorized me to offer a 20% increase over your current salary (conditions apply, enquire in confidence for details) to any admin who joins the team this quarter. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My Ad-Hoc Committee will up your offer by 50% for those who go work at CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

500 quatloos on the newcomers! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

---

The Arbitration Committee has passed the following amendment to its procedures:

For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions motion passed

Hi colleagues--perhaps one of you will have a look at User talk:MaxBertín, and the associated User talk:BrookTheHumming. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that require a CheckUser review? What could I do there that wouldn't get me hung, drawn, and quartered? Floquenbeam (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the section title, I think he was specifically requesting that a CU respond. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's a smarter interpretation. I'll help a little: Checkuser needed. I *think* that puts this page into a helpful category, but I can't check in preview mode. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies - I'm dubious. If they're two separate people, then they aren't just sharing a Wifi network - they're standing next to each other in front of the screen, passing the keyboard back and forth. One logs out, the next logs in within a minute, makes a few edits, then gives it back to the first one. While editing the same articles. I don't know why they're doing it, but I don't buy that this is a simple case of two roommates sharing an IP. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

​Adding that I've declined the unblock on MaxBertín's talk, and to be honest I'd be inclined to block BrookTheHumming as well, but I'll leave that to your discretion since you're in conversation with them. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian, that was the idea, yes. I can't do all the fancy things you can. ;) Girth Summit, I called in the cavalry because on the one hand I drew the same technical conclusion that you did, but on the other they (singular they AND both of them) weren't being assholes about it... I think you understand why I'm being pulled both ways. Thanks for looking into it! Drmies (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Favonian? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the only reason to block is the use of multiple accounts, they could be advised to share an account and indicate attribution in the edit summaries. Peter James (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Username policy prohibits shared accounts. Donald Albury 03:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies and Girth Summit:If you want to cut this person/these people more slack, you could unblock both, with the provision that they can't edit the same pages as each other. Haven't we done that with other similar cases where we aren't 100% sure either way? Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, I don't mind that at all, considering their latest communications--even if technically a block for both could be justified. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can never be 100% sure about anything, but I'm as sure as it's possible to be that this is one person. What I said above is literally true - they are using a single device, logging out of one account and directly into the other, then switching back. Every single edit that the MaxBertín account has ever made was either immediately (within one or two minutes) preceded by BrookTheHumming logging out, or followed by BrookTheHumming logging in. Every single one. The only way this can be two different people is if BrookTheHumming occasionally shouts over to his roommate and says 'Hey - wanna add something to this article?', or 'Hey, this guy is busting my balls on a talk page, wanna chime in?', and then passes over the keyboard for five minutes while his roommate logs in and edits. Why are they doing it? This looks like an attempt to improperly influence a talkpage discussion; I don't know if any of the other editing where they overlap is dodgy. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this and don't have the wherewithal to figure out all the proper procedures and how to link the changes at the moment. It appears user:Amira Abdelrasoul has been adding themselves to various lists of notable people, editing their own article, and removing notability tags from it (with somewhat misleading edit summaries). Didn't know what the actual policy was in that case. Thought someone would like to look into it. I'll attempt to notify that user on their user page as the noticeboard suggests. Sorry for not linking diffs (there aren't a whole lot in the user's contributions, in any case; it looks pretty sole purpose). Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peace and Passion this sounds like you might want to raise this at WP:COIN. It doesn't necessarily require admin intervention (although it could escalate to that). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above mentioned user keeps pushing disruptive and biased edits. See diff1, diff2 and diff3. As you can see in the RM discussion here Talk:Russian-occupied_territories_in_Georgia#Requested_move_23_January_2023 article about russian-occupied territories in Georgia previously had misleading name, so 100% of participating users agreed to rename it. After that change it was necessary to fix the naming in other articles as well, that is what I did diff1 and diff2, and this change is per Wiki Rule as well because it's better when link and article title coincide. Please help to settle this issue, I am not willing to start "word-wars" with the user, considering that similar attempts in the past had close to zero effect. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 08:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100%. I opposed, and I am disappointed that the closer completely ignored my argument, though it was policy based, and the supporters did not base their arguments on policy. Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was counting support and oppose tags. There was 4 'agrees' and 0 'disagrees', anyway it isn't main point here. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 11:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it even clear how nonsense user's argument was: the user said "[your edit] implies other territories are occupied", but at the moment the user keeps article link linked to the redirect title with the link name impling other territories are occupied:

• This is what the user pushes ► [[occupied territories of Georgia|occupied territories]] 
• This is what I edited ► [[Russian-occupied territories in Georgia]]

Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why the infobox has to include the longer phrase? The piped link seems like a good way tighten up the language. We don't need the "...in Georgia" part of that sentence, it's just extra verbiage. Chipmunkdavis seems to be doing nothing more than removing that excess verbiage. Why is that disruptive or against consensus? --Jayron32 15:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 it's not about "longer phrase" vs "shorter phrase", user's argument was "[your edit] implies other territories are occupied" which is false claim. My change made a direct link to the article's title to make it obvious that when we talk about "occupied territories," we're talking about the territories of Georgia, which are actually occupied by Russia and not by Somalia, Kiribati or any other state. Pushing previous edit vs my change is disruptive because it keeps misleading wording. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 22:09, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And according to what you said, if We don't need the "...in Georgia" part of that sentence, then the sentence must look like "Including/Not including Russian-occupied territories" not just "occupied territories" somewhere over the rainbow. Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 22:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a false claim. It's reasonable to oppose saying "Not including Russian-occupied territories" on the basis that it can make it seem like the data does include territories occupied by someone other than Russia. It's reasonable to think that opposition is wrong. It's not a good idea to bring that content dispute here. The worst part of CMD's edit is insisting that the part of the link before the pipe should stay the redirect, but it's something that barely matters at all. While we're here, the worst part of your edits, Giorgi Balakhadze, is reverting without explanation. Please use edit summaries, especially when reverting good-faith edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers ok, so the term "occupied territories" makes it super clear? "occupied territories" of whom?, "occupied territories" where? "occupied territories" by who? Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All four of those excellent questions would fit in great at Talk:Georgia (country). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally, I wouldn't consider a RM with 4 total !votes 'counted' by the closer as establishing a clear precedent for what to do in other articles, especially when the other article are not simply linking to the other article title and the RM was not advertised in these other articles it's claimed to affect. In other words, if you tried to make a change based on the RM in other articles and have resistance, then you need to discuss the proposed changes and rather than just claiming there's already clear consensus. And if you aren't willing to discuss because of "zero effect" than you'll just have to accept your argument has failed to achieve consensus and move on. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne there are linkage wiki rules MOS:LINKCLARITY MOS:EASTEREGG and it not just my "tried to make a change based on the RM". And "hav[ing] resistance" from Chipmunkdavis regarding anything about Georgia is a tradition, feel free to check user's reverts in the article of Georgia.Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 09:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is irrelevant unless you can provide sufficient evidence for a topic ban of Chipmunkdavis which you clearly haven't done yet. Again, unless you're willing to discuss and establish consensus for your interpretation of policy, then you will have to stop editing the article. Discussion and collaboration are not optional on Wikipedia Nil Einne (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am posting this here, rather than ANI, because the editor has stopped editing main space, so the matter is not urgent, but this editor really needs a mentor. Or something. I have lost patience and effectiveness, and at this point, I am probably only irritating 20 upper, and am disengaging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20 upper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) came to my attention with:

Talk page before removing various recent threads

History

1. 18 November: Account created
2. 20 December: Makes over 250 edits to user page to gain user rights ("I'm trying to reach 500 edits so I can edit this protected page").
3. 22 December to 6 January: Writes Megaherbivore and Lion attacks (Lion attacks has numerous issues including OR and copyright outlined on talk; I haven't checked megaherbivore).
4. 8 January: Adds uncited text to feminism (8 January NPOV warning; 23 January Contentious topics first alert)
5. 22 January: WikiCup issue described above.
6. 23 January: A 31-hour block, after WP:IDHT
7. 24 January: I explained WP:OR, but identical repeated at Lion attacks a few days later ("15 lion attacks", original research, uncited)
8. 25 January: Does not seem to slow down and read (malformed request for unblocking)
9. 26 January: I notify of copyright and other issues at Lion attacks
10. 27 January: Reminded to provide page numbers for book and other lengthy sources
11. 27 January: Does not follow instructions given at Talk:Lion attacks, and informed by an IP that rewrite was in main space

    Insults the IP: [3] [4] but agrees to be more careful

12. 29 January: Rewrite still contains copyvio and all of the other issues outlined on talk, as if nothing written was taken on board. And still no page numbers for WP:V and checking for further copyright problems.

    Appears to take text from one source (with close paraphrasing), but then later swap in another source

    When asked to stop, slow down read, say they "need the opinion of the whole community"

13. 31 January Blanks text from a talk page and labels it "disruptive editing"
14. 3 February Still removing talk page comments

So here we are. 20 upper has been focused throughout all of this on edit count: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] while seemingly unable to grasp important policies like WP:OR, WP:V and WP:COPYVIO. At times they appear to read and attempt to communicate, and at other times, appear not to have digested or taken seriously anything written, and won't acknowledge or answer queries.

I'm disengaging, but we have multiple ongoing policy issues from an editor who was editing too fast and racking up a lot of edits across many articles (including FAs), demonstrating both difficulty understanding policy and aborbing feedback, and someone else needs to engage before the cleanup needs (including paraphrasing, OR, dated sources and incomplete citations) become larger. I started with the patience to mentor, but that has been exhausted.

I guess I should get a cot (sigh). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I asked for help long ago, but I seem to be alone in this while I've been, ummmmm ... kinda busy elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Still going; maybe it is an ANI after all. Unwatched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah the nomination to speedy delete bc "main author something something doesn't want it anymore" is both an interesting attempt to game SOP and also borderline unhinged "I'm taking my toys and going home!" behavior that does not inspire confidence. jengod (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, in the editor's defense, they are probably sick of hearing from me only, and might think I'm a random quack on the internet. I needed help here earlier on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I too attempted early on to assist and guide 20 upper but their pace is something I was unable to keep up with. I'm the blocking admin of the 31 hour block mentioned above. I do not know what to do with this user. I do not think they will change their ways. We could implement iteratively restrictive blocks, but I don't see that accomplishing anything more than increasing everyone's frustration level, leading eventually to a permanent ban. As for the articles they've created, The G7's have all been denied. They prod'd one other article (lion attacks), which I've endorsed for deletion. I don't see any need to keep any of the articles they created, though I'm unsure what policy would let us delete them. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting success, the only article of theirs I was aware of before this, is actually not half bad (if in parts sailing a little close to the wind paraphrasing-wise), and I don't see a cause for summary deletion with that one. Not sure why they went and tried to first dismember, then G7 it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because probably tired of hearing from me. My concern about Hunting success is that, having seen other work (eg Lion attacks) where they put in text taken from one source, and then later alter the wording a bit and put the source on it that the orginal source cites (breaching WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT yet they never answered my queries as to whether they really read all those new sources that fast), and all of this combined could indicate content copied from a book and then filling in the sources the book used after the fact. The other problem is that the sources are often so old, and source-to-text integrity fails, that I wonder how useful or accurate any of the content is. It's hard to reconcile the level of some of the writing with the level of difficulties editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That all said, I agree this can be elevated to WP:AN/I. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I could summarize my overacrching concern here but won't per WP:BEANS. I'll just say it may be worth trying to turn them around now so we don't have to deal with more of same later. I cannot ever recall having encountered such a persistent editor, making so many mistakes of every kind in such rapid fire succession. Probably admins here have, as my life in FA-world is perhaps too sheltered. I'm at a loss for what's next. In my younger days, I enjoyed mentoring editors like this, and turned around more than one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps someone other than me can go to their talk page and explain why they are expected to respond here on this thread ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would do so, however given their behavior I would much rather not waste my time with someone who most likely won't listen. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes unconstructive edits and vandalises here: here here. Note that there's a pattern in his edits, he removes Ingush from the articles and the cited sources.

Таллархо looks like he has grievances and hate against Ingush people because how can this be explained?: here here here

It also looks like he's using different accounts (Sockpuppetry) to vandalise Battle of the Valerik River: here.

I hope that the admins will resolve this situation. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am patrolling the Wikipedia section in Russian 1, who is well aware of the history of wars in the Caucasus. My opponent is from the small republic of Ingushetia, whose inhabitants never fought against Russia, but voluntarily joined Russia and helped Russia occupy the Caucasus. However, in our time, false writers from this republic, referring to unauthoritative sources, write that they fought the most and took part in all the battles. In the Russian Wikipedia, their false data is immediately deleted by the administrators, so they switched to the English-language Wikipedia and vandalize articles about the wars in the Caucasus. For this reason, I removed the false information he added. Таллархо (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin) Something seemed strange about this, so I looked into it. It seems that there are some WP:SPAs engaging in WP:NATIONALIST editing related to Chechnya and related ethnic groups at Talk:Nazran conflict and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazran conflict (2nd nomination), among other places. It looks like there might be a spillover from a dispute on Wikipedias of other languages, and I suspect that this situation is only going to spread to other articles unless some form of intervention takes place. Personally, I would say that this comment about an ethnic group as pointed out above warrants an indef. In the meantime, I've alerted participating users with a contentious topics alert where applicable (Callanecc seems to have notified most of them last month). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting an early snow close of this deletion discussion because it will almost certainly end in a "keep" result and it is very irritating to see the message "see TFD" on approximately 90k pages. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notice can be amended. There's no reason to remove the discussion so early. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely is a reason to close the discussion early if the outcome is almost certain (see Wikipedia:Snowball clause). Partofthemachine (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closed by Hog Farm here at 21:16 UTC. — Trey Maturin™ 21:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

8 user reports and 1 bot report as of writing. Need some eyes over there. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone take a look at Talk:Simon Ekpa? I've protected the article to prevent disruption, but now the talk page is getting bombarded with comments every few hours. I considered protecting that page too, but this could just be a massive sockfarm/canvassing exercise (blocked one account already). Perhaps someone here is more familiar with the topic? Anarchyte (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incited on Twitter by Ekpa: The Nigeria & British agents, They’ve created fake Simon Ekpa Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Ekpa with lies & slanders about me but I am not moved. 29days to Biafra Exit — Schazjmd (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mentioning this user here having observed a curious pattern to their editing. This newly-registered editor made a large number of edits in the space of 2 1/2 hours last night. Some were constructive small edits such as converting multiple spaces to a single space, many were harmless such as adding an "Oxford comma", some were changing the case of words in section headings to go against WP:MOS, some were adding punctuation after list items, many, perhaps the majority, were adding a space before the first reference in an article. Not all the references, just the one.

It seems a pattern of editing which might be used by someone wanting to clock up a high edit count for some reason, without doing anything very controversial. Most of the edits might not be noticed, and editors with the articles on their watchlists might not bother to revert, or to follow them up. The first I noticed was this because I created the Wieler surname page so it is on my watchlist.

I bring this here in case any admins recognise this pattern of editing and want to take it further. I put a couple of notes on their talk page, but the addition of spaces before refs continued thereafter, suggesting that they weren't reading their talk page, and stretching my AGF. I've gone through and undone all the positively-wrong edits I could spot on a quick scan of their contributions list. PamD 10:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain behaviorally and timing-wise that Joussymean is a sock of UniqqMool, and have blocked them both. Although it's arguably moot now, you should have notified Joussymean of this complaint, PamD.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it were EC gaming, they wouldn't be doing a good job, but I checked to make sure there isn't a stable full of aged accounts. They're actually on different continents. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Do you think I should undo any of my actions? Regardless of the socking issue, their conduct was sufficiently disruptive to merit blocks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Yes, sorry : I forgot I hadn't got here with Twinkle to do the notifying for me! PamD 18:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure they're on proxy. CUs can find some notes at [13], [14] may also be of interest. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible they're spammers. UniqqMool is on the same IP range as someone who was eventually blocked for spamming after doing a bunch of semi-incompetent copy edits. I prefer stronger evidence of disruption before blocking, but I can be quite harsh when I've seen enough evidence. As far as residential proxies go, it's always possible, but lots of people randomly wander into IP ranges that have been tagged as having residential proxies. VPNs are becoming increasingly popular. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please block the IPv6 range beginning with the string "2600:1008:B075:EF5" for vandalism / long-term abuse. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/2600:1008:B075:EF5:0:0:0:0/64 blocked 31 hours for vandalism. I'm not seeing long-term abuse or anything other than silly vandalism from today but I've only looked at that /64. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is an LTA, because I remember a different IPv6 range adding that exact string to a different article a while back. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my page mover userright. Like the massmessage userright I used to have, this was only for publishing Signpost and I haven't been needed for that, so page mover isn't a flag I'd be using anymore. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a thread go by on IRC, the gist of which was "How do I recover my wiki account if I lost my 2FA device and don't have backup codes?" I'll avoid the whole "should I use 2FA?" minefield, but I will remind people that if you are using 2FA, make sure you've got backup codes set up, you remember where you've stored them, and know how to use them.

It might be a good idea to burn one code practicing the procedure, so you're sure you know how it works. I just did exactly that. When your phone with your 2FA generator gets run over by a bus is not the time to discover you don't have a backup strategy. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that but the entire house caught fire, and it was only thanks to Hurricane Tufa that the conflagration was doused before my entire Tufanese doll collection was destroyed. Thank you HT! --Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd quite like 2FA on my Wikipedia account, mainly because I've got it on everything else important (and being an established editor at Wikipedia is important). But last time I read the policy, 2FA was something administrators (I'm not one and will never be one, it looks like hell on earth) could apply for, giving reasons for wanting it (my reason: I want it). Wikipedia would seem to be an outlier here for the modern web. Can anyone point me at any discussions in the Wikimedia universe about implementing 2FA here? — Trey Maturin™ 17:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trey Maturin: You can ask to be added to a global group that enables 2FA. No prerequisites besides reading and understanding the implications of turning it on. Head over to m:SRGP#Requests for 2 Factor Auth tester permissions.

I do think it should be on by default... WindTempos ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Llywelynll) is literally altering history , his only providable claim is his alteration. he can change 500 year old truths in a day , please provide proof. 174.247.209.198 (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been instructed to discuss your objections to their changes on the relevant talk page, Talk:Treaty of Tordesillas. Blindly reverting their changes, falsely calling them vandalism or otherwise failing to WP:AGF will result in escalating blocks for you. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion here: where the IP was already sanctioned. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their response following the block, combined with this post here, leads me to believe that we're cruising towards a NOTHERE/CIR block if disruption continues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) .--Lemonaka (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]