Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Administrator changes DanCherek • DatGuy • Femke • Z1720 Aldux • Graham Beards • Nyttend

Interface administrator changes Mr. Stradivarius

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

I want to specifically highlight the last bullet in the newletter, that voting for the WMF Board of Trustees closes on September 6. Only 16% of administrators who are eligible to vote have done so, here's the list of admins who haven't voted yet. This seems rather low to me given how many administrators care about or are affected by decisions the WMF makes (everyone, really). I encourage you to:

• Review the list of candidates
• Watch/read answers to community questions
• Vote!

Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I voted prior to this post and I'm on the list as not voted. When I click the link to vote it said I already have. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few different lists on that page; it looks like you're listed in the "Have voted" section. DanCherek (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...I'll just get my coat. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RickinBaltimore: indeed, you're all set. Thank you for voting! Legoktm (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder, voting closes in about 21 hours at 23:59 UTC today. The vote-tracker says 24% of eligible admins have voted, which is great improvement! ...but we can do better :-) Legoktm (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a proposed expansion of the scope of WP:GS/UYGHUR. The thread is Proposal to Expand GS/uyghur to include the Uyghurs more broadly. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed this discussion for closure on RFCLOSE. Uninvolved closure by an administrator would be appreciated. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Please can I be unblocked from editing Straight Through Processing. I invented the system back in 1992 whilst I was working for the London Stock Exchange. I am have been credited with ther invention by the University Of Cardiff and a number of articles in the UK press. https://theeverydaymagazine.co.uk/opinion/james-karat-and-straight-through-processing https://www.belsizevillage.co.uk/new_stories1.htm https://www.ftni.com/blog/the-journey-to-attaining-the-holy-grail-of-ar https://www.aspectenterprise.com/wp-content/uploads/STP-Inforgraphic.pdf https://hyperleap.com/topic/Straight-through_processing https://issuu.com/dartfordliving/docs/dartford_living_april_2022 https://figshare.cardiffmet.ac.uk/articles/thesis/Operational_efficiency_of_industrialised_information_processing_systems/20272275

Many thanks James Jasperk1975 (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please initiate a new talk page discussion on the proposed content and sources at Talk:Straight Through Processing, as requested by the blocking admin[8]. If consensus forms to add the content, then you can re-request an unblock by placing the following code on your talk page: {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Remember to replace "Your reason here" with why you think you should be unblocked. DrKay (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Jasperk1975: Well, I'd say you need t discuss content and sourcing at Talk:Straight Through Processing

as you have a conflict of interest -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unban appeal from Lightbreather (talk · contribs). Interested editors may give feedback to the committee at here. For the Arbitration Committee, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Lightbreather unban appeal

WP:VPP#RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE, regarding consideration of off-wiki evidence in blocks for on-wiki misconduct, and relating to ArbCom's statement last month about such blocks, may be of general interest to administrators. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked by admin El_C on 16 February 2022 and was unblocked by Deepfriedokra on 7 March 2022 with conditions All new article creations through AfC and vetted by AfC before main spacing. One edit per day per AfD thread. And please, avoid losing your temper/ being rude/ making personal attacks/not assuming good faith when under stress..
Following the restriction, I have created 94 articles "vetted by AfC" out of which a 32KB+ article Operation Bajrang - and Robin Hibu, Viplav Tripathi, G Bidai, Tapan Deka and Sajid Mir under WP:BIO - 2013 Jhankar Saikia mob lynching, and Lynching of Deben Dutta under WP:CRIMINALPROJ, - Ellora Vigyan Mancha and Ajmal Foundation under WP:WPORG.

About my stubs/starts of WP:NPOL and WP:GEOLAND - I had no other to be "an editor as WP:HERE".

I, truly understand that the restrictions imposed on me might not be uplifted. I honor all decisions of the Admins and I am following their advice. Despite my conversations with @Deepfriedokra on their talk page, I have changed my mind to come here for consideration.

To date, I am building Wiki with mostly citations on unsourced articles. I guess my citation work helped Wiki, though I might not be correct.

But restriction for all articles "vetted by AfC" is a bit of an extra hammer for my WP:GEOLAND works.

Hence I appeal to remove some restrictions imposed by admin @Deepfriedokra. For example, WP:GEO and WP:NPOL really don't need much in AfC (where NPP will work). I am appealing to remove my "vetted by AfC" restriction in WP:GEO and WP:NPOL as I have created AfC articles understanding the WP:THREE.

Also creating articles through AfC, I have learned the method of AfC reviewer, which I want to apply. Further, I declare that, whatever the outcome will be here, I shall continue with it. Regards _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 08:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I've received negative feedback from users I trust on removing the AfC requirement in particular, so I sent NT4M here.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  PS> Almost forgot. AfC reviewer is and will be a hard no. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on talk page messages, it looks like the last AfC rejection was in June with many accepted since then. I don't know all ^{(actually, I'm not sure I know any of the background that lead to the AfC requirement)} the background here but, assuming I'm not missing something, the AfC requirement seems to be a waste of reviewer time. PhantomTech[talk] 09:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (Non-administrator comment) @PhantomTech whatever AfC draft I failed to complete, I gave up. Every draft is evident of it. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 09:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If the issue that caused the AfC requirement was creating articles that were effectively drafts in article space then I'd at the very least support allowing NeverTry4Me to self-publish their own drafts once they feel they are ready. Again, I don't know the background, but based on talk page notifications for AfC submissions it seems NeverTry4Me is capable of creating articles that meet Wikipedia's standards and determining when those standards are met. PhantomTech[talk] 09:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @PhantomTech If you're going to look at their talk page messages you need to check the page history. Nevertry4me keeps the messages where their drafts have been accepted and deletes the declines without archiving. They had a draft declined yesterday [9] but deleted the notice with the edit summary - clean-up, nothing important [10]. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (Non-administrator comment) IP vote? Sometimes AfC reviewers skips WP:NPOL which is you are talking about. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 10:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) I checked for declines by searching edit summaries in the last 500 talk page edits, or at least that's what I thought I did. Clearly I did something wrong because not only did I miss the September 7th decline but there was also a decline in July. I have no idea what I did that caused me to miss those but I was under the impression that of the last 500 edits to the talk page, there was only one AfC decline and it was in June. Thank you for pointing this out to me. PhantomTech[talk] 10:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm hesitant to make another claim about accepted/denied AfC drafts, but it looks like the submission decline rate since July has still been low at 2-3%. There seems to be a very sudden drop off in declined drafts around the end of June/beginning of July which could mean that whatever issue was causing the declines has been resolved. That said, I'll reiterate that I don't know the background here, and also note that I've only commented about the AfC restriction so far. Assuming that there's no reason to think that article quality will significantly decline, the AfC requirement question seems to be: is it worth requiring AfC reviewers to review 50-100 draft stubs and frustrating the author to keep one that may not meet WP:GNG out of mainspace? PhantomTech[talk] 11:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakly Leaning Oppose. I think that independent review of your articles is probably still a good thing and a worthwhile exercise. I don't think your English language skills are quite at the level required to be writing new articles directly in main space, e.g. the sentence About my stubs/starts of WP:NPOL and WP:GEOLAND - I had no other options left to be "an editor as WP:HERE". from your appeal doesn't make any sense. There's also been some other editing by you that raises WP:CIR questions in my opinion, e.g. your constant attempts at hat collecting and requesting user rights that you don't qualify for and in many cases don't even seem to understand [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19], your attempt to become an AFC reviewer while banned from creating articles [20] and your recent block for violating this topic ban by accepting your own articles at AFC. I certainly don't think you are in a position at the moment where you should be becoming an AFC reviewer. The AFD restriction definitely needs to remain since we have had recent issues with you bludgeoning discussions here even despite the topic ban [21] and likewise And please, avoid losing your temper/ being rude/ making personal attacks/not assuming good faith when under stress... is clearly still necessary given your response to your most recent block. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Is a topic ban on requesting permissions an option? Their apparent obsession with headwear is silly and a waste of time. – ².O.^Boxing 11:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm curious about this. Is NT4M emailing editors to imply they'll be blocked for being on the wrong end of an AFD decision? As for the lifting of restrictions and wanting to review AFC submissions, the declined article is evidence that NT4M needs more experience. They seem to be under the impression GNG can be ignored if NPOL is satisfied. – ².O.^Boxing 11:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding your ref, you should appreciate that I have helped the article The Sporting Age without !vote on the deletion discussion. I have added refs that helped to survive the article. Was that my fault? _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're avoiding the question. No-one here is asking about whether you added references to the article, you are being asked if you were emailing threats to other editors to try to influence an AFD discussion. @MPGuy2824 as the recipient of the email you should probably be aware of this discussion. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Pinging MPGuy2824 for a clearer consensus. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I shall stop here for a consensus. The AFC reviewers and NPP who reviewed my accepted articles "vetted by AFC" will answer my capability. I am not going to ping any Admin, reviewers, or NPP for it. Let them decide. I shall follow the final decision. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked back through my mail, and that quote from the mail, is accurate, so i'm not entirely sure what else to do here. Personally, I didn't take it as a threat, but more of a friendly "take note". Side note: I monitor new Indian articles and have come across a few of NT4M's village article creations. They are quite acceptable even before the AfC reviewer touches them. Given that, I like Tamzin's suggestion below of repealing the ban, but tentatively for 6 months. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That email is certainly troubling and inappropriate and is a good example of why I should not remove the 1 edit per day AfD restriction unilaterally. Since I'm deferring, I'll let y'all decide what to do with it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra MPGuy2824 already clarified. _-✍ NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 11:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose no reason shown for why he can't use AFC despite not wanting to. The backlog claims are weak. There's no reason he has to have live articles (which require cleanup anyway) right now. Unclear communication style present even in this discussion. If this is ultimately accepted, he cannot have NPP. Articles need too many eyeballs. Star Mississippi 15:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  further lack of communication skills. At User_talk:Deepfriedokra#Is_the_partial_removal_request_ok?, NT4M said I have decided to go to WP:AN. Despite your suggestion, I did so. Please pardon me for that. when what @Deepfriedokra actually said was When the admin who placed a restriction declines to remove it, the next step in the process is for the appellant to ask the Community at WP:AN I think NT4M means well, but lacks the English language communication skills to create articles without external review. It's the poor communication skills that have unfortunately led to many of their prior visits to these boards. Star Mississippi 18:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  (Le sigh.) I think I only said to take it here like three times, but who is counting? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Having blocked NT4M last month for violating this sanction, I don't love the idea of repealing a sanction someone violated so recently. That said, sanctions should be preventative rather than punitive, and I don't see a lot of evidence that this AfC requirement is currently necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. That's all somewhat speculative, though, so where I come down is: Support suspension of AfC requirement, with any uninvolved admin allowed to reïmpose for the next 6 months. The suspended sanction would be listed at WP:EDR for those 6 months. If it were not reïmposed by the end of those 6 months, it would be considered fully repealed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (Non-administrator comment) as per admin Star_Mississippi (I admit that as an Indian I might not be able to compete but I have my xtool as proof, Unclear communication style present even in this discussion indicates a grammar issue by the admin, while supported by PhantomTech, MPGuy2824, (following Tamzin's proposal and an Oppose by an IP user 192.76.8.74 (claimed as as shared Ip) jumped where IP users don't carry any identity but (TOO:BEFORE) comes to WP:CHK. That said, I want to appeal a check on the IP user 192.76.8.74 who had objected here, while the draft Lazarus Sangma is already approved. And live as 192.76.8.74 Hence, as claimed by the IP user. I suspect a SOCK or MEAT puppetry here as I only requested AfC restriction "vetted by AfC" for WP:GEO and WP:NPOL (for which my AfC was never declined or rejected)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeverTry4Me (talk • contribs)

It's not really clear to me what you are trying to say but if you are suggesting the use of the checkuser tool on the IP, that's not going to happen. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me This is written in such poor English it is essentially incomprehensible. I am a long term IP editor and I have never had an account. Either provide some actual evidence of sock puppetry (Which you won't find, because it doesn't exist) instead of the "this person edits as an IP so they must be a sock" nonsense, or redact your allegations of misconduct. If I have misunderstood what you are appealing is is most likely because your appeal is written in broken, mangled English with large sections making no sense. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given today's announcement about the health of Her Majestey, and the fact that she is 96, we may need to face the fact that she could be coming to the end of her long reign. Extra admin eyes on her article, and those closely connected to her would probably be no bad thing. Mjroots (talk) 12:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I semi-protected Operation London Bridge for 3 days for disruptive editing/vandalism. Of course that can be extended should circumstances dictate it but I think 3 days is a good starting point. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II has been extended-confirmed protected indefinitely by DrKay. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do we need to move protect the Charles, Prince of Wales article? I can forsee the article being move warred over once the Queen passes. Move protecting would allow for time to discover the new King's regnal style, at which time the article need be moved once, and once only. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's already move protected (for other reasons). DrKay (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good. Padlock only showing for semi-protection though. That might be an issue for discussion elsewhere. Mjroots (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not guaranteed that it will need to be moved "once and only once". Assuming he takes the name Charles III, will we move the disambiguation currently at Charles III to allow the new king's article to be there (as is the case with every British monarch from George III onwards, other than Queen Victoria), or will it go at Charles III of the United Kingdom? Whichever answer the mover chooses, it will probably be challenged by someone who thinks the other is correct, and there's no way to know which will win. Animal lover |666| 17:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've a feeling that if he sticks with Charles, it will be Charles IX, under Churchill's rule, as there were King Charles's in Scotland before the joining of the English and Scottish Crowns. He could take, for example, George VII as his title. Which is why I suggest waiting for an official announcement. Mjroots (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd agree with that. Charles can pick any regnal name, and we may not know for a few days what that may be. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands: assuming that we currently have a disambiguation at his chosen name, do we move the disambiguation page out of the way and place the king's article there, or do we add "of the United Kingdom" to that name? This could go either way. Animal lover |666| 17:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMvHO, Charles III should be a disambiguation page. We should use the "of the United Kingdom" disambiguator, whatever regnal name is chosen. Mjroots (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. While "English speaking" people are indeed most likely to look for the UK Charles, there is no harm in disambiguating, and they will immediately identify it in the search results. We should avoid regionalising and putting different language wikis out of sync. English-bias should be avoided. El Dubs (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham Palace has just announced the death. BBC News source. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Charles has been king from some time this afternoon. There is no need for an encyclopedia to reflect that until things are clearer. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Truss just gave a statement from Downing Street, named the new King as "King Charles III". Suggest we wait for now on a move to "Charles III of the United Kingdom". Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A request to admins, could the article stop being made until a verified statement has been released by Buckingham Palace with regards to the regnal name of Charles please? Such an announcement will come, but for now one has not been made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, seconds after I made this request, an official statement was actually made that the regnal name is Charles III. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something to keep an eye on: evidently Clarence House is also starting to refer to the former queen as "Elizabeth the Great". Not in an official capacity, it's just something that someone mentioned on the CBC live feed. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that doesn't catch on. Surely the job of monarch and head of state has been, for the last few hundred years, not to be "great", and Elizabeth has performed that part of her job well. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Churchill's rule would still be Charles III, as pre-1707 England & Scotland only have each two monarchs named Charles, who happened to be the same people :) GoodDay (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, compare the following beginning of Charles II of England:

Charles II (29 May 1630 – 6 February 1685) was King of Scotland from 1649 until 1651, and King of England, Scotland and Ireland from the 1660 Restoration of the monarchy until his death in 1685.

with the beginning of the article on his brother, James II of England:

James II and VII (14 October 1633 O.S. – 16 September 1701) was King of England and Ireland as James II, and King of Scotland as James VII

So with James there is a difference between England and Scotland, but with Charles there isn't any. Animal lover |666| 10:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a problem with this article involving a certain user. Isebito is inserting his personal view into the article involving the stylistic origins section. He is using one source to support his claim jazz fusion and "black rock" (a racist, derogatory term used to undermine black music) is part of the stylistic origins of funk even though it clearly isn't. I have used multiple sources to dispute his claim yet he continues to insult me telling me that I am inserting my personal view into the article and I need to prove that his source is incorrect. He's not using the information correctly to justify his reasoning. I have more to explain here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Funk - under disputing new edits

I need someone to help me out with this situation. I'm sick and tired of arguing with this boy. StephenCezar15 (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Boy"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing on that user's pages to indicate their age or their gender -- the gender template returns "they". Since they've been editing for 15 years, if they started editing at the ridiculously early age of 5 y.o. they would be 20 by now, so "boy" hardly seems appropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• On the substance of the message, this seems like a content dispute and StephenCezar15 and Isebito should consider the options at WP:Dispute resolution, including taking the issue to the talk page of a relevant WikiProject or obtaining a third opinion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I'll try over there. StephenCezar15 (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Level 1 desysopping procedures the administrator permissions of Staxringold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have been temporarily removed as a suspected compromised account.

Supporting: L235, Barkeep49, CaptainEek

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Level 1 desysop of Staxringold

Hello.Some editors delete texts and refrences at this article and make a lot of pointless edits. پخش مطلب (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Georgia (country) is where you want to go to discuss content disputes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]