Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:OSUHEY ban discussion

{{Centralized discussion|float=left|compact=very}}

{{Administrators' noticeboard archives}}

{{Clear}}

{{Admin tasks}}

__TOC__

• User talk:Nguyentrongphu

This is the talk page of a user that was indeffed 4 years ago. They also happen to be an admin on Vietnamese WP. The talk page seems to be being used a fair bit as a place where vi.wp editors they have blocked on vi.wp appeal to them - although Nguyentrongphu doesn't respond. Should the page be protected? DeCausa (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not only that, but an IP restored (and responded to in Vietnamese) content by Nguyentrongphu that Nguyentrongphu had removed several years ago. I've reverted the page to Nguyentrongphu's last edit and semi-protected it as the only purpose for the talk page now is for them to appeal if they ever desire to (note I've also restored a declined unblock request that they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nguyentrongphu&diff=prev&oldid=1051613594 removed several years ago] in violation of WP:REMOVED that nobody previosly caught). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::From [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANguyentrongphu&diff=1290580488&oldid=1290119310 these two "appeals"], it looks like the semi-protection by {{u|The Bushranger}} may not be enough. Full? 21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The following users were granted indefinite confirmed rights by an event coordinator more than 10 days ago, in violation of the rules for use of event coordinator access:

{{cot}}

• {{noping|RichardSDunn}}
• {{noping|MrJoyoung}}
• {{noping|Jnaslund}}
• {{noping|MercyFrank}}
• {{noping|Dayuze}}
• {{noping|Oluwabukola Omokehinde}}
• {{noping|IsabellaBnc}}
• {{noping|Idvdl}}
• {{noping|Amarachi O.P}}
• {{noping|Opusbaba}}
• {{noping|Chidinma Ubakanwa}}
• {{noping|MurielPerth2}}
• {{noping|Munirah2019}}
• {{noping|Matthewsrfloyd}}
• {{noping|Alexandriadavis15322}}
• {{noping|Abbywelch2023}}
• {{noping|Whispercheese}}
• {{noping|Pitufao}}
• {{noping|Kiritusu}}
• {{noping|Cmhintze}}
• {{noping|Suerdem22}}
• {{noping|WGaieck}}
• {{noping|Circa1350BC}}
• {{noping|Bendigeidfran39}}
• {{noping|Grace1381}}
• {{noping|CondorRCItalia}}
• {{noping|Cristalfox}}
• {{noping|Caramel shortbread101}}
• {{noping|JWGarside}}
• {{noping|BitsAndPiecesSMG}}
• {{noping|AlisonkaySMG}}
• {{noping|SarahBainesSIMSMG}}
• {{noping|ToniJB101}}
• {{noping|Prabha.shah}}
• {{noping|WyattNJ60}}
• {{noping|OTisfun22}}
• {{noping|Ad5685}}
• {{noping|Wnylrc}}
• {{noping|Eniboalbert}}
• {{noping|Peekaboo12}}
• {{noping|Ifeomawealth}}
• {{noping|Abeyfash}}
• {{noping|Zeroson}}
• {{noping|Fkutere}}
• {{noping|Fisayo og}}
• {{noping|PVCLP}}
• {{noping|SegunLaw}}
• {{noping|Osasigbins}}
• {{noping|2CV6Green}}
• {{noping|Comms4u}}
• {{noping|Katie Howe}}
• {{noping|Gei1a08}}
• {{noping|Lauren.hoskin}}
• {{noping|Alice.Dowden}}
• {{noping|TRC100!}}
• {{noping|Hung-yuan.cheng}}
• {{noping|Patrick Easterbunny}}
• {{noping|Amy Ronaldson}}
• {{noping|78Wombat}}
• {{noping|26MH}}
• {{noping|Acamedic}}
• {{noping|SJphysio}}
• {{noping|SueBellass}}
• {{noping|Ana-Cat PG}}
• {{noping|LKaluvu}}
• {{noping|Nina Jenkins}}
• {{noping|Patient and Public Involvement Lead}}
• {{noping|Tinyroadrunner}}
• {{noping|YellowMyxine}}
• {{noping|NacreBeluga}}
• {{noping|OpaleBeluga}}
• {{noping|IW(WMUKTraining)}}
• {{noping|Mfuentes5}}
• {{noping|Smaughan30}}
• {{noping|Namrudophile}}
• {{noping|Musahjoseph}}
• {{noping|Nmantica}}
• {{noping|CarlosRobbin.02}}

{{cob}}

Should their illegitimate "confirmed" accesses be revoked? (I'm an admin so could do so myself, but figured it would be wiser to post here before revoking 78 users' permissions) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:57, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment: some of those editors have 0 edits (eg. Kiritusu) Huldra (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm indifferent to revoking the confirmed flags. If any of these editors made ten edits today, they'd immediately get autoconfirmed since their accounts are per se older than 4 days. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:: True, but until they make 10 edits they have rights they would not have had had someone not breached our rules. And I don't see why we should allow that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:28, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think we need to be too pedantic about 10 days, nor use the term illegitimate. However, looking at them individually I'd probably agree with removal, especially anything referencing a single editathon some time ago. I'd hope you could justify each removal rather than saying 'rules'. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:: The most recently granted case is {{noping|CarlosRobbin.02}} in January 2025. The others all date to March 2024 or earlier, with most being even older than that. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:The yare not editing, therefore they have no need to be confirmed. My only concern with removal is I know with EC if I grant and remove an editor's for gaming at 400, they won't get it automatically at 30/500. Should any of these become active, would they get confirmed automatically after your removal or would they have to request that and then EC? That could be confusing for them, but not a strong argument against. Star Mississippi 02:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's safe to remove them, they will autoconfirm as needed. The event coordinator granting out of scope should be coached. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe I'm shooting myself in the foot by mentioning this, but your analysis didn't catch my granting of the confirmed user right to Shicari r, who is blind and therefore cannot complete our CAPTCHA (or did you filter them out manually?) I knew about the general confirmed-user expiration date rule but re situations like this, I've always thought it best to ignore all rules here (I actually know of a blind user who was put out by a confirmed flag auto-expiring). However, in this case, they haven't made any edits; I've reached out to this user by email; given what they were going to use it for (a student project), they should've edited by now. I'd done my best to verify they were who they said they were before helping them out here. Also, this sort of situation is unlikely to happen very often. Graham87 (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Indeed, I missed that one because I excluded grants by both current and former admins (not thinking about the scenario where a former admin was granted event coordinator rights after their desysop). And the query I was using to find these relies on the user_former_groups table, so crosschecking timestamps so as to include Shicari r but exclude the many people you granted confirmed rights to while you were still an admin and hence not subject to the 10-day limit exceeds what I'm willing to code. {{pb}} It turns out there are two such users: you and {{Noping|Gnagarra}} who has not made use of their ability to grant confirmed rights as an event coordinator since their desysop. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, I granted it to myself just before my desysop, but the outcome is the same. If consensus is that these situations should have at least *some* kind of expiry (maybe 3/6/12 months?), I'll do so in the future. (Maybe in this case I should've checked that the user could log in first ... better followup all-round might've been better). The other user is {{Noping|Gnangarra}}. Graham87 (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Probably put a time limit of any duration up to three months to user right and renew when needed. Ideally, the person would have clocked enough edits by the time the user right lapses for autoconfirmed rights to kick in. – robertsky (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

: Is there any reason I shouldn't do this revocation? If I don't hear any objections I will do it sometime tomorrow. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:: Done. Rights revoked from all users, as all of them were more than 3 months old, and all but one of them are more than year old. If anyone still needs this permission (and can't just make the necessary edits to become autoconfirmed) they are welcome to re-request. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Closing. Stale mostly but Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Possible error with mass message regarding revoked autopatrol exists. Star Mississippi 22:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Not sure if it's the same, but noticed in my watchlist today that {{ping|JJMC89}} removed autopatrolled from Possibly and one of DGG's alts. This is, of course, correct since the deceased editors have no means of using the varied rights. They noted retention of other varied permissions: mover, EC. It brings up the question of what the processed is when an account is locked on an editor's death and if we're going to revoke for non use, whether the steward who locks or an admin active on their TP should remove at lock. Thoughts? No issue at all with JJMC's edits, just thought related to this conversation. Star Mississippi 11:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:when I went to notify JJMC89 that I'd flagged this here, I noted this was actually a result of Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled#Flag_removal_process, but kept it nested as it's a similar issue of stale permissions. Feel free to move elsewhere if needed. Star Mississippi 11:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think global locks prevent the user from logging in on any of the 1,000 wikis. So they can't access their user groups / user rights since they can't log in. As such, the exact rules and timing of if/when their user groups get removed on enwiki probably isn't a big deal in the scheme of things. May not need any formal rules for that situation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hello all! We want to introduce you a new feature called Multiblocks, #14 wish in Community Wishlist Survey 2023, that was also supported widely by your community.

With Multiblocks, admins get more block options: a sitewide and a partial block can run at the same time with different expiry dates. This eliminates the need to wait for the expiration of one block to apply the other. An admin may want to initially impose a temporary sitewide block on a disruptive user, and later keep their access to specific pages or namespaces restricted. This may be useful in cases of blocking Wikipedians heavily involved in editing specific namespaces or pages.

After successfully releasing it on four pilot wikis (Polish, German, Italian and Hebrew Wikipedia), we will begin mass deployment of the feature by the end of the month: all non-Wikipedia projects plus Catalan Wikipedia will adopt Multiblocks on the week of May 26, while all other Wikipedias — including yours — will adopt it on the week of June 2.

Administrators can test the new user interface now on your own wiki by browsing to [{{fullurl:Special:Block|usecodex=1}} Special:Block?usecodex=1], and can test full functionality on testwiki. See the help page on MediaWiki for more information. Please see {{Phab|T377121}} on Phabricator for more info as well.

Please, be aware that the new Codex interface might break some existing gadgets, so contact the team or ping me directly under this thread if you have concerns or if you need help in rewriting hooks. The team is ready to help you with this.

I'm happy to answer your questions or to address your concerns. Please ping me in case of need under this thread. Thank you! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Sannita (WMF)}} How will this interact with the block tab in Twinkle? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Twinkle needs some work to have full multiblocks support. As the original author of the Twinkle block module, I can help with this, but it will take time. I've filed [https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/twinkle/issues/2178 #2178] on GitHub. Until that's resolved, Twinkle should continue to work without issue for targets that have precisely 0 or 1 active blocks (not multi-blocked), which presumably will be the overwhelming majority of blocks made. — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:04, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If I pull up Twinkle's block module on someone under a multiblock, will it fail gracefully, or is there a risk it will, for instance, overwrite the multiblock while leaving me under the impression that I'm just revoking talkpage access? If the latter, can we put a warning into the module or just make it not work in those cases, for now? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No idea since we haven't patched it yet and multiblocks isn't deployed yet. I think the plan is to detect a multi blocked user, and in that situation, blank the Twinkle form and provide a link to Special:Block –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::By design, it should be impossible to inadvertently add a new block on top of an existing one. The API will fail if you attempt a reblock on a multi-blocked target without passing in newblock=1 or an id parameter to specify which block to modify. This means that any script that uses mw:API:Block should continue to work as before, except on multi-blocked targets, where it will simply error out. The same is also true for mw:API:Unblock.

::::Unless folks really want the Twinkle block module to live on, I think the engineering time is better spent on getting Core's Special:Block to have feature parity. We achieved some of this already – Special:Block now surfaces range blocks that affect an individual IP. In the past this required manually reviewing the block log, Special:BlockList, or using Twinkle. Next up on that list is T392857 – Bring block + issue user talk template workflow into Core. Then we will be left with very few things that Twinkle does that Special:Block does not. It will be a while before that work is complete. My thoughts are multi-blocked targets probably won't be encountered that much to warrant fixing Twinkle. We will likely go with the short-gap solution Novem mentions above for the interim. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|We achieved some of this already – Special:Block now surfaces range blocks that affect an individual IP.}} This is awesome. Thanks for this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

At his request, the Arbitration Committee restores the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of {{userlinks|L235}}.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

: Discuss this at: {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|Change to the functionaries team, May 2025}}

Hi, I was hoping some other admins could take a look at the situation that led to {{u|Boleyn}} being falsely informed that their autopatrolled right has been revoked. See User talk:Boleyn#Suspension of autopatrolled permission due to inactivity. Given that it's a mess message and they have been an active editor, I'm concerned this mass message may have been incorrectly sent to others. I'd appreciate input from other admins on this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:@JJMC89, all yours. -- asilvering (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::I see some comments on their talk page that seem to imply that other editors have received this notification via email if they have alternate accounts (which makes sense because I'd imagine most people with legit alts use the same email for them). If it was an alt account that had the perm removed, I'd imagine the notification would've been posted on that account's talk page instead, so that still doesn't explain what went on here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Although, upon closer examination, it seems only {{u|Rosiestep}} mentioned emails. {{u|JBW}} got it on their talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW&diff=prev&oldid=1290360537]. Now I'm wondering why things were set up this way and how that even works. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:There are about three threads on this matter:

:*User talk:JJMC89#Why revoke me?

:*User talk:JJMC89#Hallucination?

:*User talk:JJMC89#Removing autopatrolled?

:Basically, some users have WP:VALIDALT accounts, which were given the autopatrolled right some time ago, but have not used it recently. These accounts were to have been warned about impending revocation, but the message was sent to the primary account. The boilerplate message did not, however, state which account was eligible to have the right revoked. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Four, but I just closed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Related?_revocation_of_autopatrolled in lieu of this. @Clovermoss, more on the process is here if helpful. Star Mississippi 22:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That last link seems to imply it happens when the alt's talk page redirects to the real account, so that explains my confusion surrounding the how. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yeap. Probably a user talk redirect from the alt's talk page to the main's talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

: Boleyn2 and Boleyn3 had autopatrolled revoked. Since both have their user talk page redirected to Boleyn's, MassMessage followed the redirect when posting the message intended for those two alternate accounts. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The message should say explicitly (and preferably in bold to stand out) from which account the autopatrolled right has been removed, instead of just "your account". That would answer most people's questions straight away. Fram (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agree. --Rosiestep (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Phab:T394413 has been created to help with this. CMD (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{userlinks|Renamed user 73876485f2f7c42af5f2a33994cf3cb0}}

User vanished; account globally locked. Please remove PCR. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

: Done. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Hello respectable admins, please see the edits made by BhiRaaj, he is Bhil caste warrior and adding Bhil word and Bhil king in several articles without any source. I request you to block this Bhil warrior, all of the edits made same tune of his mind. Please see [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khandwa&diff=prev&oldid=1289350249 this1], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danta,_Banaskantha&diff=prev&oldid=1289344711 2], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hinglajgarh&diff=prev&oldid=1289344453 3], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chhoti_Sadri&diff=prev&oldid=1289343606 4], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salher&diff=prev&oldid=1288653878 5], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jhabua&diff=prev&oldid=1288515826 6], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malpur,_Aravalli&diff=prev&oldid=1287881352 7], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Modasa&diff=prev&oldid=1287433506 8], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Idar&diff=prev&oldid=1287119506 9], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vansda&diff=prev&oldid=1285231117 10], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bilpank&diff=prev&oldid=1283404536 11], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jhabbu_Nayak&diff=prev&oldid=1281259682 12], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gagron_Fort&diff=prev&oldid=1276383286 13], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Songadh_Fort&diff=prev&oldid=1276380456 14], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alot,_Madhya_Pradesh&diff=prev&oldid=1268967245 15], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narwar_Fort&diff=prev&oldid=1259247163 16], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billava&diff=prev&oldid=1248559811 17], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meghraj&diff=prev&oldid=1247809419 18], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahidpur&diff=prev&oldid=1246682533 19], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patan,_Gujarat&diff=prev&oldid=1245281819 20], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delhi&diff=prev&oldid=1244362867 21], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alirajpur&diff=prev&oldid=1240754316 22], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jhabua_district&diff=prev&oldid=1240621087 23], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Udayin&diff=prev&oldid=1240390069 24], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hammir_Singh&diff=prev&oldid=1238085744 25], [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manohar_Thana&diff=prev&oldid=1224989512 26] and [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punja&diff=prev&oldid=1223294273 27]. Thank you! Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Durjan Singh Jadon, can you link to discussions you've had with this editor explaining our policies? As you are probably aware, ANI is where editors involved in a dispute come when our other methods of resolving disagreement (article talk pages, user talk pages, 3O, DRN, etc.) have failed. I can't see that you have tried talking with this editor so if you have, please point it out. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Liz, i will try next time my best. Thank you Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Below section merged as they refer to the same issues. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I have provided information about the Bhil states of the British period on the Bhil page based on British sources and India Gazetteer. The British ruled India for more than 300 years and during their time there were some states where there used to be Bhil kings. I have added information with references.This information was removed. Their argument was that the British sources are not reliable; if this is so then British sources should be removed from the entire Wikipedia.Well, according to me, the most reliable source in this country is the British because they have written unbiased history. I have also added references from various gazetteers of India. Whatever information I have added till now is available in various books by me, but some books are not available on the internet.I request you to bring back Bhil State History on Bhil page BhiRaaj (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{reply|BhiRaaj}} This issue does not need administrator intervention yet. I'd recommend that you continue discussion at the concerned articles' talkpage (eg, Talk:Bhil) or at WP:RSN for input on source reliability. That said, IMO your current argument that century old WP:RAJ-era books or gazetteers are the most reliable sources on the topic of caste etc is unlikely to get your anywhere, and your efforts would be better spent researching what modern scholarship has to say on the subject. Abecedare (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{non-administrator comment}}{{edit conflict}} Maybe this should be sent in the article's talk page instead? Do note that "all or nothing" complaints like "If a language written in A is bad then remove all A sources" should be avoided. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 04:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Blocked|{{nac}} Blocked and PAs were revdelled.AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 23:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)}}

hello @Liz and other respectable admins, there is a madlike user Rgregergrgegergrg on Wikipedia whose behaviour is like crazy person. I restored the revision by Elmidae on Short-beaked echidna but Rgregergrgegergrg reverted my edit immediately and then i warn him on his [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rgregergrgegergrg?markasread=336584373&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Rgregergrgegergrg-20250517061300-Durjan_Singh_Jadon-20250517061200 talkpage] but he abused me 'shut up you stinky indian curry muncher'. He is doing edit war on Short-beaked echidna so please have a look at Short-beaked echidna and think to block him. Thank you! Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:User blocked, PAs revdel'd. (I think their vandalism was all reverted by the time I got there.)

:@Durjan Singh Jadon: you should report such incidents to a subpage of this board, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ('ANI'), or better yet to WP:AIV, for faster response. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ok, Thank you. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::@DoubleGrazing, can you have a look [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bachgoti_Rajput?markasread=336584667&markasreadwiki=enwiki#c-Chippla360-20250517064000-Durjan_Singh_Jadon-20250517063700 here]. Thank you Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Durjan Singh Jadon: no, I've no interest in, or knowledge of, that subject.

:::And please don't ping people onto that, because a) it quickly gets annoying, and b) you don't want to be seen to be canvassing. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Ok, Thank you. Durjan Singh Jadon (talk) 07:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

Special:Contributions/179.106.144.1

What happened to these edits? In my experience with ordinary admin revdel, the link is still blue and I can do something, but I can't here. In my experience with oversighted edits, the text is grey and stricken out with a single line. I don't think I've ever before seen a black strikeout or a double-line strikeout. Nyttend (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Nyttend A single line means a revision is revision deleted, and is visible to and restorable by admins. A double line means the revision is oversighted, it will not be visible to admins. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Looking at Wikipedia:Oversight#Nomenclature, "grey and stricken out with a single line" is ordinary admin revdel when viewed by a non-admin (which I just confirmed by logging out and checking the page history of a page with revdel'd edits - blue with single line logged in as admin, gray with single line logged out). Double black strikeouts = oversight. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Seems like the info there needs to be updated, then. Based upon checking a couple revids there, they're definitively supressed. Actually, based upon a quick check in a private window, it appears to be a skin-based thing. double-crossed out and black is vector-2022, vector, monobook, cologneblue and minerva, while timelesss is the odd one out with a single grey line. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::phab:T394587. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Those edits have been “oversighted” or “suppressed”. (WP:SUPPRESS) 2001:8003:B15F:8000:4CE4:2C0C:995B:4859 (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{articlelinks|Adrien Nunez}}

An WP:SPA keeps removing the Adrien Nunez infobox image. Rather than either revert the SPA or revert to a prior infobox image, User:Polarmadewell put an image request banner up for an article with 3 remaining images in it. As the photographer of 3 of the 4 images, I would rather a third party figure out what to do.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have restored the image and removed the request. DrKay (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{ping|Grantball}} was not notified of this discussion, which the yellow box on top of the edit window says is required. I have done so. Tony, in the future, please remember to do this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::User:The Bushranger, I am, of course sorry about the notification, but I was here because I was confused about how things were going procedurally, and a bit out of sorts.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::User:DrKay, may I ask if your decision was based more on the fact that 1. all other images are of him as a basketball player rather than an entertainer, 2. the image is from last month rather than 2020 or 2021 or 3. the image depicts him actually looking at the camera?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I just undid the last removal. I'm not especially attached to that image, so feel free to replace it. DrKay (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am happy with the reversions and consider it better for each of those reasons, but reverting an SPA is also a valid explanation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = Closing this to centralize discussion, since this is happening concurrently on the tbanned editor's talk page. asilvering (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

I was imposed a topic ban for the edits that I have made in the page List of Mudaliars.Even though, I added the contents with sources, the contents were removed and I was imposed a topic ban. Could someone please check on this? Pikachu 9988 (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what there is to check. You were informed about the topic ban on your User talk page. If you have questions it's best to ask the admin who imposed it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::That would be {{admin|Callanecc}}. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've commented on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• Pikachu 9988 should be blocked for multiple topic ban violations, actually (t-ban imposed at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pikachu_9988#c-Callanecc-20250516011300-Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_a_sanction 01:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)], then violations at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290716730&oldid=1290632927 17:12, 16 May 2025], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290720007&oldid=1290716730&title=List_of_Mudaliars 17:38, 16 May 2025], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1290724950&oldid=1290720007&title=List_of_Mudaliars 18:17, 16 May 2025]). Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 08:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I gave them a logged warning for those violations yesterday, as is standard for a first-time TBAN violation that could plausibly be a misunderstanding. There have been none since then. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Could've been a misunderstanding. And Putin might be on Zelensky's Christmas card list. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 08:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Based on how they've approached this, I'm quite ready to believe that they didn't understand they were TBANned despite the big box saying they were TBANned. That speaks to a larger potential competence issue, but I don't think to deliberate evasion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, I agree with you. Pikachu 9988 has made numerous edits that appear to be vandalism or involve the addition of poorly sourced or unverifiable content across multiple Wikipedia pages. In many cases, the sources provided are either unreliable or do not support the added material, making it difficult to verify the content of the affected articles. I respectfully request that some administrators review this user's edit history over the past two years and consider reinstating any content that was improperly removed or altered.

::List of Articals Violated by Pikachu 9988 but not limited to:

::# Sengunthar

::# Telugu Chodas

::# Srikantha Chola

::# Rajadhiraja II

::# List of Sengunthars

::# Karikala

::# Kakatiya dynasty (edit war)

::# Durjaya (Andhra chieftain)

::# Vijayalaya Chola

::Thanks 37.186.54.78 (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

• The recent edits by User:Pikachu 9988 to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mudaliars&diff=1290724950&oldid=1290632927 List of Mudaliars] were not only a violation of their topic-ban but also show why a topic-ban is needed. In short, they added persons, who are possibly legendary rather than historical, to the list of member of a community based on a 12c poem by Ottakoothar. Worse, according to historian K. A. Nilakanta Sastri (see [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.514401/page/n537/mode/2up pp. 521-523]), the poem was supposedly commissioned then by members of the Sengunthar caste as a panegyric to the community, and the poet's work and later annotations are known to be largely fabricated stories to boost the community's origins. Abecedare (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop

| status = OP Blocked

| result = User:Algirr blocked for 1 week for for refusal to heed feedback and the battleground conduct displayed in a pretty minor dispute as in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mengistu_Haile_Mariam&diff=prev&oldid=1291111318 this disruptive and over the top post] after promising to "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Algirr&diff=prev&oldid=1291108053 try to move on]". Abecedare (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Hello to everyone. My complaint is directed against the administrator under the nickname @Skitash. In my opinion, Skitash is an absolutely incapable and uncompromising person in his actions, abusing his position as an administrator. He surprisingly often supports the user @Quetstar in his actions, most of which are also uncompromising removal of content, mainly photographic.

I tried to negotiate with Skitash about his edits on his talk page, because these are HIS edits, and argued my position on most issues ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&diff=prev&oldid=1290777918 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&diff=prev&oldid=1290791435 here]). And in response.... he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&diff=prev&oldid=1290825120 deleted] my entire topic from the discussion page, without even really answering anything (except "my talk page isn't the place for that" although it is literally only his actions), but at the same time he continued to do the same thing that caused the conflict that I wrote to him about in the deleted topic. No matter what the situation, he demands that I, a non-administrator, seek consensus, and everywhere. He himself has not yet started a consensus on deleting information or even my articles, he simply deleted them without warning.

DETAILS:

Arab Deterrent Force.

On May 9, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Deterrent_Force&diff=prev&oldid=1289516077 added information] about South Yemeni participation in the Lebanese Civil War as part of the Arab Deterrent Force (also ADF) and provided a [https://www.alinaser.com/%D9%83%D8%AA%D9%8A%D8%A8%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86 source] that confirm it. But already in May 11, Skitash [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Deterrent_Force&diff=prev&oldid=1289838438 deleted] my edits about it, referring to the Fringe theory. In the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skitash&diff=prev&oldid=1290777918 discussion] he deleted, I cited even more additional sources that I found, confirming the participation of South Yemen in the ADF forces ([https://www.marsad.news/news/79631 here], [https://uca.edu/politicalscience/home/research-projects/dadm-project/middle-eastnorth-africapersian-gulf-region/lebanon-1943-present/#:~:text=%20LAS%20%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%20the%20Arab,Beirut%20on%20november%2010%2C%201976 here], [https://civilsociety-centre.org/party/arab-deterrent-force-adf here] and [https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt183p4f5.17?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=au%3A&searchText=%22F.+T.%22&searchUri=%2Fopen%2Fsearch%2F%3Ftheme%3Dopen%26amp%3Bpage%3D3%26amp%3Bso%3Drel%26amp%3Bsi%3D1%26amp%3BQuery%3Dau%253A%2522F.%2BT.%2522&seq=17 here]), but after my attempt to return the information about this, Skitash repeated the rollback, this time without any explanation at all.

Algirr (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, I misclicked. There will be a continuation below. Algirr (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:They are not an administrator. Secretlondon (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::it, what? I thought he isa

::Algirr (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::But who is he in this case Algirr (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Secretlondon Do you mean Skitash is a a standard editor? Algirr (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::But why then does he always warn about edit wars, or about my discussion on the admin page, etc.? Algirr (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Any editor can revert edits and warn other editors about violations of policies and quidelines. Administrators are just editors that have access to certain tools that allow them to hide problem edits, delete pages, and block users from editing, among other things. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and we must all work together to improve the encyclopedia. The community has adopted certain policies and guidelines (P&G) to facilitate that collaboration, and all editors are expected to abide by those P&G. We start off with warnings, which become stronger with repeated failures to abide by the P&G, and may lead to being blocked from editing. The community may also determine that an editor is sufficiently out of touch with the norms of the community that they should be blocked from any participation at Wikkipedia. Donald Albury 23:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::oh, I see. Algirr (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:1. I am not an administrator.

:2. As per WP:BRD, once your edit is reverted, you're expected to seek consensus for your changes before re-adding the material. This is how the encyclopedia works.

:3. Your "source" is a random WP:BLOG and thus an unreliable source. And yes, the material you're insisting on adding is considered WP:FRINGE since there are hardly any credible sources backing it.

:What I do find concerning, however, is your behavior. You've resumed edit warring almost immediately after your third block this month ended, and you've continued to make personal attacks[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quetstar&diff=prev&oldid=1290907559][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Algirr&diff=prev&oldid=1289331192] and WP:LEGAL threats[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Quetstar&diff=next&oldid=1290907808][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Algirr&diff=prev&oldid=1290910340] against editors who disagree with you, including in this very complaint. Skitash (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::I already said, these are not personal attacks or threats. As usual, you remained silent.

::Yes, and I came to your discussion page where I posted all the facts and more links and sources, and in response you silently deleted everything and continued doing the same thing as before

::As I said, I provided additional sources that you ignored.

::Your behavior is much more concerning - you have never even compromised, you have never given in, and you have never been the first to reach a consensus, shifting all responsibility onto me as an opponent. Algirr (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|"these are not personal attacks or threats "}} They absolutely are—regardless of how you try to frame them.

:::{{tq|"I came to your discussion page where I posted all the facts and more links and sources, and in response you silently deleted everything"}} You did not come in good faith. You came to personally attack me. Also, you're supposed to open discussions about content on the relevant article's talk page. Not mine. I'm allowed to remove comments from my own talk page.

:::{{tq|"shifting all responsibility onto me"}} That's because, in this case, the responsibility is on you. For example, on Mengistu Haile Mariam alone, you've reverted at least six different editors that contested your change to the infobox image.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mengistu_Haile_Mariam&diff=prev&oldid=1286736445][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mengistu_Haile_Mariam&diff=prev&oldid=1286917624][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mengistu_Haile_Mariam&diff=prev&oldid=1287568726][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mengistu_Haile_Mariam&diff=prev&oldid=1288429490][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mengistu_Haile_Mariam&diff=prev&oldid=1290946552][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mengistu_Haile_Mariam&diff=prev&oldid=1291037506]

:::I will not tolerate or respond to further personal attacks. Skitash (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::1.No, its not. It is description of opponent. I am not said he is moron or something like this. I said he is one of the people who always deleting something and canceled changes, etc.

::::2.I came with an attempt to resolve the dispute peacefully (what you never did with me), as you constantly said to do in your messages with blocking threats. This is a not true, I didn’t say a single rude word in my messages on your discussion page. Well, you deleted all my arguments, ignored them and continued to do the same things.

::::3.By blaming me for the Mengistu article, you have presented it in a one-sided light. There were 2 disputes. In the first one there was one proposed new photo, in the second another. The only person who resisted the second photo was a user with whom I had already reached a consensus, but you were not satisfied with this and decided to join the conflict and heated it up even more.There were no personal attacks before, but overall it's OK Algirr (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::the only thing you did was push your point of view everywhere (much more intensively than I did), ignore my counterarguments and throw threats of blocking at me. If your actions everywhere coincide with the actions of the Quetstar user, this does not mean that you are right everywhere. Algirr (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::I haven't finished writing everything I wanted yet, and perhaps this dialogue should be moved here, since you're not even an administrator. Algirr (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I would advise you to stop digging a hole, and take a break from commenting here for a day or two. Donald Albury 23:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Donald Albury What's wrong? I am just answering Algirr (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I suggest you read, and learn from, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Wording of apparent legal threats clarified, unblocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• WP:BOOMERANG. OP blocked per WP:NLT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@The Bushranger I'd like to note that the editor has a sockpuppet account named The Algirr. Skitash (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Not any more! Indeffed, Opened up SPI since we may have to start scooping up more of these. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{ping|rsjaffe}} Note that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Algirr&diff=prev&oldid=1291083515 on their talk page] they appear to have a legitimate explanation for the altenate account, and did not block evade using it. It should have been flagged as an alternate account but it was not used abusively. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::And the edit was prior to the block. OK, I'll cancel the SPI but keep the alternate blocked with a link to the original account. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:24, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::As they have clarified that they were not intending legal action, I have lifted the NLT block, and advised them to drop the stick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

{{abot}}

The suspect in the Killing of Austin Metcalf is currently a redirect, and now has an Articles for Deletion discussion against it. Should the Articles for Deletion discussion not be closed as "wrong venue"? Also, can my other posts on this page today be permanently deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{nacmt}} Yes, the proper venue is RFD and a discussion is already underway there. I have closed the AFD as procedural close. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Can my other mistaken posts today on this page with the suspect name be permanently deleted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not an admin. But also, I don't think that revdel is warranted here. All discussions (AFD/RFD) regarding the accused are already public, 2-3 revisions with the accused's name here is nothing by comparison. If revdel was really required, some admin would've done it by now. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 03:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|status=Wrong Wiki|1=This is en.wiki. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Hide these racist edits targeting Mexicans:

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/159.148.186.246

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/85.203.22.145

https://li.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicane&oldid=439438

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/Gypsy_person_in_Cali

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/195.123.247.30

https://li.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Biedrage/43.133.172.211 107.151.196.215 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toiminnot:Muokkaukset/199.33.68.37

https://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speisialta:Contributions/Palmdale_CA_93550 107.151.196.215 (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:The different language versions of Wikipedia are all completely separate projects, and we have no administrative control over them. Please take this up with the fi.- and ga.wiki admins, respectively. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

A person, using several accounts ({{Userlinks|Sojetz}}, {{Userlinks|Erledigungs}} and there must be other accounts), has been Russifying article titles for a long time despite being told not to. Also ask to revert all the renamings done by this person without any discussions and using socks Devlet Geray (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Have you started a file at WP:SPI? Simonm223 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked the two accounts as socks of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Goelia. However, I think filing an SPI and requesting CU would be helpful to look for others. The socks in Goelia appear to be stale, but these two accounts can be compared against each other.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that {{user|L235}} will be rejoining the arbitration clerk team as a full clerk. We express our thanks to the clerks for the work they do in ensuring that the arbitration process operates smoothly. If you are interested in joining the team as a trainee, please read through the information page and send an email to {{clerks-l}}.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Daniel (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

: Discuss this at: {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard|L235 re-appointed as full clerk}}

{{Atop|Ask {{U|Waxworker}}, don't come here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• User talk:Waxworker

Recently this person took down info I added to a page that has a reliable source. Can anyone help me? Here’s the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Dobson_(actor)Youngblue2005 (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Abot}}

War 2 and War 2 (2025 film). These pages are deleted multiple times.

This is the teaser of the film from verified you tube channel of Yash Raj Films

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK1W-AViQ-M

Administrators should remove the block. There are also multiple drafts of the same topic.

This highly notable film not having Wikipedia article is not right. Fruit Orchard (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Fruit Orchard: present an acceptable draft to WP:AfC, and this may well be done. You can start at WP:YFA, with reference to the relevant notability guidelines WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, and your sources at the ready. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ec}} If Draft:War 2 is accepted protection will be lifted. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:But please note that the existence of a teaser does not fulfill our notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note the many deletions and draftifications (there were at least 5 disambigation names in draft as there were so many draftified after the bludgeoning following deletion discussions).--CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::User:Fruit Orchard - The film in question is an upcoming film. Please read film notability guidelines, which explain that unreleased or upcoming films are seldom considered notable. Film notability is based primarily on reviews by film critics and reviewers, which are published as soon as the film is released in theaters. Articles about unreleased films are usually too soon and are too often promotional and so non-neutral. However, if you think that the film is one of the exceptional films that is notable before release, you may submit one of the drafts for review to see whether the reviewer is willing to recommend that the title be desalted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not convinced the present draft is going to be any good. The sources are quite literally all the usual pre-release monomaniacal sources meant to generate buzz. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I am trying to create a draft page titled "Draft:Binod Tamu Ballu," but I am receiving a permission error due to the title blacklist. I believe I meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I want to create a draft to document my contributions as a Nepali artist (or your relevant field). Can an administrator please create this page for me or help resolve the blacklist issue? Thank you!

Binod Tamu Ballu 2400:1A00:4B8D:A106:1095:DF0A:503:CA49 (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:2400:1A00:4B8D:A106:1095:DF0A:503:CA49, can you try creating a version in your User space? I'm not sure if that's okay for IP accounts but I'd try that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Election clerk(s). Soni (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop|1=Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:29, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

Can an admin please change the link for the ProveIt edit tag from ProveIt edit to ProveIt edit or ProveIt edit. Thanks Nobody (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sounds reasonable. {{Done}}. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

{{atop|1=Title unprotected. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:26, 21 May 2025 (UTC)}}

• {{articlelinks|Shahab Khan}}

Hy everyone! I wrote an article about a Pakistani cricketer who debut in First class cricket in 2023-24 National T20 Cup and won the best bowler award. When I started publishing it, I found that this page is only within the domain of the administrator because this page was created over and over again for different person back in 2017. I'm here to ask for protection removal so that I can publish it. Or an admin should write this article. Behappyyar (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:It doesn't seem to even be about the same Shahab Khan; at least this discussion is about an actor, not a cricketer. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::That's what I am saying. Should we create it on the same page or change the name like Shahab Khan (cricketer). Behappyyar (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry; I should read posts properly before replying to them. While an article about the actor (or any other namesake) does not exist Shahab Khan is the correct title for this. I am not an admin so I can't lift the protection myself, but I don't see why that shouldn't be done when an admin sees this. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have unprotected the article title and you're free to create it @Behappyyar Star Mississippi 12:23, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm working on it. Thanks 💫 Behappyyar (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

The page is Jason Itzler

Im a live streamer so people are trolling adding things to make me look bad, if we can revert back to around 2 months ago That would be great and if we can lock it so no more edits. Gasnobrakes10 (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Hi! I invite you to look at Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects, which gives more context about what should be done in your situation. Some claims are sourced to unreliable sources like the New York Post and should either be removed or a better source should be found. However, others have more solid sources like [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/nyregion/after-guilty-plea-jason-itzler-self-described-king-of-all-pimps-fires-lawyer.html the New York Times], and cannot be removed just because the subject of the article asks to, without more evidence that the sources are wrong. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:We also do not protect("lock") articles merely to prevent others from editing them. If there is a demonstrable problem with vandalism or WP:BLP violations, then protection can be considered. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ec}} Yeah. Unfortunately reliable sources—Miami Herald, The New York Times—state that the subject is a {{blue|former ringleader of the prostitution ring New York Confidential}} who {{blue|has been imprisoned multiple times for drug crimes, prostitution, and money laundering}}, on top of previous charges of {{blue|aggravated assault with a weapon, burglary, and stalking in Florida}}. (I removed the NYPO materal before posting here, as it's all-but-deprecated.) —Fortuna, imperatrix 16:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Looking specifically at content added in the last two months, a lot of it should be double-checked as it might not be verified by reliable sources (Special:Diff/1275028363/1291494608) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:10, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Can we get Reference 8 removed as well, ( PIMP ‘KING’ IN RIKERS RUMBLE) Gasnobrakes10 (talk) 20:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The New York Daily News is considered generally reliable. However, concerns about content should take place on Talk:Jason Itzler, not here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Fortuna imperatrix mundi@Chaotic Enby @The Bushranger @331dot this has been at ANI before, I think, and landed on my Talk for reasons I don't recall but my have been due to my prior protection of the article: User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_22#Jason_Itzler_reversion and User_talk:Star_Mississippi/Archive_19#Itzler_reversion_about_Sumnicht. I unfortunately no longer had the on wiki time or interest to monitor the issue. Just sharing background if helpful Star Mississippi 01:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::ETA: prior discussion Star Mississippi 01:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:The OP says, "people are trolling adding things to make me look bad". Hasn't he considered that it's his own actions that make him look bad? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Indeed. {{u|Gasnobrakes10}}, we can do nothing about the fact that independent reliable sources report on crimes you have been convicted of. 331dot (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| status = done

| result = taken care of. beef [talk] 10:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

Can we get a CU to have a quick look at User talk:Man against n and just shut that down properly? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

: The correct location is WP:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests. Or you can use {{tlx|Checkuser needed}}. --qedk (t 愛 c) 18:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:AGF is not a suicide pact. I blocked the "neighbor" and have left Man a final warning. No objection if someone thinks a block is called for now. Star Mississippi 01:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Nomen est omen - obviously a WP:SPA introducing his own WP:OR. But do I have to be called a Nazi defender if I disagree [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Man_against_n&diff=next&oldid=1291497252]?  @xqt 04:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think Star Muissssippi's call was fine. But the fact that they carry on denying it suggests that at this point, a block would be preventative; they either don't understand or don't care what they've done. —Fortuna, imperatrix 09:50, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's pretty much the same guy based on behavior. {{checkuser|Истина в последней инстанции}} is probably also them given the CU data; which was blocked on ruwiki for trolling. beef [talk] 10:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

User Quwoting2 keeps removing content from the Debí Tirar Más Fotos article (just to give one example) without providing an explanation in the edit summary, despite multiple warnings and direct requests to do so. Multiple warnings and complaints by different users regarding Quwoting2's behavior can be found here, here and here for years now. Also, on the article’s talk page, attempts to discuss various topics have been made, but they continue to engage in disruptive editing regardless. Thedayandthetime (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:^ *slight breath* okay..

:So for context the main reason this is being brought up is that the sampled/interpolated artists for this album are credited as producers and not songwriters which can be seen here and here (@{{u|Sbb618}} ping?). My opinion is that they should remain credited as producers unless reliable primary sources are available, e.g. physical/liner notes, in which case they can be credited as songwriters, or, in the case of an album like GNX by Kendrick Lamar, not at all. @Thedayandthetime then suggested that a note could be added to every credited sample, which I believe would only server to clutter the page more: notes like this{{ref|a|[a]}} would arguably serve as more of a distinguisher. (In their defense I did not elaborate on this in my edit summaries, but I felt I had explained it enough.) Despite this, they have insisted upon adding (what is in my opinion unnecessary) content to the Track listing section, stating "this is Wikipedia, not a Bad Bunny fan page". I don't get that.

:In my opinion, I am simply following a consensus. I may be wrong. Quwoting2 / Mhm? 02:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I haven't been following any disputes on the page itself the last few months, but the credits for the album that are given on streaming services have been confusing & led to many debates, since they're both incorrect (Bad Bunny is not the sole writer on almost every song even though most of his albums list him as such; this can be confirmed by looking up the songs in publishing databases like the ASCAP or BMI repertories) and misleading (for some reason, on Tidal (usually used for sourcing credits because it's the most comprehensive & easy to read) this album listed the original writers of its many samples not under writers as is commonplace, but under *producers*, which is almost certainly not the case).

::Should we faithfully reproduce the data from the best & most accessible source we have even when it's wrong, incomplete, or both? Or should we interpret these sources in a way that may be more correct and informative, but is adding a dimension we can't reliably guarantee through sources even though we can safely assume it's correct just through common sense? I don't have a good answer. I think as-is, the page is getting cluttered and looks unbalanced, but that's really working around the data we have now instead of being priority #1, and is getting off track from the topic at hand. Sbb618 (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I was contacted by someone claiming to be a Wikipedia administrator named “Sarbaan Shahid” who offered to publish my draft in exchange for personal contact. However, this user does not appear to exist on Wikipedia. Please advise or investigate.

Thank you. KGrigol (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'll leave this so you can get a fuller response, but in the meantime please have nothing to do with this person. I very much doubt that they are a Wikipedia administrator, but if so I think they will not be for much longer. Nobody should contact you like this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Not the first time a phisher has tried this, although the one I recall was on another language's Wikipeida. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:19, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::KGrigol, this is a common scam, please review Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Scam warning. The imposter will ask for money and either do a terrible job or simply disappear with your cash. If you have more questions, you might bring them to the Teahouse. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

{{atop

| result = To keep the archive bots happy, noting I've closed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_user_report Star Mississippi 01:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{ANImove|Disruptive user report}}

--qedk (t 愛 c) 19:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{abot}}

The articles/GA reviews that this user created, e.g. Dancing with Our Hands Tied, Talk:King of My Heart/GA2, Draft:How Did It End?, seem to be products of blatant AI (not just AI-assisted, but AI-created). Is this permittable? Ippantekina (talk) 02:21, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Leaving a note at WT:GAN pointing here. CMD (talk) 02:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yikes. @Jorge906, can you please tag the GA review with Template:G7? LLMs do not understand our content review processes. If the review page is deleted, it will go back to the queue in its original position. -- asilvering (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Ok Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Done. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'd have to take a closer look at the article and draft, but both the GA review and their userpage have blatant LLM hallmarks. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::I also recall they made an obviously AI-generated proposal at the village pump [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&diff=prev&oldid=1286678049 last month]. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I do recall that, but I deleted it I think Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:[The following is addressing the use of AI to generate a GA review. specifically Talk:King of My Heart/GA2]: It is tempting to say that AI-generated GAN reviews are not permitted ... but AI is a locomotive rolling down the track. At this point I think WP should focus on emphasizing that AI is a tool the reviewer can use, no different that the existing Copyright Violation tools; or grammar/spell checkers. For all these tools: The human editor must still "review the review".

:At a minimum, the human editor that ran the AI tool must read the AI report; compare the AI report to the GAN article body and verify accuracy; and craft a manually-written confirmation that they've reviewed it and it is consistent with the GAN article.

:In addition, the human must perform the tasks that AI tools cannot do yet:

:# Validate that images are free use

:# Examine some sources and verify that the citations are legitimate

:# Check cites for consistency (e.g. mixing [rp] with sfn )

:# Compliance with MOS guidelines

:# Image layout and formatting

:# Do "Wikipedia specific" style checks e.g. InfoBoxes, NavBars, Categories etc.

:# ... etc, etc, etc ...

:Also: The AI tool (at least these example cited above) is not producing good quality comments ... they seem to be vague hand-waving. AI is not catching prose or style issues that a (experienced) WP copy editor can provide.

:For those reasons, an AI-generated review, by itself, is absolutely not acceptable for a GA review.

:Those are my initial thoughts. I suppose this same AI debate will start happening in several places in WP: GA, article creation, Peer Reviews, FA. Noleander (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::It is not just tempting, it is practice based past AI review attempts, and this is another example of why that practice exists. All very well to say "AI is a tool the reviewer can use", but if the AI cannot catch prose and style issues, then it isn't really going to be a helpful tool. Llms are predictive algorithms, they're not going to be much help with anything else. For example, this AI has claimed that there are bare url cites in the article. There are not, but presumably it's picked up somewhere that bare urls are not ideal, and has inserted that idea despite it having no relation to the article at hand (something a grammar/spelling checker would not do). CMD (talk) 06:49, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I dislike AI articles and reviews as much as anyone. But it's not realistic to outright ban the use of AI ... editors are going to use it, there's no stopping that. Isn't it better to require disclosure and to create guidelines, than to pretend editors will stop using it? Noleander (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::There's also no stopping e.g. block evasion and sockpuppetry, by people with the necessary nous to avoid making it too obvious. We still have policies against such things, and enforce them when we can. The only 'guideline' (actually a policy) we need regarding AI-generated input (in articles, or elsewhere), in my opinion, is that it should be immediately deleted, and the contributor warned that persistent use of such material will result in an indefinite block. LLM-generated content 'cannot be trusted in article space, and anyone incapable of communicating in their own words elsewhere on Wikipedia has no business trying to participate in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:16, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Correct. An editor who cannot contribute without AI tools is not competent to be editing, and is unwelcome. Bon courage (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough. I'd support a ban - my suggestion above was my attempt to be practical (and modern?). Does WP have a ban on AI already in place? I see essay Wikipedia:Large language models ... is there an active proposal to make a policy/guideline covering AI? Noleander (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Is it a problem using AI to generate articles? Obviously, I do the citations myself. Maybe I should read the WP policy on using AI. Jorge Lobo Dos Santos (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, it is 'a problem' to use a predictive-text algorithm that bases its output on indiscriminate data-trawling from all over the web (including Wikipedia, along with vast quantities of even-less-WP:RS-compliant material). Yes, it is 'a problem' to use a predictive-text algorithm that, as an inherent consequence of this algorithm, will routinely 'hallucinate' false statements (along with citations etc) where it struggles to cobble together plausible text. And yes, it is 'a problem' to post any article you have not written yourself citing sources you have yourself read, to Wikipedia. This would apply whether you obtained it from an LLM, via an Ouija board, or from some bloke down the pub. Articles are supposed to be written by contributors, based on material they have obtained from the sources they have cited. That's what contributing an article entails. Not leaving it to some bullshit-bot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Noting that this is the second time that this user makes an AI-generated review of the same GA, after Talk:King of My Heart/GA1 last month, where they had explicitly been told that this was not sufficient for a review. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Jean-Paul Gut have repeatedly possible vandalism duplicately from article for Jean-Paul Gut Donnermar2 (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:This new editor has completely reverted the new section I introduced on the talk page of this article for consideration, review and discussions by ALL editors.

:I invited him to argument on the talk page, but he never did.

:The proposed changes to the main articles are proposed on the talk page TO ALL editors, so that they can discuss, before amending the main article, wording/editing of mere important facts, that are further more published about this person by numerous respected media all over Europe (such as Financial Times, Handelsblatt, Der Spiegel...)

:See hereafter my proposed changes for discussions by all editors, which Donnermar2 wants to forbid:

:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean-Paul_Gut&diff=prev&oldid=1291593076

:Such facts also appear here and there in other articles on Wikipedia where the name of this person is mentioned.

:I strongly deny any wrongdoing on my part regarding the BLPs, and of course any vandalism on my part.

:I consider that Donnemar2 actions are pure vandalism,

:as apparently he has also not contributed on any other wiki either.

:I myself contribute on Wiki Fr

:Regards, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::This seems to have at its heart a content dispute, but that has been compounded by both editors' behaviour. Please discuss this in good faith on the article talk page. That means without accusations of vandalism, without changing or removing other people's talk page edits, without claiming that anything can be included as long as it is reliably sourced, without touching the article itself until agreement has been reached and simply with good faith. The steps at WP:DR may be taken if you reach an impasse. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Phil Bridger: I fully agree with your remarks. This is the reason why, on what is a touchy subject, I have not changed the main article upfront. On the contrary, I have proposed the necessary changes on the talk page, so that ALL editors can express their opinions, not only about the content, but the way to write it too,

:::so that the main article will then be reflecting ALL facts (not a small selection as now) will become neutral, and strictly according to the existing sources.

:::Regards, Alceste sur son yacht (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Alceste sur son yacht, left a message about this on my talk page. I'm guessing because they saw an unanswered message from me querying a message Donnermar2 left a new user, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Donnermar2&diff=prev&oldid=1291360206].

::::I must admit, I don't understand why Donnermar2 has removed a talk page discussion that Alceste sur son yacht left at Talk:Jean-Paul Gut. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jean-Paul_Gut&diff=prev&oldid=1291592830]. The edits by Alceste sur son yacht were not vandalism, they look like an effort to improve the article and contained references.

::::It looks like Donnermar2 might need to look at Wikipedia:Vandalism and familiarise themselves with what constitutes vandalism. Reading through Wikipedia:Username policy might also help to avoid putting off new users before they start? Knitsey (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would also suggest that @Donnermar2 strike through the level 4 warning they left. Knitsey (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)