Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard

This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.

  • It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here.
  • Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here.
  • For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
  • Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page.

The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archivessearch)

Open tasks[edit]

XFD backlog
V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
CfD 0 0 0 25 25
TfD 0 0 0 0 0
MfD 0 0 0 0 0
FfD 0 0 0 3 3
RfD 0 0 2 22 24
AfD 0 0 0 3 3

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (11 out of 3873 total) (Purge)
Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
Mahsa Amini protests 2022-09-26 19:49 2022-11-26 19:49 move Sensitive page linked from Main Page, has already been hastily moved once Tamzin
Draft:Rohit Mandar 2022-09-25 05:28 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz
Kanwalpreet Singh (actor) 2022-09-24 02:28 2022-12-24 02:28 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
KanwalPreet Singh 2022-09-24 02:27 2022-12-24 02:27 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
DeskProto (The Non-Machinist's Cam) 2022-09-24 02:10 2022-10-01 02:10 move Averting move-warring during an AFD Liz
Suraj Mal 2022-09-23 19:46 2023-09-23 19:46 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; WP:GSCASTE Abecedare
Jackiey Budden 2022-09-23 16:52 indefinite edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: Constant recreations of the standalone article, against the verdict of the two AfDs. Per WP:RFPP EdJohnston
Death of Mahsa Amini 2022-09-23 07:57 2022-11-23 07:57 move restore autoconfirmed; move ECP for 2 months as a high-profile page likely to get further undiscussed moves otherwise Tamzin
Moscow 2022-09-23 07:18 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement - WP:ARBEE. Anarchyte
Thunivu 2022-09-23 06:54 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: work on Draft:Thunivu and move here when ready Materialscientist
Frankie Foster 2022-09-23 03:50 2027-09-23 03:50 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts CambridgeBayWeather

Unblock request of Nauriya[edit]

The following is the unblock request of Nauriya, which requires a community consensus to remove. I am transferring it here as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Wikipedia community and admins,

I hope you are all well doing the things you like. I am also doing well. I am here again to ask for another unblock request as I did more than two years ago. In last two years I have tried to keep myself busy with other things alongside work, and I have written contents for various channels and mediums but it has always been Wikipedia where I took my first leap of faith from, when I started my journey 8 years ago. In the past two years I have really tried to appeal for an unblock, but thought it hard over if I am ready or not and after careful and long consideration, I am requesting my unblock for your kind attention.

During my time off from Wikipedia I have learned to make better decisions for me to grow as a better person with better understanding and knowledge. As you can see my above request and the reason there, why I was banned, and why I was held accountable - I once again apologize my mistake and I promise I will show myself as a better contributor to this platform. I sincerely hope that admins and other community members overseeing this request will consider it positively and give me a chance to show that I have grown from my past mistake. Please give me a chance to prove myself. Thank you. Nauriya, Let's talk - 20:08, 20 September 2022 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Unblock per WP:UB CHEAP. Seems like enough time has passed. Miniapolis 22:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unblock per Miniapolis plus WP:AGF. I just read through the discussion in which they were banned. They violated copyright and they socked. I'm not saying those are good things, but in the scheme of things, there's much worse things they could have done. And it seems like they understand what they did wrong and have made a commitment to not do those things again. That's all we ask. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unblock. I've taken a look at the previous discussion (which others may also wish to take a look at), and the user's responses to questions regarding copyright, and while I'm hesitant about an unblock given the severity of the case, it has been five (maybe a little less or more) years since the original block by consensus. A lot of change can happen in 5 years. However, if unblocked, I would expect that the user in question would take great care in ensuring they adhere strictly to the copyright policies, lest they end up blocked again for copyvios. EggRoll97 (talk) 03:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC) Oppose. I've recently been provided with a slew of new information that I had not originally reviewed. The only way that I could support the request given the new information that I have overlooked previously is if an experienced editor was willing to review all of Nauriya's edits following unblock for copyvio. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose The unblock request fails to address major problems such as massive copyright violations, meat puppetry and paid editing. This unblock request is the same as the one that was rejected 2 years ago,[1] and it fails to give confidence that how disruption won't happen again. The concerns that were raised last time haven't been addressed even now. I am yet to see this user address the repeated recreation of Wasi Shah. @Miniapolis, EggRoll97, and RoySmith: See the talk page section here where I had pointed out misleading claims by Nauriya,[2] and his reply was just as misleading.[3] Concerns raised by Moneytrees last time seem relevant.[4] Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Nauriya (started by Fram) is still huge and far from being completed. Maybe an alternative solution would be a topic ban from WP:ARBIPA at least because that's where this user was entirely disruptive, but since copyright violation is a broader concern, it is entirely possible that it will happen wherever this editor would edit. Lorstaking 03:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That won't address the copyvios either. MER-C 18:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Lorstaking: Thank you for pointing out the copyright page. Seems to have slipped my mind (trout me if you must). I've changed my vote to oppose given the slew of information presented, though I do wonder about unblocking with requirements to have potential edits reviewed by an experienced editor for copyvios. It would require someone to actually review the edits to be made, however, so this may not be an appropriate solution. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - copyright problems not addressed. MER-C 18:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose I would have expected someone who has been blocked multiple times for copyright violations across several different accounts to at least try to show in their unblock request that they now understand our copyright policy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose: It doesn't appear that any of the stated concerns above have been addressed so far, and these promises to reform were also made before the community ban was enacted. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose as this doesn't address the copyright concerns. Unblocking people with a long history of copyright problems is very problematic anyway because it's unlikely that anyone would notice if the problems continued. Reviewing every edit someone makes for copyright concerns is not a productive use of editor time, it's also very tedious and not infallible. Hut 8.5 18:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose due to failure to address copyright concerns. dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 21:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

বেঙ্গল ইন্টেলিজেন্স[edit]

This title is in blacklist (Creation of this page (Draft:বেঙ্গল ইন্টেলিজেন্স) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists.) but a Bangladeshi business has registered itself with this title with the local government and Customs, Excise & VAT commissionerate, Jessore, Bangladesh.

Requesting administrators to allow or unblock this title from local or global blacklist. Bekub (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bekub: We generally use latin characters for titles. Draft the article there, and if it gets accepted then you can request বেঙ্গল ইন্টেলিজেন্স be removed from the blacklist to make it a redirect. –MJLTalk 06:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for replying.
I've prepared this draft User:Bekub/বেঙ্গল ইন্টেলিজেন্স - Wikipedia.
Can you let me know what exactly I can do next to publish it? Bekub (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia. An article here has to be understood by readers of English. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bekub: well, for starters, you'd need to draft it in English, as you may have seen from the AfC decline notice a moment ago. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bekub: Regretfully, the subject of your article does not seem to meet the notability criteria. On English Wikipedia, articles on any business should confirm to the notability criteria set in WP:NORG. Please note that Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promotion, and we do not accept articles on businesses just because they exist. Any article about a business that does not indicate notability may be speedily deleted. Also, since this is the English Wikipedia, so only English-language articles are accepted. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 14:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice that bn:বেঙ্গল ইন্টেলিজেন্স is already speedily deleted, under bn:উইকিপিডিয়া:CSD#স১১. Please note that Bengali Wikipedia also follows the article policies of English Wikipedia, so anything that does not confirm to the standards of English Wikipedia will not meet the standards of Bengali Wikipedia either. CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {CX}) 14:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

In order to reaffirm the independence of the RfC authorized by the Conduct in deletion-related editing case, and to ratify the moderators' decision to hold two sequential RfCs, Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") is amended as follows:
  • The second point is amended to read as follows: "The moderator(s), with community feedback, will be responsible for developing the questions presented. The moderator(s) may decide to split the questions over two sequential requests for comment; in the event that they choose to do so, the closing panel will close both RfCs. In the event that a member of the closing panel is no longer available to close the second request for comment, that member will be replaced by the Arbitration Committee upon request."
  • The sixth point is amended to read as follows: "Any appeals of a moderator decision or of the panel close may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. The community retains the ability to amend the outcomes of the RfC through a subsequent community-wide request for comment."

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJLTalk 16:47, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 1 of the Lightbreather case is suspended for a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may block Lightbreather (talk · contribs) for any of the behaviors identified in the Findings of Fact or for failure to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations as an Arbitration Enforcement action for up to 1 year. Any block 3 months or longer should be reported to the Arbitration Committee for automatic review. The committee will consider presented evidence and statements before deciding by motion what, if any, actions are necessary, up to and including reinstating a site ban. In the event that no administrator imposes such a block, the remedy will automatically lapse after twelve months. Restrictions detailed in remedies 2-6 remain in place until actively appealed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Lightbreather

Discussion at WP:HD § Editing Photos[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:HD § Editing Photos. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe an admin could take a look at this discussion and possible clarify things further as needed. It's a civil discussion at the moment, but the OP is a new editor who might not be familiar some Wikipedia basics and they seem to be taking things personally and might be getting frustrated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block evader[edit]

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

Special:Contributions/Pickle troll (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

a user delete important source from University of Munich in order to delete the article as without sources.[edit]

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

I would like your attention please.

The user at at the music article josef vitzthum deletes constantly a source from a German university in order to delete the article. At her profile, it clearly the political or nationalistic interest, against European free thought and against of record important music historic events.

please pay attention on that source. Of course many things are unknown yet, but that's why there is encyclopedia. To bring to the people free information as a title, composer, historical info about the piece and performance. It is not possible, from a user to delete a source about composer and then to indicate as not enough academic.

The principal source is the manuscript from 19th century, and secondary sources are the academic articles with DOI.

Thank you for your time, MaxLux8 (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have linked a user for the Greek-language Wikipedia. This is an English-language administrators' noticeboard, and has no authority there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although the editor did create a draft here (Draft:Adagio e Rondo - Josef Vitzthum) which was rejected three times, and then created it in mainspace anyway (Adagio e Rondo (Josef Vitzthum: 1815-1884) ‎). Since Vizthum does not have an article here, I suspect it probably fails WP:CSD#A9 as well as any other notability guidelines. Can anyone see any reason why I shouldn't just delete it? Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No obvious reason not to delete it that I can see. The new article has the same issues as the draft, and copying it to mainspace didn't make them go away. MaxLux8 needs to work on the draft, and convince people that the subject meets notability criteria. With better sourcing, and evidence that anyone beyond the rediscoverer and performer of this long-lost oboe piece consider it 'crucial'. Or even worthy of comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've deleted it - and the four(!) redirects to it. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unban request from CheatCodes4ever[edit]

CheatCodes4ever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Was originally blocked as WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR per this ANI discussion, and has been blocked for socking, and lost talk page access more than once. A repeat checkuser will be useful. (Yamla found no socking in June.) Has requested unblocking at UTRS appeal #62686, and I have restored the ability to edit here for the unban request. User will be able to respond directly to concerns here. I have copied the request over from UTRS below.

Alright, I am trying my block appeal again. Note that due to a small character maximum in this text box, I am going to have to ask that administrators reviewing this and anyone else reading this read my previous unblock requests to hear other parts of the story. I would rewrite the whole thing again but I cannot, so I will do this instead.

Basically, I got blocked from Wikipedia for not being here to build an encyclopedia and abuse of multiple accounts. As I mentioned, abuse of multiple accounts is already covered in previous requests, though I will get onto the NOTHERE reasoning. I was community banned due to my issues with adding sources to pages and creating articles for non-notable subjects. Users had also given me advice before about this, however I did not take the advice very well, which led users to believe I was not here to build an encyclopedia. As for the addition of content without sources, I often forgot to add sources, which was why I often forgot to add them.

Also, for the record regarding sources that I do use but should not, I do now know that I should not use stores as sources as they are considered original research. As for creating articles on non-notable topics, I now understand the general notability guideline (WP:GNG), as the rule is that a topic is presumed to be notable if it has recieved significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject:

1. "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources, creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. This means that meeting this policy does not mean it definitely deserves its own article, but that it is assumed that it does.
2. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. This means that the topic is covered significantly and is not just mentioned trivially (ex. a long paragraph about something is signficant coverage, but solely mentioning a topic is not).
3. "Reliable" means that the sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. This means that sources must have fact-checking by editors and must not be self-published.
4. "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. This means that sources are needed to make something notable, and these sources should be secondary sources.
5. "Independent of the subject" excludes works published by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. This means that things like advertisements, announcements by the subject or someone affiliated, or anything else that is made by someone who is affiliated with the subject.
Also, I will say for the record, I no longer believe that kappaphobia is a notable topic for Wikipedia, as the source I used was anonymous and was also not reliable for medical information. As for not listening to advice, I will say two things regarding that: 1. Until late 2019, I did not read my messages on my talk page. Although I did see some of them through notifications, most of them I ignored, because I did not use talk back then. 2. When I did eventually start reading my talk page messages, although I did read the advice, I admittingly never really took it very seriously. I did read one policy when it was shown to me, though that's about it. Also, as for not using my talk page to appeal my block, I apologise for doing that, but I was asking questions that I thought I might have needed to know before I could appeal. Anyway, in conclusion, I would like to be unblocked from Wikipedia.

carried from utrs. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still see no evidence of block evasion recently, based on checkuser data. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thank you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD shrunken text fix requested[edit]

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

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 September 24, many entries at the bottom of the page are in small text. Can this be fixed? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. DanCherek (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Staxringold restoration of permissions[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation has determined that Staxringold (talk · contribs) is back in control of his account. The Arbitration Committee has corresponded with Staxringold and, based on all available information, is assured that he will follow appropriate personal security practices in the future. The Committee therefore restores his administrative access.

The Arbitration Committee is of the view that additional clarity about the Committee's return-of-adminship practices relating to account security is necessary. The Committee therefore invites interested community members to comment on relevant motion.

Support: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, Enterprisey, L235, Maxim, Primefac, Worm That Turned, Wugapodes

Oppose: Cabayi, Donald Albury, Izno

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim(talk) 17:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Staxringold restoration of permissions

Checkuser needed[edit]

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

Would someone with access to the checkuser tool be willing to email me? I filed this a while back but while disruption is ongoing, it hasn't moved forward. An admin moved it out of the Checkuser Requests, with instructions to contact someone through email if I want it run. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checkusers will not publicly disclose the connection between a user and an IP address per the privacy policy. We will also not disclose it to you via email, since you have not signed the relevant NDAs. Furthermore, I don't see any checkuser likely running that check since it would likely fall afoul of the checkuser policy. Cheers. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you read the CU's comment at the SPI where I was specifically told to email a CU privately? I don't want anything disclosed to me, I wanted to provide evidence so someone can do something about ongoing disruption. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you bringing this here? If you haven't yet e-mailed a CheckUser, then do so.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know any checkusers... which is why I asked for one of them to email me. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 03:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've lost interest in trying to help resolve this situation at this point, so I'll just close the discussion. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 03:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • @EnPassant: You can find a list of checkusers at WP:CONTACTCU. Sometimes when you're at a loss of what to do when it comes to Wikipedia, searching by adding WP: to what you want to find out (e.g. WP:CHECKUSER) often leads you to a page containing such information. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Ford489 db-g7 deletions[edit]

About a year ago, User:Ford489 was indefblocked for sockpuppetry. On the way out, he tagged 37 articles he had written for speedy deletion as {{db-g7}}. Looking at the articles themselves, they seem fine to me, and I would be inclined to undelete these. Is there any reason not to? BD2412 T 00:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • On further inspection, some (but not all) of these were nominated for deletion as being non-notable; others are clearly notable (a couple of regional governors, for example). The speedy tagging circumvented deletion discussions that were occurring. BD2412 T 00:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I was the one who filed the sockpuppetry case at the time, and boy was Ford489 prolific after their first sock ban in 2015. They were dead-set on making their entire lineage represented on en-wiki, and went fairly undercover for six years. After I filed at SPI in late 2021 (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/2636z/Archive), I went through a series of G5s since their article creations were made in circumvention of their ban, and excluded from the speedy deletion process all articles that could have qualified for WP:NPOL at the time. However, worth noting that 95% of the sources in the articles are primary, passing mentions, or no mentions at all of the subject in question. So if one chooses to restore the 37 articles (or any of the G5'd articles), I'd caution to take a deep look at the sources. Pilaz (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Appealing to the community's collective memory: who was the editor who got into hot water for their editing on articles dealing with circumcision? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you thinking of Stix1776? I handed down an indefinite topic ban for edits to circumcision, partly based on oversighted material. Why do you ask? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Hans Adler and Circumcision ? Bon courage might know who you're thinking of. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Circumcision? I've heard of a WikiGnome but never a WikiMohel! On a serious note are you perhaps thinking about User:HRS395 or their sock Sugarcube73? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions. I think it was this editor I was thinking of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]