User talk:JBW/Archive 78

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JBW. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Hey, JB, take a look at the history of Blankenese Low Lighthouse when you get a chance. Every IP since at least July is the same editor; I reported the most recent one but nothing happened. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: This is quite complicated, as the person has been using a wide range of IP addresses on a fairly large number of articles. However, the good news is that in the IP ranges I have co far checked, there appears to be no recent editing from anyone else, so range blocks can be used without significant risk of collateral damage. (Whether that will apply to all of the IP addresses used I don't yet know.) For now I have semi-protected a couple of articles, including the one you mentioned, and blocked three IP ranges, but to do a thorough job would need more time than I can spare right now. I'll try to get back onto it sometime soon. JBW (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

None. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 01:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I created a section on this talk page back in October I believe and I was quite harsh with the tone I used and I just wanted to leave an apology for that. I was upset and I let my frustration get the best of me. I hope you understand and I hope you can forgive me.BryCar28 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to User:JBW has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I need to edit something. Patrick10293 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done @Patrick10293: if you want JBW to change something on their usepage, you can just ask them to consider it here. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I need a bit of help :

1.) I have recently took up the 'List of top international rankings by country' page and started updating and modifying it so can you please check some of my edits so I can be self assured that whatever I am doing is correct

2.) I would like to change my name so can you help me in that Please! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tylertoney Dude perfect::

I have checked a sample of your edits to the article you mention and I didn't see any problems, though I checked only a few of the references you gave.
Let me know what you would like your user name to be changed to, and I'll change it for you, if there are no problems. The commonest problem is that a user name is already in use. You can avoid that by clicking this link: Special:CentralAuth then putting the user name you have in mind in the box and clicking the button. If the name is free to use you will see a red message saying There is no global account for "XXYZ" (or whatever user name you put in), otherwise it will give a list of information about the use of the user name. JBW (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tylertoney Dude perfect: When I posted the message above I failed to create the link for you to check user name availability, but I've corrected it now. JBW (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation and I will notify my name to you in a bit of while! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Well just for my curiosity I have a question: 1.) On our user page, we click on the three dots.

2.) Choosing User groups

3.) If we type the name it will show the user and if no user available it will show 'no user with this name'

So, we can use that also right. Anyway, thanks for the link I will use it to check my name. The above thing was just a question in curiosity. Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Well just for my curiosity I have a question: 1.) On our user page, we click on the three dots.

2.) Choosing User groups

3.) If we type the name it will show the user and if no user available it will show 'no user with this name'

So, we can use that also right. Anyway, thanks for the link I will use it to check my name. The above thing was just a question in curiosity. Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tylertoney Dude perfect: It took me a while to figure out what you are referring to, but I think I got there in the end. To begin with I had no idea what the "three dots" you mention were, but then it occurred to me that they are a feature of the user interface called "Vector", which became the default several years ago. I, along with a good many other experienced editors at the time, found it an irritating downgrade from the previous default interface, named "MonoBook", so we stuck to that one. Since I don't use Vector, I tend to forget what it looks like. Then there's "Choosing User groups", which I can't find anywhere, but I guess it must be a link to Special:UserRights. Assuming that is correct, yes you can use that to check for other accounts, or you can user Special:ListUsers, or you can try to load up the user talk page of the user name you are interested in, or the contributions history, and get "XXYZ" is not registered on this wiki if there is no such account, and there are several other methods too. However, all of those methods check only on English Wikipedia, and if there's no account with a particular name on English Wikipedia but there is one on another Wikimedia project those methods don't tell you, even though you won't be able to use that user name. The link I gave you checks for the user name on all Wikimedia projects, so it's more helpful. JBW (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the knowledge and sorry to confuse you!!

Well, can you recommend some Wikipedia policies that I can read so that I don't get into trouble more regularly! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I recently noticed that:

1.)In 'List of top international rankings by country', there is a section for Northern Cyprus.

2.) According to me, Northern Cyprus is not a country but a de fecto state which is only considered a country by Turkey.

3.) There are two records to its name : I.) Largest Illuminated Flag - which is probably the most out-dated entry in any section which was recorded in 1974 and II.) Oldest female paragliding Fly at 2012 which is un-referrenced.

4.) I think it should be renamed in that section to Cyprus and the records should be updated properly.Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tylertoney Dude perfect: I'm sure you are right. JBW (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

So,

1.) Thank You JBW you help me quite a lot!!

2.) So now I will rename it to Cyprus and update everything!

3.) But, I will also leave the above (4 point) discussion on the talk page of List of top international rankings by country. Just in Case. Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 07:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

'Cite warning: <ref> tag with name CPI cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all.' I don't know what it means can you explain it to me!! Please! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tylertoney Dude perfect: First of all, apologies that it's taken me so long to get round to answering.

I don't know how much you know about referencing on Wikipedia, so you may already know some of what I'm about to say. The easiest way to post a reference is something like <ref> Details of the reference </ref>, but if the same reference is used more than once it can be confusing and unhelpful to have a lot of copies of the same reference in the reference list. To deal with that situation, we have named references. The way they work is this. The first time a reference is used in an article, it is given a name, like this: <ref name="Something"> Details of the reference </ref>. If the same reference is used again, instead of repeating the whole reference, you can just give its name, like this: <ref name="Something" /> (Note the / before the closing > instead of repeating the details of the reference.) : Now in the article you mentioned, there's a reference named CPI. It's defined as <ref name="CPI">{{Cite web |title=Corruptions Perceptions Index 2019 for New Zealand |url=https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2019/index/nzl |access-date=2021-01-24 |website=Transparency.org |language=en}}</ref>. In another section of the article, the reference is used again, as <ref name="CPI" />. If you edit the section with <ref name="CPI" /> in it and preview the edit, the software can't find the original definition of the reference, beginning <ref name="CPI">{{Cite web..... because that isn't in the section that's being previewed, so it can't give a preview of the reference. In fact it can't even tell whether the reference is defined anywhere in the article at all. That's what the message you saw means. JBW (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the data. Now I can use this! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

1.) Hey what are Barnstars?

2.) Is it some award? If Yes, then who gives this?

3.) On what criteria?

4.) Who gets it?

5.) How is it confirmed that someone deserves it?

6.) How many Barnstars are there? - Probably Numerous where I saw it but I am not sure!

7.) And what is your sixth Tempelate about High Grand Togneme Laureate??

So many question that you can only answer!! Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tylertoney Dude perfect: A barnstar is just given by an editor to another if they think that other editor deserves recognition for something. It really means no more than saying "thank you" on a user talk page, but some editors enjoy the play element. Many years ago when I first got a barnstar I was pretty pleased by it, perhaps less because it said something good about me than because I'd seen other editors get them and it made me feel as though I was now one of the in-crowd, but after a while I came to think of them as pretty meaningless. I have also noticed over the years that if an editor displays all their barnstars in one place (as I did at one time) then they tend to keep getting more of them, and if they don't bother to store them (as I don't now) then they don't tend to get more of them. That all fits in with my impression that giving barnstars is often more about the editor who gives it wanting something striking from them to be displayed than about rewarding the person it's given to. However, that's just my feeling about them, and you may think I'm being rather cynical. Or you may not. I've no idea how many there are, except that it's a very big number.

The togneme thing is one of a set of tongue-in-cheek awards that one can award to oneself based on how long one has been around and how many edits one has made. It doesn't really mean much. If you want to know the details you can look them up at Wikipedia:Service awards. JBW (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

124.169.136.102 is a sockpuppet of PAustin4thApril1980. I think it's obvious, but I can make an SPI report if you think it is necessary. Mo Billings (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mo: Thanks for telling me. If there had been any doubt then the post on PAustin's talk page would have removed that doubt. How kind of PAustin to make it so clear. JBW (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out how noticing an IP making a very PAustin-like edit to a page on my watchlist is "stalking". I'll let you know if I notice any further block evasion. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not vandalize any pages for gain of my ideology, I didn't delete anything of substance on the original page. I spent my time and effort researching sources that show another side of the story. I can use different sources if need be, but I am providing insight to a very misunderstood minority among the populous. Very little evidence supports the killing of 33,711 people at Babi Yar and that is a fact. The only physical evidence supports 1000-3000 people being killed. I even used a photo from the main info about Babi Yar to state the obvious, if the information I posted is too biased please let me know and I will revise and repost the findings with a different source than the holocaust deprogramming which also uses primary sources to provide info on these subjects. Please do reply and talk to me about further violations as I am new to wikipedia and wish to report on often unreported facts as either disclaimers or in other ways.

Thanks for your time Jesse Kukulis (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this IP appears to be the same person as this range which you blocked for 6 months as a block evader. Same interests, edit summary habits (all empty except for ReFill), and geolocation. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Thanks for letting me know. I also found further editing by the same person, both in the same /64 IP range as the one you gave and in another range, so I have blocked both those ranges. JBW (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		I saw one of your blocks it was good OmegySock (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey JBW, I'm Rebestalic, and yes I have been here before

If you have the time, check out User: 7vQtn2DRZp$F$Xp if you can--they're not a vandal but they seem to be making rather unilateral actions with editing that don't seem to be intellectual decisions--what I mean is, check this edit by them for example. This is an article about colours, and the editor changes spelling of 'Chartreuse' (that's like a, green-yellow colour) to 'Chartreux'--Chartreux is a breed of cat.

Now if I were to be really immature and sexist just for the sake of this pun, I take the liberty to say that they're a... p-word 😂

I wish you a colourful day Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 00:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. They've already incurred the 'final' vandalism warning, the one that says 'You may be blocked from editing without further warning'

P.P.S. If you can, I think you should perhaps lodge a proposal or whatever's necessary to semi-protect the Tertiary color article--I've just noticed that more people are doing the same kind of thing that this editor is doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebestalic (talk • contribs) 01:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rebestalic: 7vQtn2DRZp$F$Xp edited over a period of 7 weeks in August and September of last year, and has not edited again since then, over a period of almost four months. Therefore there is no point in doing anything about them, unless they come back some time. As for the general editing of the article, I agree that there's quite a bit of unhelpful editing going on, but really not at the frequency needed to justify protection. JBW (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Rebestalic: Your note above saying "and yes I have been here before" prompted me to go back and re-read the earlier conversation between you and me. I see that in that conversation I made the terrible mistake of writing ˈsɛntɪˌʒɪmboʊ when of course I meant ˈsɛntɪˌdʒɪmboʊ. What can I say, beyond begging for your forgiveness? JBW (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: Hi! Thank you for your opinion, I think that was pretty expert 😂 And hey of course I forgive you, if I didn't I would be a very bad boy

@JBW: Hi, new user here. Just saw what happened with Hippo43. If the blocks had more distance between them, say the user had more years of history and the blocks were more spread out, would that have helped his case in the severity of the blocks? I'm talking about if someone has engaged in more frequent edit warring versus someone who has done just as much but less often and over a longer period of time.

Thanks,
Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

		The Wikipedian "John Wick" Barnstar
		You really helped with the Filipe Nyusi wiki page, that was a mess. Edit War: terminated. Tyrone Madera (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am a new user and I have recently added a picture of a profilometer to the "Profilometer" page and a tribometer to the "Tribometer" page which were promptly removed. The provided explanation was: "We already have enough images here; we don't need a catalog of every possible kind. Also, this looks rather like promotion." The images displayed on both pages are very outdated. The main image for the Profilometers is a snapshot of an instrument from the 1990s (!) with floppy disks (!). The second image is a profilometer for the 1940s. None of them represent what a profilometer actually looks like and provide any relevant value for anyone interested in learning about profilometers in 2021. As for the "we don't need a catalog of every possible kind" reasoning, if Wikipedia is an encyclopedia people use to learn, how can one claim that the information contained on a page about profilometers, essential for materials science and engineering yet 10x smaller than the one on Pokemons, is enough? As for the promotion: profilometers don't naturally occur - they are developed and patented by companies. There is no such thing as a generic brand profilometer. Thus, any image representing a profilometer could be argued to be a promotion. The images and captions I have provided do not contain any watermarks, marketing slogans or even subjective adjectives. They are short and only state the factual matter. It is disappointing to realize it is discouraged to update the content enriching Wikipedia. Thus, I would like the decision to remove the said images to be reconsidered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Materials Science 1 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@Materials Science 1: The amount of material on Wikipedia about subjects such as Pokemons is, in my opinion, grossly excessive; indeed, I think that view is very widely held. Therefore it is not a reasonable measure of how much content is suitable on other subjects. Also, you have used a strawman argument by shifting from what I said to something else which I didn't say: the issue of how much coverage a particular topic should have is quite different from the question of whether an article should contain large lists of examples of its subject.

I accept what you say about the existing images being out of date, so I am willing to restore those which you added. I am not sure about whether to remove the older ones, or to keep them, so I'll have to think about that.

Unfortunately the very substantial majority of new editors whose first edits consist of putting into articles content which include mentions of a particular company are here to abuse Wikipedia by using it to spam promotional material for their companies. In the case of an editor who makes successive edits relating to the same company you can replace "the very substantial majority" in that sentence with "virtually all". Hence my comment "this looks rather like promotion". Of course, that may not be what you are here for at all, and if not then unfortunately you have been caught in collateral damage in connection with problems created by others, and not in any way your fault. It was because I recognised that possibility that I wrote "looks rather like" rather than "is". However, if we never took action against highly probable abuse because of a very slight possibility that it might not be abuse, we would allow all kinds of misuse of Wikipedia, which would soon reduce Wikipedia to the level of all the thousands of blogs, web forums, social network accounts, and so on where anyone can post any rubbish they like.

If the purpose of having images in the article is to illustrate what typical examples of the equipment concerned look like, then the particular make of the examples is irrelevant. Therefore, if illustrating what typical examples look like was your intention, rather than promoting a particular brand, then you will be perfectly happy if I don't restore the mention of the brand names.

On a completely different point, whenever you post to a Wikipedia talk page or any other kind of discussion page (but not an article) you should finish your post with four tildes, i.e. ~~~~. That will be automatically replaced by a signature, which not only shows who posted the message, but also provides convenient links to your talk page (if and when you have one) and your contributions history, which can be helpful to other editors who may wish to follow up your message. JBW (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon, JBW Sorry for not answering for a long time. On the site for 2 days, I did not understand right away. Thank you for responding. Your help is very necessary, because they do not allow you to edit it yourself and do not want to. There's a quote from the book that's not true. JBW, what do you suggest to correct the biography of Dmitry Soin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сергей Пи (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Was this heavy-handedness really necessary?. They hadn't edited since my last warning so jumping to an indef 8 hours later IMHO is OTT. If they played up after the warning then sure but as I said nothing's continued since then so your actions here seem rather heavy handed. Just my unwanted 2p. Take care and stay safe. Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Dave, and thank you for expressing your concerns. You ask whether what I did was "really necessary". It isn't clear to me whether you wanted an answer, or whether that was just a rhetorical way of expressing your annoyance with my action, but I'll try to answer your question anyway.

The editor in question created an account which she used for two purposes. Firstly, she repeatedly created pages in user space which both misused Wikipedia as a web host and also used Wikipedia for promotion. Secondly, she removed content from articles and replaced it with content totally unrelated to the subjects of those articles. The information she added included both promotion of her views on mental health and irrelevant personal information about herself, such as replacing the name of the subject of an article in an infobox with her own name. She was at first given friendly, low key, warnings about both of those problems, and then, when she persisted, she was given more serious warnings. The fourth warning she received warned her that continuing in the same way might lead to being blocked. She was then blocked. She created another account to evade the block, and proceeded to edit in the same ways. She likewise received four warnings, as she had on the previous account. Two of the warnings she received were from me. Both of those warnings were my own custom notices rather than standard templated notices, because I regard the templated notices as too unfriendly to inexperienced editors, and I intend my messages to be more friendly. (You may or may not agree with my view there. If you don't think my messages are more friendly then I would be very interested in reading your reasons, so that I can consider whether to change my approach. I have rarely received any feedback on the matter, so I have little indication how my attempts to be constructive appear to others.) As with the previous account, the fourth warning she received included a warning that continuing in the same way might lead to a block. She did continue in the same way, and I duly blocked the account.

By the time of my block, six times she had created user space pages which violated Wikipedia policies; five of those creations had taken place after she had been informed of relevant policies, most of them after she had been warned several times. Seven times she had removed legitimate content from articles and replaced it with content related to herself; six of those changes took place after she had both been warned not to do so and seen earlier unacceptable editing reverted, most of them after she had been warned several times. Seven times she had triggered edit filters. She had received a total of eight warning messages on the talk pages of her two accounts, and she had seen one account blocked, so she certainly knew how her unacceptable editing was regarded. If you consider blocking an account in that situation as too "heavy handed", then I wonder how many warnings you think a disruptive editor should be given before being blocked, and how much vandalism you think we should tolerate before blocking an account.

You may or may not also like to re-read what you wrote to me, and consider whether there might have been a better way of communicating to me that your judgement of the situation differed from mine. JBW (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi JBW, I'm so so sorry for the above message, I was completely unaware of the history behind this and should've done some research before assuming the worst!. Admittedly I didn't even look at the content being added either!.

You're a great admin and being honest I've never ever once thought you were heavy-handed never!. Entirely my fault for not looking at the history first!.

My sincere and unreserved apologies for the rudeness/tone of my message and for the message too. Should never have been left, Thank you for your contributions/admin work here which are greatly appreciated JBW, Again my sincere apologies for the message above.

Take care and stay safe, Warmest Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 13:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dave: Thanks for that message. If it's of any interest to you, I actually have a good deal of sympathy for how you probably felt. In my work as an administrator very often The following happens. I see an editor who has started out doing things that aren't acceptable, I carefully consider their editing history, and decide to post them a message explaining why their editing is unhelpful, giving them a chance to learn. A few minutes later I find another administrator has blocked the account, without their having done any more editing at all after my message. I find that quite frustrating, not only because it seems like unnecessarily biting a newcomer, but also because I feel I have put work into looking into the history and making an informed decision, and that work has just been thrown away. (I could give you a list of administrators who are particularly prone to that kind of thing, but I won't.) I can see that from your point of view the recent situation must have looked somewhat like that. As for the tone of your message, most of us sometimes act hastily and less civilly than would be ideal, and I certainly do so at times, so I'm not too worried about that. JBW (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi JBW, Unfortunately seen that happen more than once too and can understand your frustration with looking at the history etc just to find out it was for all for nothing.

You're one of the good apples and I should've given it a lot more thought first!,

Anyway thank you for being calm and understanding it's much appreciated.

I hope you and yours are safe and well and I hope 2021 is a better year for you and yours too.

Take care JBW, Warmest Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 19:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you please block user:Allnewscover for vandalism when you get a chance? CLCStudent (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Done Thanks for drawing it to my attention. I also saw your other request here, which you self-reverted when another administrator dealt with it before I got here. However, I'm about to go offline, so you'll have to find someone else to help out if you have any more requests in the next few hours. JBW (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for making me aware of the policy regarding the need for citation. On the Karuk Tribe page, I had added the information that my Grandmother was the tribal member who had designed the Karuk Flag. I know this because it was within my lifetime and I experienced it. Do you have any suggestions as to how I could sufficiently cite this? Thank you for your time. Amy ALPGCA (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

hi this is ducky and i just wanted to say thank you for restoring the vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squigle ducky (talk • contribs) 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For mopping up at UTRS in general and 41031 in particular. A job that required patient thoroughness. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't quite tell what was changed here? To be fair it has been a particularly long day spent with auditors and my brain is mush.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ponyo: I found that a number of IP addresses have been used by the same abusive editor, some of them infrequently but persistently over a period of several months. Various blocks have been placed for varying lengths of time, ranging from a day or so to a couple of months or so, but it makes no impact on the editor, who just moves to other IP addresses in their collection. None of the IP addresses show any sign of ever having been used by anyone else. In that situation it seems to me that the reasonable thing to do is to block all of the known IP addresses for a reasonably long time, in the hope that at least it will significantly slow the editing down, and may possibly even deter them altogether if we are lucky, whereas just blocking the individual IP addresses for a short time is unlikely to do any significant good. If the same editor were doing the same things from an account they would obviously be unblocked indefinitely, and I see no reason why the fact that an editor chooses not to use an account should mean that they are treated more leniently. The principal that an IP address should be blocked only for a short time is based on the possibility that someone else might use it, but in a case where there have never been any edits from anyone else on the same IP address that is not a significant risk. It is true that this particular IP address has edited only over a very short period, but I don't see any reason not to base our decisions on the basis of all of the editor's activity; after all, we would do so if the editing were done from an account.

Ok, Ponyo, that's the reasoning behind my action. However, if you disagree with me then please feel free to revert to the earlier block length. I won't get upset about it. JBW (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Remember when I mentioned it had been a long day? I saw the July 4th date and read it as today's date (March 4th), a sure sign I should pack it in for the day. Regarding the extension of the block, while it may be your intent to extend the block to try to impede the abusive editor's evasion, it is very likely to be ineffectual. If they are editing from a number of highly dynamic IP ranges, the chance of them ever cycling back to the same single IP is practically zilch. Even more so if they have access to multiple ISPs as well. The chance of someone unrelated being assigned that IP, however, is much higher. This is why Checkusers tend to make many, shortish blocks on these IPs as the chance of collateral goes up significantly the more dynamic they are. I completely understand the impulse to extend such blocks, but it is not likely to work the way you intend. I wish it did, it would make fighting LTA abuse much easier!-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your note . Since you mentioned that I could have done a better job at helping a new editor, I thought I should clarify the matter a bit.

The pages the user was particularly interested are frequent targets of sock-puppetry. If you looked at the edit history of , you'd notice the following editors, all of who are socks: SashankaChutia (talk · contribs), Hachengsa (talk · contribs), Logical_Man_2000 (talk · contribs), KhiLanTzi (talk · contribs) etc. The user made 4 edits (, , , ). This was followed by a near-identical edit by an IP address (). This raised the possibility that the editor was aware of 3RR and was not so new to Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, I gave the benefit of doubt to this user and provided them links to RS and Rules & Guidelines when they reached out .

Chaipau (talk) 10:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chaipau: Thanks for that information. It does to some extent give a different context to what you did, but perhaps not a much different as you might think, because I already had my suspicions about this "new" editor. It is often unclear what is the best way to deal with this situation, where there are grounds for suspicion, but not enough evidence to come to any conclusion. I tend, however, to bend over backwards to be friendly in this situation, often assuming good faith to an even greater extent than in the case of someone I have no reason to doubt is genuine. That may seem strange, but it can work more than one way: if it really is a good faith but ignorant new editor then friendly advice is likely to be more helpful than threats and warnings, and if it isn't then it may eventually be easier to take action such as blocking an editor who has clearly been given every chance than one who may look to others like an innocent victim (even if you or I are certain that is not so).

You have probably also noticed that, although I made some critical remarks about your actions, the overall effect of my post was that I didn't give the editor the help they were seeking.

I have very little doubt that the IP editing you mention is from the same person as 11Anonymous1122; apart from the edit you mention, the IP's other editing is all on an article edited by 11Anonymous1122, and those two facts put together are just too much of a coincidence. As for the sockpuppet accounts you have mentioned, I have checked the editing history of several of that sockmaster's accounts, and I can't come to any conclusion. I can see both similarities and differences between 11Anonymous1122 and the sockpuppets. On balance I feel it probably isn't the same person , but you clearly know far more about that sockmaster than I do, so your impression is quite likely to be more reliable than mine.

I don't know how interesting those remarks will be to you, but I offer them to you for what they are worth. JBW (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I too am concerned about helping the genuine editor. Chaipau (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Before I put in the glock request, wanted to give you a heads up that they are likely a sock of this user. CUPIDICAE💕 14:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear JBW, Good afternoon! I am writing to you because I need your help in editing information about Dmitry Soin, the criminal case against him was fabricated, created for political reasons. He was a soldier and then became a deputy. Help me if you can. The administrators refuse me and threaten to block my account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сергей Пи (talk • contribs) 20:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Сергей Пи: I find this very difficult to deal with. If what you say is true then the current presentation in the article is clearly unacceptable, and needs to be changed, but I am unable to ascertain what the truth is.

Do you have a reliable published source which confirms that "the criminal case against him was fabricated, created for political reasons"? I do not have access to the book cited in the article, so I mot able to assess it. I have searched for information elsewhere about this, but unfortunately most of what I found was either in sources which were clearly unreliable or in sources for which the reliability was unclear to me. I did, however, find a few mentions in what looked more like reliable sources, such as Taiwan News. In any case, whether in reliable sources, in unreliable sources, or in sources of doubtful reliability, everything I saw reported that the criminal charges had indeed been brought, and that the matter had been referred to Interpol, but I didn't see anything anywhere that suggested that the case was "fabricated". If it was, or even if there is a reasonable case for believing that it may have been, supported by reliable sources, then the article should certainly be changed to reflect that fact. However, the fact that the charge had been brought against him, albeit falsely, would still be a fact widely reported, and the fact that false charges had been fabricated against him for political reasons by people acting at a high level in government would itself be a significant fact, that should be included in the article. Therefore, rather than removing all mention of the charge, the correct thing to do would be to add to the article a statement to the effect that the legitimacy of the charge is doubtful. However, the fundamental point is the need for reliable sources. We cannot accept claims about controversial issues purely on the basis that someone who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account says so. People who have created Wikipedia accounts post all kinds of things, including good faith but mistaken statements, deliberate vandalism, deliberate lies in order to promote an opinion or to suppress information that they don't wish to be widely known, information which while not necessarily untrue is presented in such a way as to give a biased impression, and many other unconstructive things. We therefore require reliable published sources. As I have already said, I have searched for reliable sources supporting your claims, and failed to find any. Can you provide any? If you do know of reliable sources supporting your claims, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to say what those sources are; if you don't know of any, and are trying to get the Wikipedia article on the basis of unreliable evidence, or no evidence at all, then there is no justification for making the changes you wish for.

As I said above, if what you say is true then we should seek to change the coverage in the Wikipedia article, and it is for that reason that I have given up some of my time to trying to determine what the truth is. If you can help to clarify the situation, that will be very helpful. JBW (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Сергей Пи: Since posting the above message, I have realised that you asked me for help in February, and I never responded. I apologise for that. When I saw that message I didn't have time to deal with it, and intended to come back to it, but forgot to do so. JBW (talk) 21:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Good evening, JBW! I'm glad you responded. I hope that you and I will succeed. There are sources where Dmitry Soin gave an interview, he says that according to the statute of limitations he could not be detained, the case was but, Dmitry Soin in 1994 was on duty and a citizen came out on the road intoxicated and attacked Dmitry, in self-defense, Dmitry was acquitted by the court. In 2014, when the statute of limitations expired, the authorities of Pre-Dniester took advantage of this situation, since he was in opposition to the authorities of Pre-Dniester, they fabricated a case against him and accused him of everything that could be done. https://tiras.ru/tema-dnja/41941-pobeg-dmitriya-soina-v-zerkale-rossiyskoy-pressy.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сергей Пи (talk • contribs) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC) https://wiki2.net/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%BD,_%D0%94%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%AE%D1%80%D1%8C%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Сергей Пи (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I have just read Wikipedia:Unblockables for the first time. There are many valid points there, but I thought I would post here just one of them, in the hope that one or two people watching this page might benefit from it. It's the very last section of Wikipedia:Unblockables, under the section heading "Karma".

There is some consolation in the knowledge no user on Wikipedia is immune from sanctions, there are cases of so-called unblockable editors who have eventually become indefinitely blocked, or lost privileges.

Very true, fortunately, I have seen it happen a few times. Very reluctantly I have decided to resist the temptation to name a few examples. JBW (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear JBW,

If you receive this message, I wanna let you know that sincerely apologize to you for my past behavior from 2012 and 2013. I sincerely apologize for edit warning in articles in the past, I have reed the entire policy and I promise I will never, ever, EVER, edit war ever again, and if an edit war starts to happen I will take the issue to the take page instead of arguing with users. I also sincerely apologize for cursing at you and other admins like I did in the past, especially in my edit summaries too, I apologize for cursing in my edit summaries when I edited articles in the past. If I can ask you politely, can I please have my account unblock so I can have one more final chance again? I promise you I will follow the policy and I will not leave cursing messages in my edit summaries when I edit articles and I promise I will never, ever, curse at you or other admins and users ever again. Also, I even promise not to make anymore sockpuppet accounts ever again. I have learned my lesson and I will be looking forward into changing my ways when I edit articles again, I really hope you can forgive me? Please JBW, I’m begging you. Can I “PLEASE” get one more final chance again? I will show you that I will follow the policy this time.

2600:1000:B052:10D2:215C:B2B5:7638:6943 (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Am I supposed to guess which account that is? JBW (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, you will be suprised who this is if I tell you. 2600:1000:B06E:8556:80FE:1C8B:9DC0:41E4 (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I probably won't, but I'm damned if I'm going to put in any effort and time into trying to help someone who chooses not to give me the basic information needed. That last remark could be taken as trolling, too. JBW (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You haven't given me a chance to finish yet. First off, sorry I didn't respond sooner, I swear I'm not trolling you. This is Bigshowandkane64 your talking too here, yes I know you permanently banned me back in 2013. But I swear, I did read the entire policy and I promise to NEVER edit war against users ever again. I know what I did was wrong before and I will be looking forward into changing my ways again if my account gets unblocked again, again I apologize for cursing at you and the other admins all those years ago before I got banned. Like I said before, I promise you I will never edit war again, I will not curse ever again, even in my edits summaries I promise I will never curse in my edit summaries ever again when I use to edit an article back then, I will follow the entire policy and I will not reverts anyones edits EVER again. If you don't believe me then that's ok, I just wanted to let you know I sincerely apologize to you for my past behavior all those eight years ago. I will show you that I will respect the policy and I will follow it for now on and again I promise I will never get angry at you or anyone else on here ever again. Please forgive me JBW, I'm begging you. I am being very apologetic to you right now, I didn't mean to cause all that harm I did before, eight years ago. Like I said, it's ok if you decline to unblock me, I'm just letting you know I sincerely apologize to you and every other admin on here too. 2600:1000:B06F:1C8D:991C:67C0:428:A8DF (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually I did know that you were "Bigshowandkane", because I saw that another administrator had blocked another IP range you used giving "Bigshowandkane" as the reason. I very vaguely remember the name "Bigshowandkane" from many years back, but I don't remember anything significant about it, or why you were blocked. I am a great believer in giving another chance, especially after several years, as people can change, and so I am willing to consider your request. However, I don't have time now, so I'll try to get back onto it tomorrow. JBW (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for being honest with me JBW, I was worried for the second that you might say no to me. Just give me a heads up on when you will get into it tomorrow, thanks! 2600:1000:B071:4F6B:6DC6:894B:B535:F259 (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Are you still gonna look into unblocking my account? I just wanted to make sure you haven't forgot. 2600:1000:B009:3BEA:25A8:83DD:2D43:6204 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten, but it has turned out that I have been much busier today than I expected, so I haven't got onto it yet. I will try to do so as soon as I can. JBW (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Busybody reporting for duty and feeling the need to mention that the user in question is community-banned (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Proposing community ban on Bigshowandkane64), so unblocking requires a discussion. Favonian (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand Favonian, I also said that I will be looking forward into changing my ways again when I edit articles again. I sincerely promise I will never make the same mistakes again like I did eight years ago. 2600:1000:B055:17A5:6C8F:E0A3:FC6A:FFE5 (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you stop socking if you wish to get unbanned. Note to the other admins watching here - this user has been editing under at least one now-blocked account as recently as today. You aren't funny or clever - and we aren't stupid. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I seriously don’t know what your talking about, I haven’t even created another single account for the past eight years since. I swear to you guys, I am being really honest with you all, I swear I’m not lying. Plus, the whole IP Address changing isn’t my fault, it just randomly changes on its own. But I swear it, I am trying really hard to be nice to you guys. I said I am willing to change my ways and I sincerely promise I will not write or send anymore threats to you guys ever again, I even promise not to edit war ever again. I will always take the issue to the talk page for now on. I’ve reed the entire policy and I will be following it this time if I get unbanned again. 2600:1000:B017:7551:5C8:AFD1:6C4A:40B1 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No no, I'm sure another user on the same IP range as you, using an identical device as you, using a name very similar to one of your other socks just happened to pop by at the same time that you are active in order to harass another user that I'm pretty sure you had a history with. Additionally, FYI posting here is block evasion. The block applies to the person, not the device. If you are looking to get unbanned, I would start with not socking for a while, then using WP:UTRS to regain talkpage access on your main account. From there you can begin the unblock process. The pivotal part of this is going to be to stop evading your ban. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

But I swear, I haven’t harassed anyone, ever. You must be mistaken me for someone else. But I’ll do the WP:UTRS like you told me, I unfortunately don’t know if they will accept my account unblock ticket request, but I’ll try anyways. Like I said, I will not make the same mistakes like I did before in the past. I will follow the policy for now on, this will be my last message here for now on and I will go right to the WP:UTRS. I will try my best. 2600:1000:B056:13BB:9D8D:C9DF:A8B8:0 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bigshowandkane64: I was ready to post to the administrators' noticeboard asking for a discussion as to whether your ban should be lifted, but when I saw SQL's messages above I reconsidered that. I have restored your access to User talk:Bigshowandkane64 so that you can post any more comments relating to your request to be unbanned there. Please don't post on this page or any other page while you are blocked, whether by IP editing or by using another account. If you do, it will be virtually certain that the ban won't be lifted; in fact what you have already done is likely to be enough to persuade many editors that you should remain banned. JBW (talk) 20:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

As they have denied block evasion using an account and have continued to request their ban be lifted, I started a thread over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Unban_request_for_Bigshowandkane64. You are welcome to comment there if you wish, JBW. --Yamla (talk) 13:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Can a number of my pages that were deleted be userfied? . You rightfully deleted many of them. . I am no longer under any block. BlackAmerican (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Some articles were recreated including but are no where near the size they previously were Aubre de Lambert Maynard · (Deleted) · (Recreated) 2016-11-29 12:21 5,701 N/A N/A. BlackAmerican (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: Hi, I didn't know your block had been removed. I don't know of any obvious reason not to restore the pages you created, but I don't have time now, so I'll try to get back onto it tomorrow. If you don't hear from me again tomorrow then please remind me. I suffer from attention deficit disorder, which has the result that things I genuinely intend to deal with soon often get lost as mind mind pushes them into the background as it jumps off onto other things, and a gentle reminder can help. JBW (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, if you can please restore the deleted pages. BlackAmerican (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, BlackAmerican. Sorry it took me longer to find time to get back onto this than I had hoped, but I have got onto it now.

I have restored 25 pages that I had deleted. I will do more, but it is very slow, checking through them one by one, and I don't have any more time to spend on it now. 9 of the pages I have restored have been user space pages, the other 16 have been in mainspace. I have not restored any pages that were deleted for reasons other than being created while you were evading a block.

I found that the vast majority of the deleted pages were just redirects. I started restoring those, but I decided that the amount of time it took to deal with each one individually was disproportionate to their value, and it would be much more useful to put the same amount of time into restoring pages that were not redirects, so I stopped doing the redirects.

Your article Aubre de Lambert Maynard is not only much bigger than the new version, as you rightly said, but also much better, so I have restored the version you wrote, and replaced the other one with a redirect. There's a new version of Army University, but in that case it isn't obvious to me that one or the other is vastly better than the other, so I've userfied your version at User:BlackAmerican/Army University, and left the other one where it is. You may like to merge content from the version in your user space into the article. Two other articles, Black Theatre Alliance and Luther McDonald, have new versions which are more complete than yours, so I have left them as they are. I can userfy the deleted versions if you like, but I didn't see much point in doing that, so I'll leave them deleted unless you specifically ask me to restore them.

I hope to do some more of this soon, and of course you are very welcome to contact me again if you want to. JBW (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you userfy this article for me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rebecca_Trussell BlackAmerican (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC) This as well... Emelio Bruno BlackAmerican (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC) and Harold Sharp. This too.. BlackAmerican (talk) 11:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican: The pages you created which I have restored were deleted by me, and the reason for deletion was that they were created by you while you were evading blocks. The ones you are asking me to restore now are very different cases, for two reasons. Firstly, you are asking me to restore pages deleted by other administrators, but your first port of call should be to consult them. In the case of Rebecca Trussell that means you should consult Samwalton9, and in the cases of Harold Sharp and Emelio Bruno you should consult MBisanz. Also, those articles were deleted as the outcomes of deletion discussions, and policy permits speedy deletion of recreated pages in that situation, no matter in what namespace they may be recreated. Certainly there are situations where exceptions can be made, and the deleting administrators may decide that this is such a situation, but if I were the deleting administrator I would require you to give a very clear reason why this should be considered an exception. Also if I did decide that restoration was justified I would be far more likely to agree to restore them to draft space than to user space, but since it isn't my decision I shan't bother to spend time explaining my reasons for that.

User:CrazyAces489/Jerome Mackey is a somewhat different matter, as the deleting administrator is no longer an administrator, so I have looked into the history with a view to possibly restoring the page myself. I found not only that what you are asking for is recreation of material deleted a a result of a deletion discussion, but also that you previously requested restoration at deletion review, that request was denied, and you then moved a copy of the deleted article that you had in draft space to main space. (For some reason you later moved it back to user space. Maybe searching through talk page histories would reveal the reason, but I have not done that.) The page you wish to have restored is virtually identical to the page deleted at AFD, so the reasons for deletion given there apply as much to the one copy of the page as to the other. Also, the administrator who closed the AFD stated that if they had seen the article before it went to AFD they would have speedily deleted it under speedy deletion criterion G11 as promotional, and I fully concur. I am therefore unwilling to restore the page, both because it is so grossly promotional that if restored it would qualify for immediate speedy deletion, and because it is a page subjected to a deletion at AFD which was then endorsed at deletion review, without any further reason being given for overturning those decisions now. JBW (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

In terms of Rebecca Trussel, I believe that she is notable being a national champion in Sambo and Judo. The individual who nominated her for deletion went after a lot of my articles. That individual was blocked for sockpuppet and community banned. I believe that she is notable and only want to expand the article before pushing it forward. In terms of Emelio Bruno, the same individual pushed for a deletion. I will go expand on him before doing anything. I believe 10 more sources and 2 more strong paragraphs can help it. . In terms of Harold Sharp, the same individual pushed for its deletion. I believe him to be relavent and will expand on it. I believe with his death a few days ago more information will come out concerning him. In terms of Jerome Mackey, 3 socks of the same account swayed the vote. User:Mdtemp, User:Jakejr, and User:Astudent0 . I promise for this article, I will utilize the Articles for Creation. Their were a lot of sources that I don't want lost. I will have a major overhaul of the article. BlackAmerican (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) In that case you can probably start afresh without having to use the unnecessarily promotional articles: better to use your (hopefully proper) sources instead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey RC. I would rather heavily edit. TNT isn't helpful to me. BlackAmerican (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to JBW for rescuing Nightingale College. Thank you for saving information that would otherwise be deleted. Infinitepeace (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You are welcome to see the comments on the talk page. There is a pretty long ongoing edit war. Either way, thanks for saving this article!! Infinitepeace (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Infinitepeace: I have no memory whatever of this article, but a check of the editing history indicates that you must be referring to something I did a little over 8 years ago. It is extremely rare that I get thanks for anything I did that long ago. JBW (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, You are the best. You always see through to the core issues. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

But I wasn't inclined to dig out my "Captain Obvious" outfit. :-) — Ched (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, JB. Please stop by Richard Stanley (director) when you get a chance, one IP and three different registered editors have been trying to keep reliably referenced domestic abuse allegations off the article over the past several hours. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

JB, you sent me a message on March 25, saying: "Thank you for your editing, which removed unsubstantiated allegations. The content you removed was an unambiguous violation of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, and you were perfectly right to remove it Also, I am a loss to understand the message above from ThatIPEditor. Sources are required for adding information, but you did not add anything."

Today, March 27, the allegations of abuse paragraph is back. I removed it with basically the same explanation of no convictions, no documentation, no court case. Another editor reverted my removal! While a Wikipedia entry is not the height of damning evidence, I am trying to do what is right. Stanley's career and reputation is in jeopardy because of this continued attempt at a smear campaign of lies and no documentation. I would add that whomever the person doing this is, one of their cites, Dread Central, Deadline, and Film, are hardly reputable news sources. They merely regurgitate the alleged victim's blog hearsay, and each other's information. SpectreVision, one day after the alleged victim's blog appeared, cut professional ties with Stanley, thus giving credence to the allegations as being legitimate and true.

If you won't removed the allegations of abuse paragraph and lock down the page to prevent further editing, may I simply rebut the allegations by "adding to" it? Or adding a separate paragraph? Personally, I would rather see the page locked down as you said the content was rightly removed. Thank you. Snoopy1138 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC) Snoopy1138

Snoopy1138 I made some mistakes in trying to deal with this problem, due to having an oversimplified impression as to what the policy on biographies of living persons says. I now realise that, while the policy does contain provisions against reporting unproven allegations, it does not impose such a total ban on doing so as I thought. Having realised that my attempts to help were not actually helpful, I think it better for me to stay away from the issue now. JBW (talk) 22:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've requested pending changes protection. One hopes that the responding admin will make any necessary edits to the article so it's compliant with BLP policy. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This claim seems dubious. Looks lke what you told them to not do. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SARS-CoV-2_without_background.png

Can this image be used in a blog? As I can't understand if I have the right to use this in a blog? Can you tell me if it is free to use or if I will have to take permission or like mention the source, what shall I do to use this without getting copyright infringement? Tylertoney Dude perfect (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)"This image is in the public domain and thus free of any copyright restrictions. As a matter of courtesy we request that the content provider be credited and notified in any public or private usage of this image." --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, JBW. I'm confused, what about this block and unblock did you feel was WP:INVOLVED? It appears the user had their TPA revoked for calling ArbCom "bullying, narrow minded, undereducated morons". This is a pretty straightforward personal attack, which you seemed to agree with, calling Arbcom "fools and bullies", and invoked INVOLVED. As I'm sure you know, INVOLVED refers to disputes or conflicts in which a user has a conflict of interest or has strong feelings, specifically exempting situations in which the "involvement" is in a purely administrative capacity. It is not some "catch-22" that an admin cannot action a user for insulting them. As you expressed a clear, objective agreement with the personal attacks, you were not in a position to assess an unblock consensus as an uninvolved administrator. Instead you unblocked based on a dubious interpretation of INVOLVED, as an INVOLVED admin yourself, at least by my reckoning. I have no stake in this drama, but I'm concerned by your action here. By my assessment, it was blatantly abusive, if we're being honest. How can you defend this? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Swarm: Are you suggesting that anyone who thinks that the present Arbitration committee has a strong tendency to make foolish decisions shouldn't be allowed to say so? If so, that is a truly frightening attitude. Calling that a "personal" attack is questionable, to say the least. What person or persons did I attack? And please don't claim that I attacked every member of the committee, because I didn't; perhaps I should have said "I am referring to their collective actions, and I am not intending this to imply that each one of them is at fault, but a sufficient proportion of them is to make dominate the overall effect of their decisions", but I was naive enough to think that I didn't need to spell that out, because of course when one criticises a committee one is criticising how they act collectively as a body; evidently I made a mistake there. You made a mistake in thinking that what I wrote indicates that I "seemed to agree with" "bullying, narrow minded, undereducated morons". I think "morons" is much stronger than what I said, and I didn't say anything whatever that could be construed as referring to narrowness of mind or lack of education.

Nevertheless, perhaps I should have realised that in the light of my critical comments my actions might be seen in the way you have seen them, and therefore it might have been better had I stood back. Also, it would certainly have been better had I expressed my original comments in a more measured tone. However, I think we should set against your critical view the number of administrators who have expressed support for what I have done. I don't see any consensus that I was at fault.

Your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED is very different from mine. The act of mine in which you regard me as violating WP:INVOLVED was removing an editing restriction imposed in connection to an incident in which I had no involvement whatever. The fact which you think makes me "involved" was that I had made critical remarks about the handling of the incident after that incident. Since you take that as being "involved", I wonder how far you would take that principle. I can scarcely imagine you think that I should not block an editor for vandalism because before blocking I had said that the vandalism was appalling and unacceptable. I really cannot see making critical remarks after an event as making me involved in that event.

The two members of the arbitration committee concerened, by contrast, had both taken part in the event which occasioned Giano's critical comments for which they blocked him, so they certainly had been involved in the incident that led to that block. To me that is a classic case of being involved.

You don't think that Primefac and CaptainEek were "involved", but I have seen comments from several administrators who have explicitly stated that they were, so I do not get the impression that there is consensus among administrators for your interpretation of the policy.

I see that elsewhere you have said that what I did "potentially rises to the level of an Arb case in and of itself." Well, of course you will do what you think is fit. Evidently you think I made a mistake here; if you really believe that my mistake was so serious as to make this one incident so unacceptable as to be worth getting rid of me then you will no doubt go ahead with that. I am bewildered as to why you would think that, but perhaps I have an exaggerated view of the value of my own contributions to the encyclopaedia. In any case it can't make a lot of difference, as the amount of contributing I may do in what time is left can't be more than a small fraction of what I've done over the last 14 years. JBW (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Swarm: A postscript to the above. After I posted the above message, I noticed the following edit, in which another administrator indicated agreement with my understanding of what "personal" means, and disagreement with yours: . JBW (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Swarm: I apologise for a mistake in drafting my message above. In the passage beginning "What person or persons did I attack?" I should have written "What person or persons did Giano attack", as you were accusing him, not me, of a personal attack. However, substantially the same comments apply, obviously with some details needing changing. JBW (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Pardon me for interrupting, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to point this out which was a full 30 minutes prior to this and this. Not exactly a model of consistency IMO. Although I won't be surprised to see words and phrases such as juxtaposition and apples and oranges tossed out. Just a thought for future reference. Best always, — Ched (talk) 20:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Ched, an interesting side effect of that post of yours is that in checking the links you provided I was reminded that Swarm had claimed that I had "endorsed the personal attacks". Swarm, I did no such thing. JBW (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, JBW, thank you for the unblock. This isn’t really the place for a debate on the justification for the block. However, you and I both feel it was unwise for either of the two very much involved Admins to have made it. Contrary to assertions, following the block on my page, I used no “foul language” and made no personal attacks. If strongly criticising the Arbcom is now a crime, then your unblocking of me is the least of Wikipedia’s problems. I’m sorry you now find yourself with the Establishment’s acetylene torch directed at you. I sincerely hope it doesn’t burn you too deeply. Like all bodies in authority, the Arbcom must never be protected from criticism. Giano (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a pretty bizarre response. INVOLVED isn't up for "interpretation", it's an objective standard. Obviously I'm not saying you don't have the right to an opinion, I'm saying you expressed an opinion that presents a conflict of interest, which precludes you from taking an admin action under the INVOLVED policy, and you did so anyway, violating INVOLVED. You say that the actioning admins were members of Arbcom, which rendered them "involved", but as I pointed out, INVOLVED exempts administrators acting in an administrative capacity, so the allegation that an Arb cannot block a user for insulting Arbcom seems spurious at best. Also, the local response on a blocked "power user"'s talk page is hardly ever a reliable community review, but even if it were, you would be precluded from assessing such a local consensus on such a talk page after agreeing with the sentiments that led to the block. I can't interpret this situation in any other way other than the fact that it was an abusive use of the admin tools. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you Swarm. IMO There has been multiple involved admin actions in regards to this issue, bit of a sily issue really. Govindaharihari (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick Facts

Close

Thank you for what you said for RexxS --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello

I see that you deleted draft:route redistribution which somebody else created after my first attempt (which currently appears in mainspace.) May I please have a look at what you deleted? Because if it is better than what I wrote then the content of the article should be replaced and the other author credited. Please respond by e-mail, as I don't login to Wikipedia very often (preferring to edit by IP) (but, if the other author's content is clearly better, then feel free to substitute the content, crediting the author). Thank you. Bwrs (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)@Bwrs: Oops, never mind. Was there any useful content in the draft, J? If so, you might want to ping them here or advise them (if it's not already done) to contribute to the existing article directly. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Anonymous editor 180.150.36.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems to be editing in the same areas frequented by PAustin4thApril1980, namely young female actresses, murdered girls, and TV stations. Mo Billings (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, JB. I noticed this editor while perusing Recent changes; they're involved in multiple edit wars, used an edit summary to tell an IP "piss off", and has been blocked three times for such behavior. I'd report the editor to the vandalism noticeboard but I suspect they'll say there hasn't been enough recent warnings so I'm giving you a heads up. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Blocked again, for much longer. JBW (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

User Wheresthatpenguin continues to add Trivia on the Marianne and Mark page despite knowing that it's not allowed on wiki and it doesn't look like it's going to stop. HARDACAndroid (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@HARDACAndroid: Thanks for letting me know. I have posted a fairly long message to the editor's talk page, explaining various issues. If they continue in the same way after that, please feel very welcome to let me know, and I shall consider whether anything else needs to be done. JBW (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the Trivia info has next to nothing to do with the page, but now IP addresses[] keeps putting it back, the page may need to be locked because it doesn't look like that person is going to stop. HARDACAndroid (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've put in a request at RFPP and also warned the user about IP-socking. The edits, in addition to being trivia, were blatantly WP:OR and that's a much stronger reason to remove them. If they continue with this disruption despite the warnings then a block (both for socking and for "not listening to other's concerns") might be in order. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	thank you for the thank you Maskoff89 (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Why you have blocked me from editing PKpraneel (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@PKpraneel: Well, that's a very interesting question, but unfortunately one I can't answer unless you tell me what account of yours I have blocked. Probably there are instructions on the talk page of that account telling you how to make a request for that account to be unblocked, and unless and until that happens you should not be editing, so I shall block the sockpuppet account that you used to post to this page. JBW (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. You had blocked WeCareICare last month, as a sock of "Ricardo Toronto". They appear to be back as AchillesTBW and SYuV. There's a diff where AchillesTBW says they are the user who created all the Nobel prize nominee lists. You can find it in the SPI I filed, if interested. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Possibly: Thanks for letting me know. As you may have already seen, another administrator had already blocked AchillesTBW before I got there, but I have now followed up by reverting and deleting editing by that sock account. Just occasionally we get sockpuppeteers who are so helpful as to in effect tell us that they are using sockpuppets, as in this case. As for SYuV, as I have said in the SPI, I think there is too much doubt to justify taking any action, though I can totally see your reasons for suspicion. JBW (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: yeah that was an interesting one. I can see that they are quite genuine in wanting to get those articles published, which might have been a constructive addition. At the same time, given the admission that hey were socking, they showed zero understanding of the multiple accounts policy, and the subsequent block.--- Possibly (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I changed your range block on Special:Contributions/2402:1980:0:0:0:0:0:0/32, which stopped everyone on that ISP from editing Wikipedia. Technically, this could constitute wheel warring because I changed your admin action, which changed one mine – but I think the circumstances warrant it. It was my fault for not labeling the block with {{CheckUser block}}, but you really can't modify a block like that. It was based on CheckUser information and was designed to only work with the settings I specifically set. If you loosen it, it becomes useless. If you widen it, it causes massive collateral damage. However, MediaWiki does allow overlapping range blocks, such as doing two /33 blocks that overlap with a /32. This is really the only way to modify a block like that. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I am somewhat puzzled over a couple of aspects of what you say. Firstly, the only change I made to the block was that I made it cover all editing, rather than just a few articles, and you have retained that change. The change which you subsequently made was to make the block anon-only, rather than covering editing from accounts, which was a change to your original block conditions, and it did not change anything that I had done. Or have I missed something? Secondly, why is it that I "really can't modify a block like that"? If, following a partial block, the same person (or in the case of an IP range block someone using the same IP range) simply moves to making similar unconstructive editing on other articles, it seems to me that modifying the block to stop them doing so makes perfect sense. If I am mistaken in thinking that then I shall be very grateful if you can explain why, as it really honestly isn't obvious to me. JBW (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

A hard block prevents registered editors from editing Wikipedia unless they're administrators. You did a hard block on one of the largest ISPs in Malaysia. This is like blocking all editing from Vodafone or AT&T. Registered editors, anonymous editors, everyone. No customers from that ISP could edit Wikipedia unless they were administrators. My block was a partial block that prevented editing a handful of articles. It was potentially a minor annoyance to a handful of customers. They could edit all of Wikipedia except those couple articles. You removed this safeguard against collateral damage, and millions of registered editors were unable to edit any Wikipedia page except for their talk page. My block = "I'll do a targeted partial block to prevent disruption from logged-in editors on these five articles. CU tool says collateral damage should be perfectly manageable." Your block = "Muahahaha! Now nobody from Malaysia can edit Wikipedia ever again, including rollbackers and new page patrollers!" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		You're one of the best admins around this place. Seriously, top notch. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jezebel's one: There is a danger that one day I may lose my self control and post what I really think of the way many administrators treat good faith blocked editors who accept their past mistakes and ask to be allowed back. The strange thing is that in many cases they are in every other respect good editors and administrators. Any way, thanks for your appreciation. JBW (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ponyo JBW. One question your post has this wording "However, now that you are blocked I hope that you can soon start constructive editing" - did you mean unblocked? If I've made a mistake in reading this my apologies. MarnetteD|Talk 01:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Yes, I meant "unblocked ", of course. Thanks for pointing that out to me. JBW (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Good deal. Glad I could help. MarnetteD|Talk 04:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, which page is this copied from verbatim? I was looking for that exact information while tracking down a possible copyright violation. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 14:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Asartea: Andrew Mwenda JBW (talk) 14:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, although it seems it was deleted anyway so its a moot point. -- Asartea ^Talk ^| ^Contribs 16:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

180.150.36.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) recently edited Judith Barsi, Sarah York, Victoria O'Keefe, Threads (1984 film), ITV Granada, Bridgette Andersen and Thames Television. All of these articles have long edit histories by PAustin4thApril1980. AldezD (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@AldezD: In a way that's good news, because the same IP address has been blocked before for the same reason, which means that it's one that the editor has long-term access to, so blocking it is likely to cause more inconvenience for him than would be the case if it were a transient dynamic IP address. I've blocked it for a year. Please feel welcome to let me know if you see him back again on another IP address. JBW (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@JBW:, please also check 203.17.215.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). IP edited Thames Television after your block of 180.150.36.40 yesterday. IP 203.17.215.22 has edited Murder of Michelle Garvey, Diana Serra Cary, UTV (TV channel), Herald Sun, Granada Studios and Carlton Television, all with edit histories by PAustin4thApril1980. AldezD (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

And 203.17.215.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Edit histories of Patrick Troughton, William Hartnell, Disappearance of Beverly Potts and Margaret, Maid of Norway have histories with edits by same user. 13:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC) AldezD (talk)

Also User's talk page comment following my notices to you. AldezD (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@AldezD: So kind of the persistently disruptive editor to provide such an unambiguous confirmation that it is he. (If such confirmation were needed, which it isn't.) Contrary to what he says, the proportion of constructive editing from those IP addresses is small, so the collateral damage is not that great. In any case, I don't give a lot of weight to the notion that blocking library IP addresses is an intolerable thing to do, partly because of my own experience. Many years ago I found that I couldn't edit from my local library because it was blocked to stop vandalism. Naturally that was an irritation, but I accepted that it was necessary, and I didn't whine and moan about how a wicked administrator had harmed a lot of innocent would-be editors: I simply got myself an account, and that was that. Since then I have edited for over 14 years without ever being affected by a block, and as far as I am concerned that is a far better way of minimising collateral damage from IP blocks than not making the blocks and letting vandals trolls and incompetent fools carry on causing endless damage. Anyway, I've blocked the range 203.17.215.16/28, which covers both the IP addresses you mentioned, for a year. JBW (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@JBW:, another is 124.169.136.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). No recent edits since February, but IP has made edits to Disappearance of Beverly Potts and Patrick Troughton, both edited by PAustin4thApril1980 in the past. AldezD (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you recently blocked this user as "LTA". If it wouldn't be too much of a security breach to do so, could you tell me which LTA they are, so I can be on the lookout for them in the future? Red Panda 25 21:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@RedPanda25: It's a very persistent troll whose recent editing has been pretty well 100% harassing Chipmunkdavis, both by reverting any editing Chipmunkdavis has done and by particularly offensive childish attacks on Chipmunkdavis's talk page and talk pages of pages in their user space, though I have now indefinitely semi-protected those pages. I am given to understand they have also targeted other editors, but I haven't seen that. The person involved is the subject of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting, and there are many more accounts that are not listed there. JBW (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I see a history of problematic edits from this range. They stop for a few months at a time and recently became active again. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I find it very difficult to know how to deal with this. On the one hand, an alarming proportion of the editing is, as you say, problematic, suggesting a range block. On the other hand, though, there are some good edits there, which would be lost if the range were blocked. Certainly there have been numerous short bursts of editing clearly by one person, but I see no reason to doubt that the individual bursts are made by separate people: separate bursts have little if anything in common with one another. I have semi-protected the article that was most recently edited by someone in this IP range, because it has a long history of disruptive editing, and has been protected several times before. I'm very unsure about a range block, but on the whole I think not, since the rate of editing is really too low to need it. (54 edits in the last 3 years.) JBW (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, JB, when you get a chance could you help Rachelstokes edit her employer's article? –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello James.

Thank you for adding that comment. It is far more helpful to the user and phrased much better than my attempt. I will likely use similar wording in a situation like this in the future.

Explaining things both clearly and concisely doesn't come easy for me. I supposed this is due to my relative inexperience. This is not the first time I've noticed someone else's explanation make mine look clumsy in comparison:) You have a great day! --DB1729 (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729: I had actually thought of posting to your talk page thanking you for what you did. Even if you don't think how you did it was perfect, it looked to me like an attempt to help the editor to better understand what the issues are. So many editors in that situation jump in and start threatening perfectly good faith editors who have no reason to think there's anything wrong with what they are doing. Even worse, many administrators jump in and block editors in this kind of situation, and then other administrators impose absurd conditions for unblocking. If you can keep on trying to help such editors that will be great. (Of course that doesn't mean that I don't think there's a time to use strongly worded warnings, and blocks, but I don't think the time for them is when a good faith editor does perfectly constructive editing, but in all innocence doesn't know about the conflict of interest guideline and the username policy.) JBW (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@DB1729: Well, after I posted that message I found an administrator had blocked the editor. Not surprising, unfortunately, but disappointing 😕. JBW (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Right. I thought maybe the user had requested the block as part of a desire to change their user name, but I'm not sure what happened exactly.

Thanks for the kind words.--DB1729 (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you recently blocked a spammer on Flower. Looks like they're back again. – Rummskartoffel (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've blocked them. SmartSE (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You are a patient man. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I would have been much less patient had it not been for a comment by Kashmiri at the editor's SPI; my original intention was to just block indefinitely. However, even with Kashmiri's encouragement, my patience has its limits, as you can see here.JBW (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Quacking loud: IronyRana (talk · contribs · count). — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sock of anyone. I even didn't know what sock means, I had to search for it. IronyRana (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, really? And such a "new account" is watching JBW's Talk page just by accident? Don't underestimate our experience here with disruptive editors like you.

As much as you had a chance of getting unblocked in a couple of weeks/months, now this chance is virtually zero. Just leave this project. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have blocked his IP than how can he edit?? IronyRana (talk) 09:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, have we? How do you know? — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah. Oh well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, JB. 197.3.187.114, 102.157.31.32, and 197.3.177.13 have all been making unexplained edits over the past couple of days, many of which are disrupting the same articles. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

And 97.1.8.212 on 24 May. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I was going through CAT:UNBLOCK and I am currently reviewing this users block.

I can certainly see how at first glance it looks like a corporate name, but I don't think it is a company name. They explain that it just means "Art and architecture" which google translate confirms. A google search of the term reveals a series of travel books subtitled by that name, but no company. It seems to just be a name describing their interests.

I am looking through the article and I agree it fails to meet our notability and verifiability standards. I am not sure it was meant to be promotional though. Searching for the subject of the article reveals to me that they probably don't meet the notability criteria. While they were in a major film festival they did not get much coverage. This is a difficult distinction for a new user to make.

I would like to explain to them that the article's subject probably does not meet the criteria for the project and allow them to continue editing in other areas. But I want to get your opinion on the matter before I proceed, and of course give you the chance to handle it yourself.

I will await your response before making any decision. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: "Kunst & Architektur" certainly is a company name, as you can see at www.companieslist.co.uk/04221697-kunst-architektur-limited However, if you have looked into it and concluded that this particular editor doesn't represent that company then I'm happy for you to go ahead and deal with it as you think best. JBW (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Your google foo is greater than mine, I just checked the first 3 pages. Given the link you gave gives the dissolution of the company in 2003 then I don't think there is a connection. I am going to get some assurances from the user before proceeding. Thank you for your response. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I found it via PrivacyWall, not Google. I'm afraid I have to confess that I just saw that there was a company listed under that name, and didn't actually read the page, so I didn't see that the company had been dissolved. How remiss of me 😳. In that case obviously the block should be lifted.JBW (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

No worries, if you do enough admin work this sort of thing will happen once in a while. That is why we have reviews. I have explained the situation to the user and unblocked. I hope they are a good sport about it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, can you please block them? They are a sock of the banned LTA User:Aryashahnaughty. Anyone promoting Arya Shah is a sock of this user. aeschylus (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aeschylus: I was almost sure it was a sock of someone, but I didn't know who. I intended to keep a lookout for further developments, and I have also seen some more accounts that I think should be blocked. Even though, as you know, this sock has now been blocked, please feel welcome to let me know of any more that you see. JBW (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

1.136.109.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) edited Carlton Television, Referendums in Australia and Threads (1984 film) between 23–24 May. All articles have long edit histories by PAustin4thApril1980.

1.136.106.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) edited Referendums in Australia, Monique Luiz, Thames Television and Cindy Shelley between 24–29 May, all with similar edit histories by PAustin4thApril1980.

210.48.190.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was blocked 4 March 2021 and then unblocked the same day. The IP contributed to Thames Television on 27 May, and has a long history of editing television shows and New Zealand. PAustin4thApril1980 has similar edit histories for television shows and Australia (which is coincidental). It may be him based on the coincidence and the edit on Thames Television. AldezD (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@AldezD: It looks to me as though 1.136.106.200 is pretty certainly our friend, and 1.136.109.190 much more likely than not. Even in such a small number of edits there are just too many coincidences otherwise. 210.48.190.88 is less clear: as you say, it "may" be him, but I can't put it higher than that. I've reverted a few edits from the two 1.136... IP addresses, but unfortunately I don't see anything else that is likely to be very effective. Each of the IP addresses edited for just a few days, and then stopped for a longer period than it was editing, so most likely the editor's IP address has changed again by now, and blocking will achieve nothing. On the other hand risk of collateral damage is very low, as there has scarcely been any other editing on those IP addresses, and none recently, so I may as well block the 1.136... addresses for a while, but more in hope than in expectation that it may help. I'm afraid that a range block is totally out of the question, because the collateral damage would vastly outweigh the benefit. JBW (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I had posted a vandal report on Surtsicna who has recently arbitrarily removed family trees from hundreds of European Royal articles, who when was challenged on a particular page, repeatedly pointed to a "consensus" on a software template page, and issues with "sourcing" in debate, but had always put "what is relevance of these people" or "what is importance of these people" in the actual edit detail for every one of these times on the pages, seemingly deciding for themself which one is worthy to have their family trees left on the article page (it actually seems like the Royal article pages where the most people are watching, this person does not alter to avoid major push back and resistance). That does not seem to be in good faith and keeping with positive contributions to me, quite the opposite. This was apparently not found to be problematic on here by whoever reviewed the report, which I frankly find disturbing if this was all made apparent and understood when the decision was made, and I also saw a message I was not made aware of stating on Surtsicna's talk page that you yourself had not found problems with that person's editing practices and history but actually in mine, and that you were "going to look into it." I would please like to know if the edit details in the editing history of the affected pages in question (which is into the hundreds) was actually looked at, and what you are referring to in regard to my editing practices on here? Also, is there anyone in the website staff here who has a background in history that is noticing any of this and/or is a part of admin, because again, the amount of information that has been removed on a majority of the articles for Kings and Sovereigns recently by this individual is staggering? -JLavigne508 (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not nothing arbitrarily. A discussion regarding the use of Template:Ahnentafel was held, quite appropriately, at Template talk:Ahnentafel, and a consensus was reached there. That you refuse to acknowledge or at least read it is nobody's problem but yours. Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Please let the person who was asked respond first. I have read the page, this does not give you the right to do what you have done. To say these people are not "relevent" is minority opinion and does not reflect main stream academic opinion, which is the consensus that matters.--JLavigne508 (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Just so you know, the draft is not about Porus: it is about a fictional king who supposedly beat Alexander in the Indus Valley region. Porus lost to Alexander at the Hydapses. I ran a search once again and can confirm that no such king existed, and the draft therefore refers to a hoax. Thanks. Java Hurricane 14:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: You may well be right, but it isn't obvious. Do you have a link to a source that shows it is so? JBW (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi JBW, would you be able to help me by either deleting Draft:Public image of Donald Trump or moving User:Kolya Butternut/Public image of Donald Trump into its place? The original draft has not been edited by a human in six months. I had created a new draft in my userspace due to an IBAN. I've asked other admins but I need someone uninvolved. Thanks! Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm wondering now if I am not making the correct request. If we are to preserve the editing history of the original draft, would we have to move the content of my draft into the original as a single edit which would technically be a merge? If so I would especially need an admins help with that. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, JBW. I would appreciate your assistance. JLavigne508 is refusing to accept the consensus reached after a long discussion and believes that his/her dismissing it entitles him/her to go on a revert-spree targeting my edits. The arguments are, to me at least, absurd. I have never been in a situation like this before and I do not know how to proceed. Surtsicna (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Never mind, he/she finally put up. Surtsicna (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am here to say thank you for blocking that persistent IP editor. I've been dealing with this LTA on the Nonciclopedia Wiki on Miraheze, and I haven't done it alone. No, in fact, I've had people like Dmehus, The Voidwalker, along with other users have been tackling this LTA for more than 6 months now. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. What was wrong with my article (Mohammad Hosseini (entrepreneur)) being deleted and taken to the draft space?خاچی (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

@خاچی: I assume you mean what was wrong with it, leading to its being moved to draft space. If so, I suggest you ask the editor who moved it. I had nothing to do with the decision to move it. All I did was delete a redirect which was created when the page was moved. JBW (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi what was wrong with my article (David P. Smith) is animator & voice actor PpgFans (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@PpgFans: How surprising to get this message from you, since about two hours earlier you were saying that you were leaving Wikipedia for ever. I spent a considerable amount of my time carefully writing an explanation of what the problems were, mistakenly thinking that you were a new editor acting in good faith. Imagine how I felt when I discovered that I had been completely wasting my time trying to help a disruptive editor using a sockpuppet account, knowing full well what they were doing. Despite that, I am willing to answer your question if you would like me to. Wait until the block on your main account has expired, and then, using that account, not a sockpuppet, come back here, and politely and courteously tell me what part of the explanation i gave you was not clear, and I will try to clarify it. JBW (talk) 20:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you remember the name of the Admin who got busted for sock-puppetry and when nabbed, they sort of laughed it off / made a joke out of it by saying they were experimenting. I’m trying to remember their name but I can’t for the life of me seem to recollect. Celestina007 (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: First of all, sorry for not having replied earlier, but I have only just noticed your message. I don't know how that happened. If it's the administrator I am thinking of, they used an astonishing number of sockpuppets, but no, I don't remember the name. No doubt you could find it by searching through old Administrators' newsletters, or old Arbitration Committee cases, but it could take a lot of searching. JBW (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007, is it Edgar181? aeschylus (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Edgar181 is the one I was thinking of. Thanks, Aeschylus. Just as a matter of interest, Celestina007, why were you asking? JBW (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

JBW, Aeschylus, thanks guys, sorry for the late response. I just wanted to do some archive reading(that very day) and I couldn’t for the life of me remember their name so asking one of the senior admins was an option I had to choose, so I asked you. Thanks you both. Celestina007 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi JBW, Since a lot of time was spent researching, I would like to have the opportunity to go through the article you deleted. Didn't aware it was a promotional article as I am not affiliated with the content or the company. I'm interested in Pattaya's architecture and history and logically I made a page related to the projects, that's all. The first version was rewritten and reviewed by other editors, I assumed this would be fine. I am a new Wikipedian Editor and I can make mistakes so I always ask for review. Please let me review and improve this article, to figure out what went wrong. Regards Meow2021 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi. User:JLavigne508 has now taken his grievances to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Hundreds_of_Ancestry_Information_Sections_removed_by_single_editor, where he continues to claim that there is a WP:NPOV problem with my edits. He also denies that you saw no NPOV problem. I would much appreciate if you could comment there as well. Surtsicna (talk) 23:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

He is again disputing your finding that there was no vandalism and claims that you are "not able to deal" with the alleged "actual vandalism". This is going in circles, with him ignoring everyone and posting on a new page every few days. I can imagine that you are as tired of this as I am, and would like to know if there is a way to wrap this up. If there really is no vandalism or bias, I would like to have him efficiently dissuaded from harassing me further with such accusations. Surtsicna (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Unfortunately (but predictably), he only moved to yet another venue, Template_talk:Ahnentafel#Neutrality_Concerns. While normally I would be happy to discuss any issues, it is clear from the title of the thread that a productive discussion with JLavigne508 is not possible. I do not want to waste any more of my time defending against absurd accusations of bias and vandalism but I feel like I have to for as long as he is starting threads such as these all over Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Surtsicna: Posting to that talk page is, of course, a better way for him to raise his concerns over the content issue than his previous efforts, so he can't be faulted for that. However, the way he expresses himself is unnecessarily combative, and he still has not grasped the point about not plugging the same points endlessly. His post on that talk page falls short of the threshold where I would consider blocking, but if he carries on in the same vein the cumulative weight of all his various posts in various places may well push him past that point. Obviously how you handle the matter is for you to decide, but my suggestion is not to rise to the bait by answering his accusations of bias and vandalism, but just to deal with the content issues. If he then drops his absurd accusations that will be fine, and if he doesn't then it will become clear what needs to be done. JBW (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

A very reasonable suggestion; but bizarrely enough he claims to have no issues with the content: I am actually not an advocate for ancestry sections to be included on these pages, I think they look fine without them He is instead fixated on what he perceives as neutrality: I am an advocate for the fairness and neutrality of this website He has nothing to say about the merits of ahnentafeln. Bias and vandalism accusations are all there is to respond to. That is why I am so baffled. Surtsicna (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, --Ferien (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi JBW, Why did you delete Emiway Bantai? I got it reviewed by Administrator @Discospinster:, who was earlier the Chief Protector of the article title, who accepted it. If the article was not notable, he would not have accepted it. You might have noticed the recent contribution in which the article has been tampered with. I request you to recreate it. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 01:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: I am waiting for your reply. Currently the topic of Emiway Bantai is notable, because I consulted with Iflaq before I created the article. I ask you whether the earlier article matches with the present article? If so then I will not ask you to publish the article back and if not then I request you to publish it. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 03:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@VRJ Bandhu: The concept of "the Chief Protector of the article title" is a fascinating one. However, on looking back at the article I accept that it is significantly better than the one discussed and deleted, so I'll restore it. JBW (talk) 09:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@VRJ Bandhu: At present I'm editing on my phone, and picking out the revisions to restore is rather fiddly and awkward, so I'll do it when I am next on a computer, which will probably be in a few hours. I hope you don't mind waiting a little while longer. JBW (talk) 09:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JWB that's what I expected from you. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 09:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@JBW: I do not mind. 😊 –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 09:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@VRJ Bandhu:

Done JBW (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks 😊👍 –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 23:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@JBW:, Semi protection should be put on it. Every time editors spoil it and leave it. –– 𝚅𝚁𝙹 𝙱𝚊𝚗𝚍𝚑𝚞 00:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

Can you semi-protect these pages (Svoboda, Fidesz, David Stoll, Arrow Cross Party) and block these 2 IPs 1, 2? These are probably sockpuppets of banned user SmalforaGiant (I opened a request for this yesterday). --Martopa (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi JBW,

Thank you for deleting this user page. When he created it he managed to also create several new category pages that are now empty . Are you able to delete these as well please or is there another process for them?

Princess Persnickety (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@PrincessPersnickety: Policy is that empty categories are tagged for deletion, and can then be deleted if they are still empty after a week. I was tempted to delete these right away, as they are obviously no use, but I decided it won't really do any harm to leave them for a week, so I've gone through the proper procedure of tagging them. However, if the editor agrees to the deletion they can be deleted immediately. JBW (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you :) Princess Persnickety (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my block request and forwarding it to a check user. The block has been lifted. Robertjamal12 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Please undelete this. I was in the middle of fixing up the references of a very obviously notable subject just from that reference list alone. If you have to, you can move it to my userspace. Silver seren^C 21:40, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: This is one of numerous copies of the same page, made over a prolonged period, created by a persistent sockpuppeteer, using numerous sockpuppets, almost certainly undisclosed paid editing. It has been subject to a deletion discussion at AfD. It has been salted under several titles. Unfortunately, one of the very few methods we have that has any chance of discouraging such persistent sockpuppeteers is to let them learn that what they do is likely to be lost. If they learn instead that if they keep on re-creating the same page sooner or later they will get it through, it encourages them. Restoring the page would not be helpful. JBW (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

If the subject is notable, then it is notable. I don't really care about the prior history of what any sockpuppeters might want or not want. We shouldn't be preventing articles being made ever again just because of the actions of some banned users in the past. I plan on making the article non-promotional and thoroughly referenced with reliable sources. Please undelete the page. As I said, if you don't want it in draftspace, please instead put it at User:Silver seren/Ali Mahmoud Al Suleiman (journalist). Silver seren^C 22:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

No matter what you do or don't care about, Wikipedia policy is that pages created by banned or blocked editors can be deleted on sight. I have explained why I don't think that restoring the page would be helpful, and I am not going to reverse my decision because an editor doesn't care about the issues. I don't see why restoring it and putting it in user space would be any better than restoring it and putting it in draft space, especially since presumably in both cases the intention would be for it to end up in mainspace. JBW (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

And any user in good standing is allowed to take responsibility for any specific edits or pages made by a banned user and keep the content, if there are no other issues with said content (such as copyvios). I am requesting undeletion of the article and a move to my userspace so I can finish cleaning it up. Yes, the intention is for it to end up in mainspace. That is going to happen one way or the other. Either I will clean up that version or i'll make one from scratch myself. The subject is notable and has a number of reliable sources with significant coverage. Silver seren^C 22:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Just a thing. I'm watching the articles about this person since April. The repeated creation isn't the only problem, this "translator" isn't notable in the slightest if you look deep in the sources, which are more or less the exact same and are blatant PR pieces (if you think TRT and Sabah etc. are sooo reliable that they don't do that, you're wrong. Turkish media will always be Turkish media). The sole purpose of the sources is to REFBOMB the article, so that it looks notable at the first glance. Discussions on other projects (simplewiki, trwiki) have resulted with the same consensus. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 09:09, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

That was my impression of the sourcing too, but I didn't say so above because I hadn't done enough checking to be 100% sure that it applied to all of them. JBW (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick Facts

Close

... for what you said on User talk:SlimVirgin - missing pictured on my talk, with music full of hope and reformation --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Dear James, I fail to understand how G4 can apply when I had no access to the deleted version of the article and recreated it on my own using what are obviously reliable sources. I urge you to take another look please. Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The subject is patently notable, as the tons of significant coverage in reliable sources clearly show. Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kingoflettuce: Before seeing your message here I had already reconsidered, and restored the article. It is substantially similar to the deleted version, but not identical. There is much disagreement about how much similarity is required for re-deletion, but on reflection I have decided it is right to err on the side of not deleting. I shall decline the speedy deletion nomination, if nobody else has already got in there. JBW (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Which parts are substantially similar? I'd wager it's the essential facts. All similarities are purely coincidental anyway. Furthermore, I'd gathered that the deleted version was worded too much like an advert and it supposedly had 90+ refs; the general sentiment didn't seem to be against the subject's notability in itself. Anyway, thank you for reconsidering! Kingoflettuce (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

My personal Wikipedia id is: ashpillai. Can this page be ported over or transferred to my username? Will renaming this page retain the page title as Marcelo Vieta? Thank you for your help. Mvieta101 (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ashpillai and Mvieta101: I see this has now been dealt with. However, please feel welcome to contact me again if you want any more help. JBW (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes

Trialpears

AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who

Lacrimosus → Ikuzaf

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

CheckUser changes

AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes

AGK

Guideline and policy news

Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

To create new player profile on Wikipedia. The player name is Omkar Landge who plays in FC Goa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4042:2e2e:3f80:7315:698d:e7be:8a42 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC).

I don't know much about footballers, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. You may be able to get help if you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football, or ask one of the people listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/India task force. However, before asking for help from a particular person you should check whether they have edited recently. It's quite common for lists such as that one to include old entries left by editors who haven’t edited for years. JBW (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello JBW:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Hi JBW - hope you are well. Thank you for your work with page protections, etc, with the anon. LTA. Much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Have I been wrong with that edit? The Banner talk 07:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Answered elsewhere. JBW (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you please restore this page, and explain your administrative action in speedily deleting it? I was tracking an IP hopping and socking Wikipedia vandal for a possible LTA report or range blocks. How was this page webhosting WP:U5, vandalism or a blatant hoax WP:G3, or an attack page WP:G10? This is a WP:SPA user who has no interest other than promoting a minor musician, often by adding blatantly false information. The user is now a cross-wiki problem (see m:Steward_requests/Miscellaneous/2021-04#Multiple_article-spam_on_Wikinews_and_Wikipedia) and is still active Administrators'_noticeboard#Global_sysop_destroys_small_wiki_by_his_malicious_actions. Meters (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: My sincere apologies. This was evidently some kind of mistake, and I've restored the page. I think most probably I mistakenly thought that the latest edit was a page creation by a vandal, rather than a vandal edit to an existing page. Would you like the page semi-protected to prevent editing by the same person in future? JBW (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't seen all of the action on that page before it was deleted. That explains a lot. Yes, please protect it. Thanks. Meters (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Meters:

Done JBW (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hey, JB. Check out the recent edits by 2605:47c0::/32 when you get a chance. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I'm afraid I didn't see your message when it came, probably because the next time I saw a notification of talk page messages I noticed only the message in the section above, and didn't realise there was another message too. By the time I did see your message it was long after the IP range had stopped editing, so there was nothing to be done. JBW (talk) 09:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, could you please unprotect (or at least reduce the protection of) Jeff Kollman so I can move Jeffrey Kollman to that title? Thank you, Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 17:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Lopes: Better than that, I've moved it for you. JBW (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Cheers! Victor Lopes ^Fala!•C 17:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

On the Nightmare Creatures page could you please explain to me how a third game, even though it was cancelled, counts as a second sequel when there already was a second sequel and when the link to the article even uses the word "third"?--108.208.136.72 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are asking me, but since you are, can you clarify what the three sequels you are referring to were? I may have missed something, but looking at the article I saw mention of only two sequels, "Nightmare Creatures II" and "Nightmare Creatures III: Angel of Darkness". What was the other one? JBW (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have tried to publish my first article today. It was rejected and deleted for reasons I fully agree with. I have made required changes but do not see how to resubmit it. Should I start as a new article? Please advise. Thanks. S.G.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Aerospace_Centre_of_Excellence&action=edit&redlink=1 Here is the new version.

The Aerospace Centre of Excellence (ACE) is a research unit of the Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland. The ACE conducts advanced research on novel concepts and solutions for aerospace systems and transport including sustainable approaches to human activities in Earth's atmosphere and space. The key areas of the development include astrodynamics and mission analysis, space systems engineering, computational intelligence and machine learning, modelling of fluid dynamics, aerospace propulsion, design of aerospace structures using concurrent engineering, uncertainty treatment and optimisation. The ACE plays an important role in bringing together the scientific and industrial communities working on asteroids and space debris [1]. Since 2013 the centre coordinates the two consecutive EU funded Stardust projects [2], [3].

The Aerospace Centre is located in the James Weir Building, Level 8, 75 Montrose Street, Glasgow G1 1XJ, United Kingdom.

See also Faculty of Engineering, University of Strathclyde References Sgord (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Prince Philippos of Greece. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this edit of yours, you might want to follow the conversation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoannaLetren -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, Roy. It seems I was a little hasty in coming to a conclusion. Things are evidently far from being as straightforward as they looked. A serious black mark for me for being so caustic in how I expressed myself. 😪 JBW (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Lesson learned. I got too precious with my edit since I did a lot of primary research and tried to incorporate other concerns, but still think the admin wasn't helpful. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the Conflict of Interest guidance. What do you recommend as a good way to create such a page for a public figure like a university president? I posted this earlier, but not sure I went about the right way of creating a new section. Is it possible to get your assistance in order to "get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your suggestions" and content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berrym1770 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, JBW. Thanks for taking the time out of your day to write to that autobiography-creating editor. Unfortunately, they didn't listen (they got blocked by Materialscientist), but I just wanted to say thanks for trying. Even if it doesn't work half the time, the other half where the editor listens makes it all worthwhile. Yours, Sdrqaz (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the Conflict of Interest citation. What do you recommend as a good solution? Certainly, the president of a university is a public figure and warrants a Wikipedia page and the current information that is included is all factual - work experience, personal experience and family info.

--Ckchurchyll (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Hello,

I am trying so hard to get in touch with you regarding the deletion of Dew of Hope Foundation. Could you undo the deletion to enable me edit appropriately.

Counting to hear back from you.

Regards. --Ckchurchyll (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ckchurchyll: I've restored the article and moved it to Draft:Dew of Hope Foundation. You can work on it there, and when you think it's ready to become an article you can submit it for consideration by an independent reviewer. JBW (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @JBW, The page that I was working on got deleted for CSD G4. I believe the tag was not valid for the page because, in the previous AFD, the article lacked independent coverages and had low-quality links as references added by the previous editor. These issues were fixed on the new page, and the page had 5-6 significant coverages from reliable sources to pass the notability. I request you to review the deletion of the page. Thanks - Tatupiplu'^talk 12:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tatupiplu: I'll check, and if you seem to be right I'll restore the article. At present I don't have much time, but I'll get onto it as soon as I can, which is likely to be in a few hours. JBW (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@JBW I've seen both versions of the article (AFD and CSD version). Let me know if you need any clarifications, and thanks for your quick reply. Also, please do let me know what you think about the CSD article :) - Tatupiplu'^talk 19:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've been following the saga of this article for a while, including the most recent flailings. I think there's a case for the subject's notability here, but it's been muddied by a whole lot of attempted promotion. I agree with Vaticidalprophet that the article's forced draftification on the 19th was questionable, but that Tatupiplu here did not help his cause by attempting two different copy & paste moves back into mainspace before the whole works got deleted. I don't think that restoration to status quo ante would be an unfair result (keeping in mind I'm not in a position to compare the various deleted versions), but if so maybe a fresh AfD would help clear things up. Thanks for listening. --Finngall ^talk 20:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have had a look at the references that were added since the AfD deletion, but it took me much longer than I expected, and I am out of time again. I'll get back onto it as soon as I can. My apologies for yet another delay. JBW (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tatupiplu: Sorry it has taken a while, but I am now ready to tell you what I found when I checked back.

I would be very interested to know which of the 5-6 new references you think provided "significant coverages". I saw only more of exactly the same kind of thing that was commented on in the deletion discussion. There are reports of single incidents, often with only very brief mentions of Ehraz Ahmed (in at least one case just one-sentence). There are promotion sites and sites that post paraphrases of material from the subjects they are about, often from press releases or the subject's web site. (One of the sites was actually honest enough to state that they were quoting material from Ehraz Ahmed's blog, but it is far more usual for such sites to set out to give the impression that they have individually interviewed the subject, though without actually saying so.) A number of the references are from sources long since established as being unreliable, because of paid contributions, user-submitted content, or other reasons; eg. Forbes, The Times of India, Deccan Herald, and so on. There is a reference to www.mid-day.com, which openly states on its web site that it republishes material from other sources without checking it for reliablity. And so on and so on... Why am I wasting my time writing all this out? You know it all already, because all of these points are exactly those which were brought up in the deletion discussion.
Over ten years ago I learnt that there is such a wide range of opinions as to just how similar a newly posted version of an article has to be to justify a G4 deletion, with editors of different opinions strongly attached to those opinions and uninterested in trying to reach agreement, that it simply isn't worth quarreling about it at a deletion review, so I usually just restore such pages and then take them back to a deletion discussion, or let the editor who nominated the page for deletion consider doing so. In this case I seriously considered making an exception to that pratice, because the page has been re-created so many times without any significant improvement, and because it is so blatantly obvious that the faults mentioned in the deletion discussion apply just as much to the recent version. However, I have decided instead that if you ask me once more I will restore the article, and take it to another deletion discussion. I must say, however, that I hope you won't choose to take up that option, because it will be a total waste of time for you, for me, and for anyone else who takes part in the discussion. I suggest that a much better way for all of us to use our time and efforts is for you to drop the matter, and put the time instead into other things which have a better chance of success. I have counted twelve editors who have either nominated one or other of the copies of the page for deletion, argued for deletion at AfD, or deleted it. (There may be more than twelve: when a page has been re-created several times under different titles, and some versions have been moved around to different titles several times, it can be very difficult to be sure one hasn't missed some. But at least twelve.) There is a pretty solid consensus that the article should remain deleted. JBW (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Can you please undelete this article. You rightfully deleted it previously. . BlackAmerican (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@BlackAmerican:

DoneJBW (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Just wanted to let you know about script which you can used to quickly and easily extract diffs from revisions pages for talk purposes. Checkout: HistoryHelper. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 20:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: Thanks. I've had a quick look, and my first impression is that I will not often have a use for it, but occasionally it is likely to be very helpful, so I'll look at it more thoroughly some time. JBW (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, JBW. I nominated Draft:Maitland McConnell for speedy deletion, and you've declined it. This draft was created by a proven WP:SOCK of a long-term abuser (see here). Perhaps my rationale for the SD was poor, but shouldn't we delete this kind of content? PS: If you answer this message, please ping me. Thanks.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 09:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: If you want my personal opinion, in some ways I'd prefer the speedy deletion criteria to be much more broadly defined, and some things I think we should be able to speedily delete aren't covered. However, I don't think that deleting draftspace pages with no more than trivial content would be a good idea, because quite often new good-faith editors start out by making a kind of space-holder page to add to later. Deleting such a page would provide no benefit, and would be likely to be discouraging for them. In fact I think one of the biggest advantages of introducing the restriction that new articles can be created only by autoconfirmed accounts was that it meant that new users could do this kind of thing, and come back later to continue, rather than coming back and finding the page had gone. However, as far as this case is concerned, now that you've drawn my attention to the sockpuppetry I have no problem with deleting the page, so I've done so. Thanks for pointing it out to me. JBW (talk) 11:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

JBW, I agree with all you've said. Actually, it was my fault. My rationale on that SD was very poor. As I'm not very experienced with SDs (I participate more in AfDs) I didn't know which criteria to use and the "Patent nonsense" criteria seemed the "best" to use in that particular case. I should have been more clear about the sockpuppetry involved in that case. Anyway, thanks for your diligence and for deleting the page. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 13:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi! Not disagreeing with your decline although I think the socking is more clear than you do, but just a little context on this, Twinke doesn't work to put in the sock link as it converts them all to user prefixes, but the SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adventurous City and oddly you just blocked the latest sock who was the one that tried to mainspace it. If Doge isn't part of that ring as well, I'd be surprised, although too stale for CU to turn it up. Star Mississippi 22:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello

You deleted my "Ad Hominem Imperitum ". You didn't even wait for a week to have different opinions and a vote. why?

You wrote that the article cites is "a joke article". What do you mean? It is a 60 page academic article, I gave a lecture on this article in the Tel aviv University, and it is very serious.

If you only read the first paragraph- that is cynicism.

What you did is extremely rude and uncalled for. I have worked very hard writing that article. I have come up with a new classification of a logical fallacy. And I wrote a technically sound wikipedia page.

Please undo and open this matter to a vote. --Schmuel (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Schmuel:

If you cite as a reference for an article something you have written which attributes to you events at various dates ranging between the 20th century and goodness knows how many thousands of years BC then that is vandalism, and to expect anyone to take it seriously is ridiculous.
It has already been made perfectly clear to you that using Wikipedia to try to publish an idea which you've made up, and which hasn't received significant coverage in reliable independent sources, is unacceptable, for several reasons, including the notability guidelines, the guideline on conflict of interest, the policy on promotional editing, the policy on original research, and the guideline on reliable sources.
Expecting people to spend time discussing whether something like this should be deleted would serve no useful purpose whatever, and would take up time which could be more usefully employed on more constructive work. That is why we have the policy on speedy deletion.
Since your work has, as you inform us, received serious academic attention, it is difficult to understand why you are so concerned to have it publicised on Wikipedia. Serious academics, whose work is taken seriously in academic circles, scarcely ever care about getting mentioned in Wikipedia. Evidently you are an exception, but that is surprising, as such desperate concern about getting one's work published in Wikipedia is usually more characteristic of people of a quite different kind.
There are many web sites where one can self-publish one's original ideas, but Wikipedia is not one of them. JBW (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

1. The 1st paragraph of the article is ironic. It is even mentioned clearly in the footnote to that paragraph. What is ridiculous is that you refuse to understand this, cherry pick a single paragraph and make a vast generalization about an entire 60 page article. 2-3 :That is your opinion. I would like to hear other opinions, especially considering I spent hours editing that entry. 4: I said I gave a lecture on this article. That does not mean it was accepted in any way. People listened. That does not mean that it has been taken seriously or accepted in academic circles. I am just struggling on my journey in life and in my academic life. You making an [ad hominem] attack about "desperate concern" and "people of a different kind"- shows more about your character than anything else. You know close to 0 about me, yet you delete my work and then try to disparage me publicly. No empathy, no attempt to be civil.

If this is the formal attitude of Wikipedia- I do not want to have anything published here. But since you are one person-

I want to have a discussion about this deletion. --Schmuel (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ad Hominem Imperitum. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Schmuel (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Schmuel: I'll make a few comments which I hope may help to clarify things for you. If you do find any or all of these comments helpful that will be great. If not, well at least I will have tried.

When I first started editing Wikipedia I thought that it was an excellent place to publicise new work that had not yet received much attention, and I was horrified when I first read of Wikipedia's policy of accepting no "original research". Only after I had been involved for some time did I come to realise that there are very good reasons for that policy. I am perfectly willing to believe that you came here with view similar, or perhaps even identical, to the one I started out with. Almost all of us, when we start editing Wikipedia, know little or nothing about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so nobody can be blamed for starting out doing things that are contrary to policies and guidelines that they don't know about. However, continuing to do the same things after being told about the relevant policies and guidelines is a different matter.

I accept that some of my comments contained an element of irony, which I suppose was unwise, and I apologise for that, though I think describing it as disparaging you publicly may be overstating the case a little.

If good faith attempts to clarify for you what Wikipedia policies and guidelines are come across to you as unpleasantly as you have described, then it may well be that contributing to Wikipedia isn't right for you, as anyone who edits here to any significant extent will come across far more unfriendly comments (as I have done recently, as you know). You say that I "know close to 0" about you. I don't need to know anything whatever about you except what you have posted to Wikipedia in order to be able to assess what you have done on Wikipedia. Indeed, knowing more about you would be a bad thing, as it might influence my attitude to what you do here, making it more difficult for me to take administrative decisions in a neutral way.

You are, of course, very welcome indeed to start making contributions to the encyclopaedia in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and on subjects other than yourself and your work However, if you have no interest in doing that, and wish only to publicise your own work, then you will probably be able to get a better return for any time and work you put in if you do so on any of the various web sites that provide that kind of service, as Wikipedia doesn't.

I don't know whether this will be of any help to you, but, as I said above, I hope at least some of it may. JBW (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

How can I add the translation page of a wiki article? I want to know that..... VNHRISHIKESH (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@VNHRISHIKESH: I'm guessing that you mean adding a language to the list of links to articles on the same subject in other languages. If so, at the bottom of that list I see a link labelled "Add links", and clicking on that takes me to what you are after. I use the "MonoBook" interface to Wikipedia, and if you use the default "Vector" interface it may look different, but it's probably similar. If that isn't what you mean then you may like to come back and give a bit more explanation. JBW (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your guessing is right. But what is the 'MonoBook' and Vector' interfaces? VNHRISHIKESH (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@VNHRISHIKESH: Many years ago several times newly designed styles for Wikipedia's presentation and appearance were introduced. (I forgot when I wrote the above that the official name for them is "skins".) Originally, after each new one was introduced, the option to keep any of the previous ones was kept. There used to be about 15 of them to choose from, but all but four of them were withdrawn in 2013. The last one to be introduced is called "Vector", and for many years now it has been the default, so that almost all editors who have joined since then use it, simply because they don't know there are others. However, when Vector was introduced, a large proportion of experienced editors regarded it as very much less convenient to use than the previous default, called "MonoBook", and so they opted to keep MonoBook. I don't know what the current situation is, but a survey some years ago indicated that while the substantial majority of inexperienced users were using Vector, a very large proportion of more experienced editors were using MonoBook. None of the other skins were being used by more than a tiny proportion of editors. If you are interested in seeing the differences for yourself, click on the "preferences" link at the top of the page, and then choose the "Appearance" tab. JBW (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

JBW,I changed my Wikipedia interface from'Vector' to 'MonoBook'. I am not clear about adding translations for Wiki articles yet. Can you please say that? VNHRISHIKESH (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Administrator changes

BusterD

Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversighter changes

TheresNoTime

ST47

Guideline and policy news

An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Before starting ANI, hoping you can help me with something. User:Baseball Bugs continues to add a random contestant to List of Jeopardy! contestants and also created Matt Amodio and redirected it to the contestants article. User:Mlb96 commented in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 1 about my nomination for deletion. MLB = Major League Baseball, similar to the other user's handle. Then, Baseball Bugs re-added a rant to Talk:List of Jeopardy! contestants originally posted by multiple IPs. After the IP edits, the page was protected following addition of empty section headers and dozens of random IPs. Then 96.81.229.189 re-added Amodio to the contestant article with the summary "Revised previously deleted entry to add notability information: ninth all-time highest scoring contestant in regular season play.", not something a random IP user would use as a summary, and someone clearly familiar with Wikipedia. It's also the only edit by the IP user. Another edit made by 173.15.54.113 added Amodio, using Cite Episode, and is the only edit by that IP. Not something likely to be added by a random IP.

Are Baseball Bugs, Mlb96 and/or 96.81.229.189/173.15.54.113 related or possible socks of each other? Looking at the history of the contestants article, are any of those other IPs related to these four? Curious if you have comments before I open an ANI. Thanks. AldezD (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@AldezD: I'll have a look at it as soon as I get time, but that's likely to be quite a few hours away. JBW (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The OP is making a false accusation of sockpuppetry. I don't do socking. If he wants to start an SPI, he can go ahead, and it will be laughed out of court - and he might end up blocked, for the false accusation and/or edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: There is no court. It's Wikipedia. I'm not making an accusation. I'm noting similarities in edits by two registered users and two IPs, and asking an admin to check on what's happening. AldezD (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The admin can also check on you while he's at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: check on me for what? For nominating a redirect for deletion that doesn't meet WP guidelines? For removing content from an article that doesn't meet WP guidelines? What would you like the admin to check? AldezD (talk) 14:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Your false accusations, and your false claims of violating Wikipedia guidelines. Along with your self-appointed ownership of the pages. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@AldezD: What "similarities" could you possibly be referring to? I checked Baseball Bugs's contributions to see if there is any overlap at all between our editing, and there is not. As I stated below, MLB are my initials; my username has nothing to do with baseball. I highly suggest that you retract your baseless aspersions as they pertain to me. Mlb96 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

AldezD, admin chiming in here. If you believe Baseball_Bugs is socking, file an WP:SPI. Asking different admins to check is not efficient process and if he is socking (not a check user, so I cannot say), the situation will be handled. A conversation here, your talk, the article talk and on RfD is kind of anti-efficient. Star Mississippi 14:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

MLB are my initials. Nothing to do with baseball. This socking accusation is nonsense. Mlb96 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mlb96:, I'll retract my accusation against you. My apologies. It was a suggestion since your username could be inferred as a baseball reference and you similar vote in the redirects for discussion. The other two IPs still could be another user due to the familiarity with referencing/Wikipedia coding, and having only edited adding Amodio to the contestants article. AldezD (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. Mlb96 (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@AldezD, Baseball Bugs, Mlb96, and Star Mississippi: Well, this seems to have been settled without any participation from me. Even so, as much for my own interest as anything else, I have looked into the relevant editing histories, and my conclusions are as follows. There are far more differences than similarities between AldezD's and Baseball Bugs's editing. I see no reason whatever to think there's any connection. The two IP addresses do look as though they are one person; as well as the almost identical editing, they geolocate very close to one another. However, with only two edits, there's not enough for any action to be needed. Again, with only two IP edits there's nowhere near enough to know whether the IP edits are from either of the two named editors, but I really see no reason to think so, and far more likely the whole thing was just a false alarm. That really does little more than confirm what seems to have been the outcome of the discussion above, but I thought I would tell you what I thought, in case any of you might find it interesting, useful, or both. JBW (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your follow-up and note. AldezD (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Echoing AldezD's thanks here, JBW, and glad this seems to be resolved without the need for the drama boards on either side of the discussion. I just wanted to clarify that I think the question raised was between Mlb96 and Baseball_Bugs, not AldezD who seems to see a content issue different to the other two editors. Star Mississippi 01:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Yes I saw that, and I do have various thoughts about it, but I decided to comment only on the matter I was asked about. JBW (talk) 08:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks JBW, maybe I misread Aldez's inquiry before coffee. Have a great day. Star Mississippi 15:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Block-evading German IP editor hopping all over the place

Connection

Apologies

Protected edit request on 25 January 2021

You've got mail

Can you please Check?

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

PAustin4thApril1980 sockpuppet

Deleting my edits on Babi Yar

IP sock

A Barnstar for you!

A supplication for assistance

Blocking from an Admin Perspective: Some Newcomer Questions

Double Barnstar, Seconded!

Profilometer and Tribometer images removed, request to reconsider the decision

Information about Dmitry Soin

block

Allnewscover

Content removed for lack of citation

A message from Squigle ducky

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

barnstar

Curious

Admin help for 11Anonymous1122

re: this block

Information about Dmitry Soin

Source Dmitry Soin

Justice occasionally happens, amazingly enough

Apology message

Userfy

Barnstar

Climate.enthusiast

thank you for the ping ...

Ongoing edit war

Hey!

A doubt

Confused

Modest flowers

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

draft:route redistribution

PAustin4thApril1980?

Bigbellybowl

Wheresthatpenguin

A barnstar for you!

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

Following reasons

Block evasion

Your range block

I've said it before but it bears repeating

Draft:Matrin123456789

User:180.150.36.40 / PAustin4thApril1980

LTA

Rangeblock for 117.241.240.0/20?

Recently registered editor with a conflict of interest

User talk:Orparksfoundationstaff

Flower spam

Campycipro

A new sock of Campycipro

Tunisian targeting articles relating to Power Rangers

User talk:Kunst&amp;Architektur

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

User talk:AryaShahJapaneseIndian

PAustin4thApril1980 IP socks

Report question

Draft:Purshotham

Move/delete request for Draft:Public image of Donald Trump

JLavigne508

Thanks for blocking that annoying IP editor:

Delete article

David Smith

Quick one

The Riviera Group

JLavigne508, yet again

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Emiway Bantai

SmalforaGiant

User:Nazmul_Hoque007

Some baklava for you!

Draft:Ali Mahmoud Al Suleiman (Journalist)

User talk:Kunst&Architektur