Jump to content

User talk:JBW/Archive 80

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 78Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82→Archive 84

ForeverUnknown151515

And now for what might as well be your weekly report of ForeverUnknown151515's behavior: They're still ranting. - ZLEA T\C 01:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@ZLEA: Sigh 😕 ... What kind of mind must someone have to dedicate themself so vehemently and aggressively 👿 to something so trivial? Maybe it would be kinder 😌 to impose a WP:NOTHERE block to put them out of their misery 😰. However, on the whole I still think that might just lead to new sockpuppets, and it's easier to watch 👀 the one we know about. See you next week for your next report, perhaps... JBW (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Question for Administrator - Wars of The Three Kingdoms

My request to admin as to the possibility of changing the above article title proposal to match the revised proposal on its Talk Page was certainly not intended as an invitation to abuse anybody's admin powers. I am frankly baffled as to why you chose to describe it in those terms and would value as explanation. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Horatius At The Bridge: It seems that I may have misunderstood your question. I have now posted a revised answer to the request. JBW (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks I'm sorry that my wording was not clear and led to the misunderstanding. Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Somebody really hates God

These are all obviously the same person:

  • 79.70.25.98
  • 79.70.17.150
  • 78.146.208.205
  • 82.132.233.255
  • 79.70.22.12
  • 82.132.233.213

–Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Yes, and others too, such as 92.25.152.73. Difficult. Some of the editing comes from IP ranges with a significant amount of constructive editing, making range blocks unattractive, but blocking individual IP addresses will no doubt just result in their moving to another one. Likewise, protecting articles will probably just lead to the vandal moving to other articles. Nevertheless, I've placed some blocks and protected some articles, on the principle that placing obstacles in their way may at least slow down their vandalism. JBW (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

Dunno who 85.92.168.0/22 belongs to but they're certainly problematic. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, Skywatcher. There's quite a lot of variation over different parts of that IP range, with some parts never having been used, some parts used for a while several years ago and then no more, some parts used only in brief bursts and some over a longer period, some parts of the editing looking like school vandalism but some not, and so on. I decided to go for a number of blocks on smaller ranges, which together cover all the recent vandalism (if I haven't accidentally missed any), I could have just slapped a fairly long-term block on the whole range, because the total amount of constructive editing from the range over the years has been absolutely tiny compared to the bad stuff, but sometimes long blocks on large IP ranges lead to criticism, so I decided against it. JBW (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I just go by what's listed on the WHOIS and let you admins narrow down the range(s). –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: Yes, that's fine. I wasn't making any kind of comment about how you presented the information, just telling you my thoughts about it because I thought you might be interested. (If you aren't interested then let me know, and I'll stop posting comments in answer to your messages, and just act on them.) JBW (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I like seeing comments, lets me know that you've made progress regarding such things. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

Holiday cheer
Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022. MarnetteD|Talk 02:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Please help! Awoyungbo Olugbenga page was speedily deleted

Good day. Sorry to bother you. Recently a page titled Awoyungbo Olugbenga was speedily deleted for multiple reasons. Please could you kindly state the reasons, so the same mistake wont be made. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkyly (talk • contribs) 14:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Mikkyly: There is now a fairly detailed explanation on your talk page, but briefly the problems are as follows:
  1. There is nothing to indicate that the person concerned is significant enough to justify being the subject of an encyclopaedia article. (Speedy deletion criterion A7)
  2. The page consisted largely, if not entirely, of text previously published on another website. It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. (Speedy deletion criterion G12)
  3. Some editors felt that the page was excessively promotional. (Speedy deletion criterion G11) Personally, I thought that it was somewhat promotional in tone, but I didn't give that as one of the reasons for deletion; however, others evidently gave more weight to that concern. JBW (talk) 17:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much JBW. This was really helpful. Would you advise i give the article another shot? Keeping the corrections and guidelines you mentioned in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkyly (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Season's greetings and Merry Christmas to you and your family. Have a wonderful holiday season. Cheers! RV (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Greetings

Pahang Timor (federal constituency)

My apologies on that one, I mean to simply revert the sock, not CSD it. Onel5969 TT me 02:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Trolling by a block-evading editor

Free timmy96, my guy did nothing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.30.2.4 (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi JBW! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this action:

Hello JBW, and happy new year, I hope you're doing well. Anyway, I've noticed you made a typo when you blocked Tokyo is AsshoIe, when you misspelled "username" and instead wrote "usernam". I understand that it might've been a mistake, but I do think the typo should be fixed. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@DarkMatterMan4500:  Done JBW (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, that's better. Hope you have a happy new year. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 11:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism report

Dear admin JBW, It seems that the WP:Vandalism was done by User:Persia on Reza Goodary page. He has blocked this page by using admin access in Persian Wikipedia. It also attempted to sabotage the Wikidata, as a result was blocked by an admin. It also puts a speedy delete tag on other sister projects as Wikiquote, Commons. JA-Wiki, KO-Wiki, UR-Wiki, RU-Wiki, IT-Wiki, PNB-Wiki, FR-Wiki, DE-Wiki deleted by him request. [1] A large-scale sabotage appears to have taken place because of personal bias. 223.204.221.41 (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Probably should go on Stewards requests/Global on metawiki if it’s a compromised account. Nigos (talk | contribs) 13:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) JBW This might have to do with the shenanigans on multiple wikis over Reza Goodary and how it (wikidata entry, simplewiki article, commons, etc) might have been created by a spamfarm or something. May want to take the IP's message with a pinch of salt. Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Nigos: I'm not at all sure what to think of this. The IP message is very unclear, and my first impulse was to just ignore it, but "Persia" has made some rather odd edits, including what looks on the face of it like vandalism at Wikidata, so there may be some substance to the IP editor's concerns. Maybe the best thing would be to refer it to Stewards, as you suggested, and let them try to sort it out. JBW (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
It might've been a misguided attempt at trying to clean up some socking: [1]. For example MMA Kid is globally locked for being an LTA, and Mohammad Reza Goodary and Reza Goodary are what the LTA seems to be focusing on. However we probably should bring it up to the stewards just in case, maybe it'll help with the mess created. Pinging Persia just in case Nigos (talk | contribs) 15:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
(Not Persia, and I hope I'm not too late) This IP appears to be part of a crosswiki spam operation about Reza Goodary – more details are at here on Meta. In addition, a very closely linked IP, 223.204.222.25, has been spamming crosswiki, and their WHOISes and geolocations are practically identical. I think it's probably an attempt by the UPEs to combat the cleanup. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 16:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nigos, Giraffer, and Persia: It looks to me as though some or all of you know more about this than I do, so I will leave it to you to decide whether to contact stewards about it. However, I have had a look at editing history to see whether there's anything I can do as an English Wikipedia administrator. It is clear that the same person has been active for some time on various IP addresses in the ranges 223.204.128.0/17 and 27.55.64.0/20. Unfortunately there is far too much editing on the second range which seems unconnected to this editor for a range block to be considered. There is a smaller but still significant amount of unconnected editing on the first range, and I might consider a very short block. However, that probably wouldn't do much good, as it would be for a short time in proportion to the amount of time the editor has been active, and it wouldn't do anything to stop editing from the other IP range. I shall protect the article Reza Goodary for a while. If any of you knows of any other page where you think page protection would be justifies, let me know, and I'll consider whether to do so. Other than that, I don't see anything I can do. JBW (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC))
@Nigos, Giraffer, and Persia: One more thought. Since I think a fairly short term block on 223.204.128.0/17 would not be out of the question, if you see any return to disruptive editing from that range please feel welcome to let me know. I don't think a block would be justified now, because the editor in question hasn't edited for 5 days, whereas there have been edits from other editors since then, up to a few hours ago, but that may be subject to review if the editor concerned returns to editing from that IP range. JBW (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the protection. I agree with you that there isn't much more than can be done right now (nor would it have much impact on the intended targets), but I'll let you know if they resume. Regards, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 18:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Persia: I see that in that list you also include some IP addresses in the range 49.237.0.0/19, which I hadn't noticed. There certainly have been quite a number of edits from our friend in that range. JBW (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Barrackpore House and Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy (SVSPA)

deletion of article. copyright reference has been given in reference already. the site that has been mentioned. no infringment intended. let me know how to reverse the deletion. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. George John (talk • contribs) 14:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Dr. George John: If you want to write an article about Barrackpore House, you need to write in your own words; we do not allow just copying other content. It is wholly insufficient for you to claim there was "no infringment intended". Since you're a new editor, you shouldn't be writing new articles, at all. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dr. George John: Giving a reference to a page doesn't exonerate you from the requirement not to use someone else's work without their permission. Even if you had explicitly stated that you had copied the material, which you didn't, that would not be all right. Telling everybody that you are copying someone else's work doesn't make it acceptable to copy that work. Also, while I believe that, as you say, there was no infringement intended, what matters is that you did infringe copyright, whether you intended to or not. JBW (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


the article on SVSPA has also been deleted now. I work at the academy and represent it. The history section has been taken directly from the official website because that was the intention. if its impossible to make official representations on wikipedia please restore the article so that i may rewrite it in my own words. idont have the copy of the article with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. George John (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. George John: I will email you the source text of the article. Since you work at the academy, you should read Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest before doing any more editing related to it. JBW (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

deletions

Could you please email me the article on barrackpore house too. Also is there anyway i could share the articles with you before publishing so that it can be vetted beforehand for any issues. Regarding COI, the SVSPA is a government institution and I am a government servant. I am currently undergoing training here. Am I not allowed to write about it? or do I need any special disclaimer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. George John (talk • contribs) 15:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You just need to put a notice on your user page to declare the COI. Nigos (talk | contribs) 01:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully the end

A few days ago, ForeverUnknown151515 claimed to have "FOUND ANOTHER WAY AROUND" the Top Chef Gotit protection. Today they added a "retired" template to their talk page. I'd like to think this means they've given up, but I've added the redirect to my watchlist to be safe. - ZLEA T\C 15:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@ZLEA: I thought you were being unduly optimistic in saying "Hopefully the end", and sure enough our friend has created another account, as you can see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&username=ForeverUnknown151515115
I thought of blocking the account, but I decided not to, because that would just give them a chance to create a new sockpuppet for when they want to edit again. Better to let them keep this one, and block it as soon as it edits. JBW (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Good call. After all, what good is a preventative measure that prevents nothing. - ZLEA T\C 02:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@ZLEA: I didn't have long to wait: Special:Contributions/ForeverUnknown151515115. JBW (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Requests

Hello JBW! Just summarising my requests

1. Kindly go through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGJ/sandbox (I'm sure it may not be perfect, but hope it's above wikipedia's threshold for publishing of articles). Please let me know where improvements are needed.

2. Please consider emailing me the article on Barrackpore House which had been deleted. I had spent a considerable amount of time editing that.

Thank you 03:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC).

Hello again. Please email me the article on Barrackpore House which was deleted. DGJ (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@DGJ: My apologies. I meant to get back to you before this. I'll email the source of that page right away, and then I'll have a look at the other one. JBW (talk) 13:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank You JBW! Received the email. DGJ (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

2601:644:8D81:8690:F4B0:574C:66E:D9C2

I don't know if they hopped IPs by now but they should have referenced WP:TRUTH rather than acting like a conspiracy theorist. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: You know, I actually think there's an element of truth behind their thoughts concerning "largely structured by and embedded within already existing cultural anxieties about the figure of ‘white trash’, reflecting both the dominance and precariousness of white social position", and if they tried to express that element of truth in a calm and reasoned way they might get somewhere. Instead, they express themself in a way which buries any possible reasonable point under a heap of such utter nonsense as "Peer-reviewed is just leftist double speak for 'things I agree with'", thereby ensuring that nobody will actually listen to anything they say. However, I suppose people like that aren't actually interested in getting anyone to listen to what they say; they just want the satisfaction of knowing that they have had their rant and they know they are "right". In fact I seriously suspect that they actually prefer it if people don't listen and aren't persuaded to their point of view, because to them the very fact of being in aggressive confrontation with people they regard as the "enemy" is itself what they are after, rather than any wish to persuade anyone to their point of view. Sigh... JBW (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

PAustin4thApril1980

168.132.10.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is likely PAustin4thApril1980, with similar edits to Australian-based content and "Murder of..."/"Disappearance of..." articles. Possible other socks are 168.132.10.250, 1.136.104.129, 1.136.106.242 and 1.136.107.226. AldezD (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Kurt Lopez-davis World's Smartest Man (Not hoax)

Please reinstate my lost Wikipedia page, Kurt Lopez-davis. I have the world's highest IQ, but everyone refuses to acknowledge this. I have run to the Czech republic searching to find someone smarter than myself only to find someone with a 398 IQ who is only 16 years old.

For the sake of the world and knowledge, please accept my Wikipedia article. I am the creator of The Level IQ test and I have recorded my best thoughts: 416 IQ thinking.

https://pastebin.com/csMgaHJd https://pastebin.com/Y2vDggXq

Qail97 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Qail97: Even if you could provide a reliable source supporting your claim (not something you've written yourself, or a blog or web forum) you don't come anywhere remotely near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Wikipedia is not a medium for any kind of promotion, including publicising yourself. There are many web sites where you can boast about your claimed IQ, but Wikipedia isn't one of them, whether it's true or not. JBW (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Review

Hello JBW. i have replied to your Post on my talk page. Please let me know if any more alterations are needed. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGJ (talk • contribs) 18:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Fresh sock

Wikicircuit has returned with a new sock. Account was created a day after that last block (IPs) solely to move Jyothika down in the cast (just like in Rhythm), which is against the on-screen credits. You had blocked [2][3] in Rhythm.--2409:4073:2095:778B:34FB:B7C8:B016:7D1F (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure this is a sock of Wikicircuit? The new account's edits are not exactly like those of Wikicircuit, and the most striking thing about Esther Jenisha's editing is that the editor appears not to understand how wikilinks work. The editor fumbled around, apparently trying to get it right, and eventually abandonning it wrongly done, whereas Wikicircuit is an experienced editor, who knows perfectly well how to format a wikilink. JBW (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
This person knows how the sock puppet investigations works as they have seen their rival Uma Narmada's cases who have plenty of accounts and how they were caught red-handed.--2409:4073:2095:778B:34FB:B7C8:B016:7D1F (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
You may be right. Experienced sockpuppeteers can sometimes be quite adept at avoiding the usual tell-tale signs of sockpuppetry. However, at present there isn't any evidence definite enough to justify any action, so it will have to be a matter of waiting to see if the new account does anything more. Please feel very welcome to contact me if you do see any more, either from the same account or otherwise, and I will consider what you say, in conjunction with the evidence which you have already pointed out. JBW (talk) 12:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit of the bale revolution page

Hello sir, how are you? You might recall that I had made an edit to the bale revolt page a short while ago and that you removed my edit claiming that it was "a personal opinion". I want to make 2 points clear: 1. I am an Ethiopian highschool student who recently had an assignment on this same topic for which I used this same page as source and the phrase "colonial regime" led to an extensive debate with peers and the teacher leading me to make the edit. 2. The reason I changed "colonial" to "tyrannical" was because colonialism and regional tyranny and unjust rule are two different things wherever you go there is bound to have been tyranny, even in Europe, but not all tyrants are colonists. It is for this reason that I believe an edit is required. I would love to hear your opinions on the matter.

You can reach me through https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Erebus_the_*_* And I apologize if I've disregarded any Wikipedia etiquettes. Erebus the * * (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Erebus the * *: Wikipedia seeks to present material from a neutral point of view, and not to reflect the opinions of its editors, no matter how reasonable you or I or any other editor may think those opinions are. If you can provide references to reliable sources which state that the regime was "tyrannical", then that assessment can be included in the article, but even then it should be indicated as a view held by some people, not stated as a fact, unless reliable sources indicate that that view is more or less universal among reliable independent sources. The fact that someone who edits Wikipedia believes that is an appropriate description is not enough, nor the fact that someone who edits Wikipedia tells us that they know other people who regard it as an appropriate description. In fact if we did allow article content on no ore basis than that someone who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account says so, then we would have to accept all sorts of tota rubbish, because many people come along and post rubbish here, unfortunately. JBW (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Update

Hello. Any update would be appreciated.

DGJ (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

Portions of 207.160.0.0/17 (MOREnet) are already individually blocked, should extend to the entire range. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Portions of 37.153.122.0/23 are already individually blocked, extending to the entire range should discourage the disruptive hopper without much collateral damage. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: Yes, except that all the editing actually comes from the much smaller range 37.153.123.64/28, so I've blocked that for a week. It would actually usually more helpful if you made new requests in new talk page sections, so that they were at or near the bottom of the page, and therefore easier to find. JBW (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

109.176.0.0/16 (Okehampton College students?) –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Kill? No. Block, maybe

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/K1LLmememe –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

VPN/proxy blocks

I saw your comment over on User talk:2A02:2F07:4400:3900:A424:5385:CB67:5D99. There is indeed a third possibility. The user was (likely) recently using a proxy or a VPN. That triggers a block that lasts for 24 hours. If you want me to spill the WP:BEANS, send me an email and I'll go into more technical information as I understand it. This is a comparatively new "feature", it was added roughly a year ago (but time has no meaning during COVID times so I may be way off on that estimate). --Yamla (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
(because I think I followed your instructions but it's been a long day and I'm undercaffeinated) --Yamla (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Marathi Channel TRP

Hey - was the deletion of this article Draft:Marathi Channel TRP requested by a named user or an IP? This has only been edited by various IP socks of the banned user Yeu aga maj. I'm about 95% sure they're using a new named account and wondering if this is the final nail for the SPI report. Of course, I think they really just moved the content to Draft:Marathi TRP to remove the socking history of the other article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ravensfire: Thank you for that information, which was very helpful. Speedy deletion of the page was requested by an IP editor, on the grounds of creation by a block-evading editor. They didn't say what block was being evaded, but the IP address was in the same range as that which created the page, and I was pretty confident that it was the same person. Naturally, I was rather suspicious, but I could find no information to clarify things, so I decided that the best I could do was for the moment go along with the deletion request, and then wait and see if anything else turned up. What did turn up was, of course, your message above. I saw your mention of an SPI case, so I found that and checked it out. Once I knew where to look, things became a lot clearer. I am virtually certain that over a very long period almost all (or perhaps even actually all) of the editing from a fairly wide IP range has been Yeu aga maj, including the creation and editing of that draft and then the request for deletion, so I have placed a fairly long block on that IP range, as well as deleting the new draft which you mentioned. Why anyone would request deletion of their own draft on the grounds that they were evading a block and then re-create it under another title, I have no idea, but I have many times seen equally strange-looking actions from sockpuppeteers. In fact such strange behaviour is one of the ways they give themselves away. You may well know more about the history of this editor than I do, so if you have any more potentially useful information about it please let me know, including telling me if you think I am wrong. JBW (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Extremely lengthy block

Hello! I noticed that you recently blocked an IP for 7 years (which would be until 2029). I have to say, that is probably the longest amount of time I've seen a user get blocked for (outside of indefinite). This made me wonder, what is the longest amount of time you can block any user for before you have to make it indefinite, or is there no real limit? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf: Many years ago, in private conversation, someone who in my opinion was one of the best contributors Wikipedia has ever had told me that in his opinion all school IP addresses should be kept indefinitely blocked. At the time I thought he was getting it out of proportion, but over the years I have come round to thinking he had a point. Time and time again I've seen school IP addresses blocked for 31 hours, then for 24 hours, then 48, ... etc etc ... eventually for a year, and each time a block expires a flood of vandalism comes, continuing until it gets drawn to the attention of an administrator who blocks again. Some school IP addresses also provide some good contributions, but most of them provide either 100% or near to 100% vandalism and other harmful editing. I have therefore come more and more towards thinking that very long school blocks are a good idea. I don't go as far as the person I mentioned above, however, and I have never before imposed a block as long as this one. To answer your question, as far as I know there's no specific limit, but a block as long as the one you mention may well raise criticisms, so I will reduce it. I have, however, seen IP blocks even longer than that, though very rarely. JBW (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
ALright sounds good. I don't necessarily object to the length of the block (especially seeing that school IP has been abused years in the past) hwoever you are the admin so you have the final decision. I myself pretty much started editing from a school IP... although I was never able to actually edit as an IP due to my school's IP address being blocked until October of this year (and who knows, maybe I'll end up warning some of my fellow classmates once the block expires) and I had to go to I think Mediawiki in order to create my account due to account creation being disabled, so I"m kinda proof not all school IPs are bad. I think really the reason why school IPs tend to always vandalize Wikipedia is because either the students are bored in class and wanna screw around on Wikipedia or one of their classmates bet that they couldn't edit a Wikipedia article.... to which they find out they can and then get blocked for vandalism. Either way, I don't think it's the teachers vandalizing Wikipedia. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: Wikipedia didn't exist until long after I had left school, so I never had that experience, but I did have an experience rather like it. I started out as an IP editor, but then I found that the IP address of my local library was blocked because of vandalism, so I got an account. It was an inconvenience to have to do so, and it meant that I had to wait a while before I could continue editing, but I accepted that the block was there for good reasons, and it was unfortunate but not disastrous that I suffered a little collateral damage. That experience may be part of the reason why I am less averse to long IP blocks than a lot of people. I survived the experience, and other people can do so too. My experience is that school IP addresses vary enormously, from ones with mostly constructive editing to ones with only vandalism. Obviously, though, even in one of the worst schools there can be one or two constructive editors, and for that reason I never place long blocks on them unless my investigation indicates that the overwhelming majority of the editing is disruptive. I don't think that teachers usually vandalise Wikipedia, but there was a case years ago where a teacher was telling his students to vandalise Wikipedia as a class exercise. Both Jimmy wales and the Wikimedia Foundation became involved, with official contacts made to the school about it. As far as I recall that's the only time I have ever known of a teacher being involved in vandalism. JBW (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I ran into a case last year where a teacher was purposely vandalizing Wikipedia to demonstrate to his students that Wikipedia was not reliable. He claimed to have been doing it with each new class (and his edit history confirmed it). I don't remember if I had him blocked or just warned him, but he was quite irate. Meters (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
@Meters and Blaze Wolf: If that was last year then it was a different one from the one I remember, which was a long time ago, probably at least ten years ago, so it has happened at least twice. Maybe thousands of teachers do it. Who knows? JBW (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Dang. Didn't know some teachers did that. Honestly, with what some of the freshmen have been doing at my high school, I bet they would be vandalizing Wikipedia if our school's IP address wasn't block (they've been vaping and pulling the fire alarm to name 2 things they've done). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation for Article

Hello JBW. I have found these article, which has a substantial coverage on the academy. would this be enough?

1. https://www.theprotector.in/svspa-the-seedbed-where-future-cops-grow/

2. http://wbpolice.gov.in/writereaddata/wbp/Faci2021360001.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGJ (talk • contribs) 06:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@DGJ: My first thought when I looked at the first of those two was that it looked promotional. Checking further, I found that indeed the stated aim of the website in question is to promote the image of police. The second one I haven't looked at, but its URL doesn't suggest that it's an independent source. However, you can wait and see whether a reviewer thinks the draft is suitable. JBW (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Signing after block notice?

I've noticed that you didn't sign your username after you block users, many times, for example here, [4] and here, [5] and here. [6] Maybe you forgot to sign after the notices...? Severestorm28 00:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of false, libelous, and retracted reference

Your summary of your start with Wikipedia, and how it evolved, was tremendously helpful in making new users (such as myself) understand the process. After becoming more familiar with Wikipedia policies I understand the reasons for your concerns and undoing my edits. I certainly had no intention of creating an edit war. The intention is to remove defamatory content which was discredited and the false claims acknowledged and reversed in writing by the perpetrator. The newspaper article containing the false and defamatory content was linked to multiple Wikipedia subjects. I will gladly locate and provide the substantiating references and documentation to support the need for my edits on the pages of the affected subjects. The statement - which follows - by @ToBeFree on another Adakiko section is directly relevant here: "In most cases, when someone explicitly complains about "defamatory content", that's a good point to stop reverting and to thoroughly analyze the situation. Even if you are completely convinced that the material a) qualifies for inclusion in the article (WP:UNDUE may be a concern), and b) is completely perfectly verifiable: Even then, we should wonder whether it's really worth insisting on keeping the material." Thank you for your attention to this matter CineMG (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CineMG (talk • contribs)

JBW: I have received a copy of this post on my talk page. To save you wasting time unnecessarily on this, see my reply to this editor which I have copied to their talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Nick. I have actually posted another message to CineMG, in an attempt to clear up what at present looks very confused. I would have posted it here, but in view of your involvement I have put it on CineMG's talk page, to keep discussion in one place, rather than fragmented on three pages. JBW (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate your kindness to new users.

A heater for you. :) nirmal (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC in final stages of development

Hello JBW. An RfC is in the final stages of development which you may be interested in. I am messaging you because you participated in talk page discussions in 2011 which led to the initial inclusion of wp:noconsensus.[7] Any ideas or help you may wish to contribute before the RfC goes live will be appreciated. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Carly McCormack

Carly McCormack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is likely PAustin4thApril1980. New edits today to Greenough Family Massacre, which was recently edited by 1.136.107.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 159.196.207.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who have made contributions to articles heavily edited by Paul. Carly edited Disappearance of the Beaumont children, also heavily edited by Paul. AldezD (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Blablubbs:, @RoySmith:, and @OrgoneBox: AldezD (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
168.132.10.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is also likely Paul, editing Disappearance of Cleo Smith and other Australia-related articles. AldezD (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
your obsession with me indicates you yourself are a sock of the banned. Hello, User:World's Lamest Critic ? Carly McCormack (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
That post, together with the fact that "Carly McCormack" redirected their user page to mine, and their talk page to AldezD's, leaves me in no doubt, so I have blocked the account. I'll look at the IP addresses later. JBW (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I have now checked 168.132.10.250. The last 50 edits, which go back to October 2018, include one disappeared-child-related edit, almost four weeks ago. That edit doesn't look to me like PAustin4thApril1980, but even if it is, one edit that long ago is not enough to justify any action. Australia-related editing isn't particularly significant, since it's an Australian IP address. JBW (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

86.121.148.181/Bucharest vandal

Is there any way that you could semi-protect their usual targets nowadays? Some of them have already been semi-protected, but I've requested (some of) these be protected in the last few days/weeks and have been declined:

wizzito | say hello! 14:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wizzito: I've semi-protected those articles for times ranging from 2 months to 6 months (I think) depending on how long the disruptive editor has been active there. However, I really don't like putting long-term protection in articles where there's a significant amount of editing from other IP editors and new accounts, so I wonder whether it would be feasible to use the less drastic method of blocking certain IP ranges from the articles in question. At present I'm editing on my phone, and doing the necessary amount of history checking to decide whether that is possible would be too fiddly, but I'll try to look into it when I'm on a computer. Please feel very welcome to let me know of any more relevant information that you find. JBW (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: there is an LTA page (moved from my sock drawer today): Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Bucharest Wild Kratts and horror film vandal. A /19 and a /20 have been blocked due to their vandalism so far. wizzito | say hello! 16:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Wizzito: Thank you, that's really helpful. I've just glanced at it, but I'll try to look into it more thoroughly when I can. JBW (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Re My Last Edit

Hi,

This is regarding my last edit. I do not understand why my direct quotation from the source cited by the user before me was removed. Clearly, there is no problem with the source since no one removed it. The user is citing the book but contradicting the content of it. So, I was wondering if consensus as opposed to accuracy is given priority here. Also, why was my other source removed. I think it should not be up to every user to decide what they do not like and remove it because they got their friends to back them up on it. Do administrators actually check the content?

Also, why was I blocked with no previous warnings? If I engaged in an edit war, then the other user did the same thing but they managed to get their changes through.

I appreciate your time.

Mayo890 (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mayo890: As far as the block is concerned, I decided that was a mistake, and so I lifted the block and posted a warning instead,as you know.
Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right.
There are various ways of dealing with editors who you think are making unjustifiable edits. The first one to try is explaining politely and constructively why you think they are mistaken,and trying to discuss things with a view to trying to reach agreement. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution suggests other methods. If you believe an editor's actions are unacceptable for more serious reasons than just that you don't agree with them, then you may like to report them at an administrators' noticeboard. Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is perhaps the simplest to use, but it is suitable only for obvious vandalism. Editing which is done in good faith, no matter how misguidedly, is not vandalism. Nor is that noticeboard suitable for vandalism which isn't obviously vandalism to someone who just looks at the editing without knowing the background. If an administrator will have to spend time searching to find out why it is vandalism then it isn't obvious vandalism. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is suitable for less straightforward problems. However, it is important to avoid making a mistake which is common among new editors. Wikipedia administrators are not the same as "moderators" on many other web sites, who have the authority to make decisions on content disputes. An administrator has no more authority than any other editor to decide what content should be included in an article when it's just a matter of good faith disagreements between editors, as opposed to one or more editors acting contrary to Wikipedia policies.
An administrator dealing with a case of edit-warring should not allow their personal preferences concerning article content to influence them.
If you are right in saying that the editor concerned is making statements not in agreement with the source they are referring to, then that is a matter for administrative concern, but edit-warring isn't the way to deal with it.
I hope that those comments may help to clarify things. I can see that there are other issues here, and I shall try posting to the talk page of the other editor concerned, in the hope of making some headway. JBW (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

BLocking IP that had been determined to not have enough recent activity for a block

Hey JBW! I noticed that you blocked an IP address (68.191.18.11), however Jauerback had determined the IP didn't have enough recent activity to warrant a block. Could you explain why you disagreed with Jauer and blocked the IP? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Recently there has been vandalism from the IP address, and no other editing whatsoever. Blocking therefore stands to prevent vandalism, with virtually no risk of collateral damage. Obviously I can't know how much vandalism, or how recently, Jauerback would have thought sufficient. JBW (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah alright. Thanks for explaining. I'm doing my best to correctly report users and not falsely report a user for vandalism if it wasn't truly vandalism, and it gets kinda confusing when you receive answers that contradict each other. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: I have now seen the conversation about this at AIV. I find that a good many administrators are reluctant to block an IP address if they think that recent editing may be from a different person than the one who was around when warnings were issued. As I see it, however, if blocks are meant to be preventive rather than punitive, it doesn't matter whether it's the same person: if an IP address which is the source of nothing but vandalism is blocked then vandalism will be prevented, and if it's left unblocked then the vandalism will continue. Having said that, I admit that this case was borderline even by my standards, with only one edit since about a week ago. I might well have taken the same line as Jauerback, but I was swayed by the fact that the gap of six days between edits was very short compared to the gap of not far short of a year since any previous editing, which to me suggests it's likely to be the same person, unless it's a really remarkable coincidence. I do understand that it doesn't help you to decide whether to make reports if you find one administrator coming to a very different conclusion than another, but it comes down to individuals making judgements where to draw a line. JBW (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:DENY

Hello. Would you mind deleting these. Countless socking since Kapol6360. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 15:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Minorax: I did consider WP:DENY when I created those pages. There's often a conflict between DENY and the fact that countless times over the years when I have been investigating possible sockpuppets I have found it extremely frustrating trying to search for earlier accounts because they aren't tagged. In this case it looks to me as though we are dealing with someone who will keep on doing the same anyway, whether accounts are tagged or not. However, if you can offer reasons for thinking that the tags are likely to do more harm than good then I'll certainly consider what you have to say about it. JBW (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a strong reason to provide other than its giving them recognition to a certain extent. zh:Wikipedia:持续出没的破坏者/User:Kapol6360 might be useful for you. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with re-editing a rejected article

Hi, I decided to contact you after you have gone over a draft of an article that I have edited, Draft:Artlist. First of all, I wish to thank you for putting in the time and effort. I was wondering if I could consult with you regarding the draft, in order to better my understanding and perhaps to be able to add something to Wikipedia, nonetheless. I noticed you noted that the draft is written like an advertisement, which of course was not my intention. I was trying to gather as much as non-biased sources I could find, relying on news articles mostly. It would be much appreciated if you could suggest some improvement methods for this draft - I went over articles from the same field, such as pond5 or JoyTunes for clarification about what could be required from me. I thank you, and hope you would take my request in good spirit. Eladlavy12 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Saeed Ganji

Hello, JBW,

I've found that, as a group, admins' interpretation of whether CSD G4 extends into Draft space varies quite a bit, from "Never!" to "No problem". But since you just deleted the main space version of this article and blocked the page creator, I thought I'd draw your attention to the draft version which was created a day or two ago and let you take action if you thought the two pages were basically identical. It was created by an IP editor.

Thank you and I hope you are doing well as we slide on into February 2022. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

User:2603:8090:609:3BC:70B4:FF07:F9B8:AA6D

Why 48 hours? At first it was 6 months. They're going to do the same thing once the block is over. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: My instinct is for a long block, but I thought such a long block for an IP address with such a short editing history might draw criticism: I've seen that sort of thing in the past. I can think of possible answers to such criticism, though, such as that it's obvious this is not a new editor, so the length of editing history for the person isn't the same as that for the particular IP address. I don't know. My inclination is to leave it as it is for now, with a likelihood of renewing the block for much longer when this one runs out. JBW (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Restore deleted images?

I noticed you deleted some images uploaded or modified by a banned user. Can I request that two of the images be restored, as a good faith user in good standing? They were constructive, and included proper fair use attributions (especially considering they are creative commons images). Those images were on The Ur-Quan Masters article, namely File:Ur-Quan Masters HD Melnorme.png and File:Ur-Quan Masters title screen.png. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I would much prefer not to. I am aware that there's a number of editors who think that a block-evading editor should be allowed to get away with creating pages provided there is someone else who wants the pages they created to remain, but I see that as totally undermining the whole point of the policy that pages created by block-evading editors can be deleted. The purpose of that policy is that if a blocked editor finds that what they do while evading blocks will achieve nothing, then they may be discouraged from block-evasion. That aim is not achieved if the deletion is overturned simply because someone else wants it overturned. JBW (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • User:JBW: I think this is a special case, in the sense that I requested it. I suspect that the blocked user was using these good faith edits to distract from whatever they might have been doing in bad faith. In doing so, they even re-uploaded a higher quality image of an image that someone else had already uploaded, which is something that helped the article. It also creates perverse incentives, where a blocked user is now learning that they could get something deleted by simply being involved. Restoring the images would bring us back to a status quo supported by multiple editors. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with you ?

Why you removed my user page I don't know what is going on wikipedia how we suppose to start and pursue career I must admit this is not against the law so why are you doing this to users ? Your answer would be appreciated Caulexofficial (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Blocked. --Kinu t/c 00:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank you for notifying Moneytrees which lead to me being unblocked. It was quite helpful, and I am quite happy that you did it. Ewf9h-bg (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Hello, JBW,

I see you deleted a lot of pages that were hoaxes this morning (or, at least, it is morning where I'm at). This is our friend in Minnesota, I've been seeing his entertainment-related hoaxes for over a year now, always coming from the same town. I guess there is no way we can shut down the ability to edit Wikipedia for an entire town but he is so consistently from the same geographical location, it might be worth looking into. ;-) Stay well. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. I saw that the person in question had created a remarkably large number of such hoaxes using the 2600:6c46:4100:7ff::/64 range of IPv6 addresses, which I have blocked, but I didn’t know that there had been more from other IP addresses. Usually in this situation it's impossible to stop the problem by blocks, but what we can do is block and delete immediately every time we see any more. I have found over the years that sometimes even an editor who has persistently ignored blocks and come back on new IP addresses for years will give up in months if they find that they are now being dealt with by someone who always almost immediately deletes everything they do. Unfortunately, there has to be a "sometimes" in that last sentence, and since you have more experience of this person than I have, you may know enough to judge that this isn't one that's likely to give up. However, even if this is one of those who won't give up essily, delete & block every time may somewhat reduce their activity, and possibly also slightly bring forward the date when they get tired of their game, and move on to some other way to pass their time.
The one other thing I can suggest is that if you can give me any other IP addresses the person has used then I can try looking at editing histories of ranges involved. Sometimes it's possible to significantly cut down the pool of IP addresses available to a vandal, even if not to get rid of them altogether, and if they are having to operate in such a restricted environment then even short blocks on the limited choice of IP ranges they still have access to may be fairly effective. Of course there's another "sometimes" there, and this may be one of the many cases where there's nothing we can do apart from playing Whack a mole until the person grows up, but if you can give me any IP addresses or any other information, then I'll look at it. JBW (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello again, Liz. Since writing the message above I have had another look, and found the IP range 68.112.146.0/24, clearly used by the hoaxer in question. Apart from one reverted spam edit in 2019 there has been no editing from that range since 2018 which hasn't been deleted, so I feel perfectly happy to block it for a year. It's difficult to know how much use the hoaxer has made of that range, since all the editing has been deleted, but I have seen several IP addresses which have been used. (It's a serious defect of the system that administrators can get a list of deleted edits from a specific IP address, but not from a range.)
Incidentally, it wasn't morning where I am. JBW (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi, my concern with those accounts wasn't just the links to all the online gaming sites, but that they are likely the same person (as seen with this edit). Between the spamming and the socking, I thought there was a solid case for wp:nothere... no? - wolf 22:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: Yes. However, they had only done very few edits, and it seemed reasonable to give them a warning first. It was possible that they were just fans believing in good faith that using Wikipedia to publicise their favourite game sites would be perfectly acceptable, in which case it would be much better to give them a friendly warning rather than a sudden block out of the blue. Of course they may be owners or employees of a company they were trying to advertise, but even then there would be no harm in giving them a chance to stop, and blocking if they still continued. In fact they haven't continued since being warned, so either warning worked, in which case doing si was fine, or else they weren't going to edit any more anyway, so it didn't matter what we did. I am perfectly willing to block immediately in the case of unambiguous spammers, as you will see if you look at my block log, but if there's any reasonable chance that it is done innocently by an uninvolved person ignorant of Wikipedia's standards, then I think we should almost always first give a warning, and let them have a chance to stop voluntarily. JBW (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was only asking because I didn't think I made it clear enough they may be the same person, which is on me, not you. Thanks for the reply. Cheers - wolf 18:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
@Thewolfchild: It's obvious that it's either the same person or two people qorking together, and it doesn't really make any difference which. JBW (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

JBW, I want to thank you for your very thoughtful response to my plea for help. If I understand you correctly, I should be able to cite mainstream newspaper articles with little fear of being accused of conducting original research. I'm still not sure how to phrase a correction of that misleading "Independent" article which currently provides the foundation for Wikipedia's article on phantom social workers.

I certainly understand the need for rules, and usually these rules work out well. But you must admit that illogical situations sometimes arise. For example, Wikipedia's entry on the "Project MONARCH" myth cites Michael Barkun's excellent 2003 book "A Culture of Conspiracy," which debunks the claim. But Barkun's primary cited source is a skeptical article I wrote for a website in the late 1990s. (It's no longer online.) In other words, Wikipedia editors may not cite Cannon directly, but citing Barkun citing Cannon is permissible. Frustrating!

If I may reply to a couple of your statements...

You write: "I have no way of knowing how reliable your work is." Well, you could read my book. Yes, that's asking a lot; we're all busy, and true crime may not be your favored genre. Still, that is one way of knowing.

You write: "it is in practice often difficult to find objective evidence to form the basis of a review of the reliability of self-published work." If a self-published author supplies copious footnotes, "objective evidence" may be easier to come by.

Back in the '90s, I ran into editors and publishers who seemed determined to make my work less scholarly. They would forbid footnotes. They were more concerned with imposing a deadline than with insuring accuracy. Formal publication should guarantee quality research, but often does not. Frankly, that regrettable situation seems to be getting worse.

Again: Many thanks. I really appreciate the care you put into your reply. I do hope that one day Wikipedia editors will relax the "no original research" dictum just a little. Flexibility may aid the cause of accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinCannon (talk • contribs) 21:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

"DESTROY" vandal

Seems they've found yet another target. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: I've blocked an IP range covering that one. However, they'll probably find another one soon enough. Sigh... 🥱 JBW (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:UFKAK

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User talk:UFKAK requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MT TrainTalk 09:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Evidently one student bored enough to register and vandalize their school's page (or that of a rival school)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HeyMan9932 –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

216.200.0.0/16 (Frederick County Public Schools (Maryland)) –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks much. I've noticed that the stated range includes 216.200.134.0/24, which covers schools in Texas. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: The range you originally specified is actually allocated as a number of subranges, some of which are allocated to school districts, some aren't. I think blocking the whole range would be questionable, but I have blocked two school subranges, and I'll look into whether there are others that should be blocked. I assume your thanks mean that you have seen my block on the first range. It has taken quite a while for me to get onto the second one, because of real life, which has an annoying habit of interrupting work on Wikipedia. JBW (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Skywatcher68: FWIW I have now blocked four subranges, three of which are certainly school districts, and the other one looks to me very much like school vandalism, but I haven't seen anything actually stating that it's schools. Those four ranges actually cover the vast majority of editing from the range you gave, so it wouldn't actually have made a lot of difference if I had just blocked it all, nut there have been a few edits from other IP addresses in the range, most of which have not been vandalism, so I think it's better this way. JBW (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Modern Fertility

Hi there, would it be possible to make Modern Fertility a draft so I could work on it? I think you were the deleting administrator. Thank you.--Mapleteatina (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mapleteatina:  Done See Draft:Modern Fertility. JBW (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for breaking down my question to bite-size pieces and answering it. I believe the photo in the blue suit was the original and that others for also non-arbitrary reasons changed it. That said, I will bow out of the effort and direct anyone he knows back to the sites you have directed us to. Thank you CZathome (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC) (forgot to log in before signing off)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

  • AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
  • The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Contesting Deletion of Surazuri Modelling Agency

I will work on it to improve it @Tesigo Africa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesigo Africa (talk • contribs) 16:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tesigo Africa: I have restored the page, and moved it to Draft:Surazuri Modeling Agency. You may work on it there and submit it for review as a draft article for creation if you wish to. However, if you do that then please make sure you take note of the information you have been given on your talk page, and note that the page will have to be radically rewritten, since in its present form it is straight advertising copy. JBW (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Restoring Laththi

I was working on improving the page, and I think my work fixed most of the issues mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laththi. I also think the AFD has some errors; for instance, listing 404s instead of searching for the titles to get the correct (retargeted?) links and registering The Times of India (ToI) as unreliable (which, yes, ToI has issues with political reporting, but it's OK for film stuff per Indian cinema task force sourcing guidelines - if anything, Pinkvilla is the one that has issues per that sourcing guide.) In any case, I have also found other sources in the Indian mass media, including stuff from News18 and The New Indian Express. Considering that Vishal (the main actor) got a bad injury during production (sadly) I think that also lends points in its favor for notability. Even if it's not ready for mainspace yet (uncertain release date or some other issue with film notability), if you can get my revisions and apply them to the draft that would be greatly appreciated. MSG17 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@MSG17: I have my own reservations about the AfD discussion, but the close was clearly intended to allow the content of the article to be kept for further editing, and a possible return to mainspace in the future. The problem, however, was that an editor decided to ignore that, and re-create the article, rather than work on the draft. I have restored the deleted edits, and history merged them into the draft, so your work hasn't been lost. I have no opinion either way about a possible eventual return to mainspace, so I'll leave it with you. JBW (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the histmerge as well as understanding, listening and replying to my points. I think I'll review the guidelines and then determine if it should go back to mainspace or not. MSG17 (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

User talk:64.150.3.10

Hello. Contacting you because I see you had blocked the range, but I noticed the two edits in the history at User talk:64.150.3.10. Just wondering if blocking talk page access should be in order as well, at least for this specific IP address. Thanks in advance whatever your decision. --DB1729 (talk) 21:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@DB1729: Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked that one IP address without talk page access for a while. There hasn't been enough activity to justify doing the same for the rest of the range. JBW (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

For dealing with the block of IP 2.51.24.157. Much appreciated! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:25, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: As you no doubt know better than I do, a block on a single IP address isn't likely to be very effective, but perhaps it will help a little. JBW (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

"DESTROY" vandal is now "PREVENT" vandal

Going after war-related articles instead. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

what happened?

Dear JBW, I saw you deleted something from my page. Is everything okay? --VenrAmD (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

South Cumbria Multi Academy Trust Draft Page

Hi James,

If you have the time, would you be able to revisit the draft Wiki page for South Cumbria Multi-Academy Trust https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:South_Cumbria_Multi-Academy_Trust. You declined this on 21 Jan and I have taken on board your comments and made some substantial edits. I think it’s now compliant as I have read the guidance you referenced. I would value your feedback and also, a bit cheeky, I don’t want to wait another 3 months for an outcome as this is the time of year when parents would want to visit this page to help them make choices for their children.

If there is still something wrong with it, which I hope not, constructive feedback always considered.

Many thanks

Pip Pipkin2.0 (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Ethanmuscleman

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User talk:Ethanmuscleman requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

6park

Several users seem to be repeatedly adding unsourced info on the article 6park after you had previously reverted it (I also reverted via Twinkle several times). Could you have a look? Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 03:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit: The users were blocked. Many thanks. VickKiang (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@VickKiang: Thanks for letting me know. Since the editor in question has been returning with sockpuppets each time one of their accounts is blocked, I have semi-protected the article for a few months. JBW (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

72.234.48.0/24 (Hawaii Department of Education) –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done JBW (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"DESTROY" vandal

Yep, back to that. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Rangeblock request

136.235.0.0/16 (San Juan Unified School District) –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Whichever part(s) of 64.114.0.0/16 covers schools in British Columbia. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

your partial block of 84.63.254.0/24

Please add Van Helsing: The London Assignment to your partial block of the Kate Beckinsale LTA. See User:Meters/Kate Beckinsale LTA for background, and Special:Contributions/84.63.254.36 for recent edits. Thanks. Meters (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Block log https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User%3A84.63.254.0%2F24&type=block Meter (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Meters: It isn't possible to partially block more than 10 pages. At present I have partially blocked the two halves of that range, 84.63.254.0/24 and 84.63.254.128/24, from that article, but I'm not sure that's the best way to deal with it. WP:Partial blocks suggests that if more than 10 pages need to be blocked a site-wide block should be considered instead, and I think that may be a better option. Checking the editing history of the range, I get the impression that almost all of it is from the same disruptive person. Even where editing doesn't involve Kate Beckinsale, it is almost always on articles in the same topic area, and frequently (though not always) on films in which she acted. It looks to me as though the editing history is so solidly dominated by this one person that the risk of any collateral damage would be tiny in proportion to the likely benefit, and repeatedly adding new pages to partial blocks is likely to be an endless task, as the editor moves to new pages. I shall therefore replace the partial blocks with a single site-wide block. JBW (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Thank you. Meters (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

IP hopping vandal report

The report and discussion have now been removed by the bot, but ... in the future, when you report a vandal who you believe is evading a block, please include the previously blocked account/IP/range. I can't read your mind over the Internet. I can only go with what you wrote there and, although you had mentioned that the vandal was IP hopping, there was no way to tell what warnings the vandal had previously received. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Revdel delete request

Hi, I noticed that you are an active administrator on the "list of revdel admins" page. Could you please remove the revdel tag at World War 3 (video game)? Regards.  F1V8V10V6!  09:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@F1V8V10V6: I've done that. However, it will be much better if in future you avoid the problem by not uploading copyright-infringing material, not even temporarily. JBW (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

2A02:2F0A:C710:3900:0:0:0:0/64

I want to ask if you can block 2A02:2F0A:C710:3900:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) longer, as they are an LTA: WP:LTA/WKHF wizzito | say hello! 20:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wizzito: You are clearly right about that. However, all of the editing ever done from that range took place in a single period of 1 hour, so far more likely than not, a longer block will achieve nothing, because most likely the person in question will just move on to another IP range, and never come back to that one. Nevertheless, there isn't much to lose by blocking just in case I'm wrong about that, so I will extend the block for a while. JBW (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

"DESTROY" vandal again

Back again. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: Sigh... 😕 JBW (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Susovan (Artist)

Hi, I am Itcouldbepossible. I am here to talk about the recent deletion that you did. Would you please change the log entry and change the blocked user to User:Blogs19 as it would be easier to identify instead of using the name of one of his sockpuppets. Also since the page is repeatedly being created, I would request you to salt the page. Regards. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 14:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: I have re-deleted with Blogs19 logged as the sockmaster. I had in fact intended to put that username in the log, but I evidently forgot to change it from the username given by the editor who made the deletion nomination, which is what goes in the log by default. Thanks for pointing that out, so that I could correct my mistake. I have found over the years that salting pages in this situation is at best useless, and can even be counterproductive. Since the editor has already repeatedly shifted to new versions of the title to evade salting, it is virtually certain that they would just move on to yet another title. We can watch existing titles for re-creation, but we can't watch every possible new title that they might think of, so salting would do nothing to stop them from creating the article again, while making it more difficult for us to know if they do so, and take action. JBW (talk) 15:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for redeleting the page. I agree with what you said about salting. And after all we are humans. We make mistakes, especially administrator like you who are involved with this project so much, are really busy. It is natural for them to make mistakes. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 16:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
By the way, I wanted to know something. Why does people say that they are checkusers and administrators? Isn't it silly. Administrators are automatically checkusers. For example you are an administrator, and you are also a checkuser. So what is the need for that extra right? They can be bundled into one thing. For example rollbacker, new page review, page mover, etc, are bundled as administrator after a successful RFA. I use User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js and that shows the user rights at the top of the userpage. For example, when I open Girth Summit's userpage it says they are a checkuser and an administrator. Why are things like that? Administrators are checkusers. Can you clear this doubt of mine. Sorry for this off - topic question. Thanks, ItcouldbepossibleTalk 03:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Administrators are not automatically CUs - it's the other way around, CU is a permission only given to people who are already admins. However, I don't see any reason to bundle them up - the policy that governs the use of the CU tool is different from that surrounding admin tools, the method of applying for CU is very different from that of requesting adminship, and the minimum activity threshold is very different. I guess you're right that someone who has CU does not need to tell people that they're an administrator, since it's implicit in the fact that they're a CU, but not everybody knows that - telling people that I am both makes it clearer for new users. Girth Summit (blether) 06:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Girth Summit for your comment. By the way, when I linked to your userpage, did you receive a ping? Or are you watching this page? In either way, thanks for your answer. You said about something called 'minimum activity threshold'. Can you tell me what is that? Sorry for using JBW's talk page for my queries. ItcouldbepossibleTalk 07:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes - linking to a user's user page issues a notification to that user, in pretty much the same way that using one of the ping templates does. Activity threasholds: see WP:INACTIVITY for adminship, and Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#CheckUser/Oversight_permissions_and_inactivity for CU/OS. Girth Summit (blether) 07:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Request from IRC Live Help

Re: User:Dr Edison H. Ang/sandbox

I am actively assisting this user in IRC Live Help. May I have the content of this sandbox back, please, so that we can continue to address the issues? —Scottyoak2 (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@Scottyoak2: With considerable reluctance I have restored the page. JBW (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm just going to copy it to a text editor and then the creator will blank the page. Scottyoak2 (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, JBW. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Please revdelete this.
Message added 16:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Pavlov2 (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!  Done Pavlov2 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Arunachal Pradesh Hajong Youths' Committee

Did you mean to block this user? -- Alexf(talk) 17:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Alexf: Yes. Thanks for pointing it out to me. 😊 JBW (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

User talk:76.164.82.126

I think there is a wrong block notice, saying the IP is blocked indefinitely, but you blocked the IP for one week, right? Severestorm28 20:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: Yes. Thanks for pointing it out. I've corrected it now. JBW (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Creating a User page to delete it

Hello, JBW,

I saw your comment at WP:REFUND and I just wanted to ask you what this is all about. I see this all of the time patrolling CSD categories, editors who create a User page with the code to CSD G7 it. I don't understand, if they don't want a User page, why do they create it, and in the same edit, ask for it to be deleted? It's bizarre but I see it a few times every week. Occasionally, they are long dormant accounts who have done a few edits years ago, had no User page and, again, create it and request its deletion in the same edit. Should I just assume this is an introduction to a troll? It's so pointless. Thanks for any explanation you can offer. Hope you are well. Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Liz. Good to hear from you. The short answer is that I don't know, but here are a few thoughts about it, which you may or may not find interesting. Very probably sometimes, particularly with really new accounts, it's just experimenting. Looking around to explore how Wikipedia works, you see this thing which enables you to have your own user page deleted, so you try it out. However, it's difficult to see that as likely in the case of an editor who has already done a G7 on a genuine user page, and now creates a new one with nothing but the G7. In the case you referred to, it was the combination of several actions which made me think of it as trolling, but now that your question has prompted me to think about it in more general terms, I'm not so sure. There's a whole cloud of activity spread across a spectrum covering trying things out, playing just for fun, and malicious trolling, without clear boundaries between them, and maybe this one is closer to playing than trolling. The "I used to vandalise but now I don't" thing, followed by a string of such apparently meaningless actions, perhaps suggests a spirit of playing around, perhaps with a shift of emphasis on the kind of play. I wonder what I might have done if Wikipedia had been around when I was 12. Quite likely some kind of playing around, possibly of a kind that to my older self now would look like vandalism or trolling. However, there are times when it's more difficult to see things in those terms, such as the cases you mention of long-dormant accounts suddenly coming back into action to do this, particularly in the case of an account which did quite a bit of perfectly constructive editing before going dormant.
A somewhat similar thing, which I see remarkably commonly, is a new account which very early in its editing career, very often as its first two edits, creates a user page with a paid editing disclosure and then blanks the page. My guess is that what's going on there is "I have posted a disclosure, so I have technically covered the Wikimedia Foundation's requirement to do so, so if anyone ever questions my editing I am covered. However, I've hidden it, so it's likely that nobody will ever see it, so I can probably get away with covert spam." Obviously I can't be certain, but it's so common that there must be a common reason, and that is the one that I can think of which seems to make sense. However, I am open to other suggestions. I suppose I could ask some of the editors in question, but whether doing so would elicit the truth I don't know.
So there you are. Various thoughts, but no real answer to your question. JBW (talk) 08:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for removal redirects!

I request you to delete all redirects related to Jagati railway station article. Thank you.~সাজিদ (আলাপ) 14:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@সাজিদ:  DoneJBW (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

On Chahat Pandey

Hi, this lands here as you are the admin who protected the page in mainspace. I have reviewed the current version at Draft:Chahat Pandey, and find it to have been further developed since the last AfD three years ago while comparing against what was registered against the filter logs. In its current form, it seems that the subject satisfies WP:NACTOR, given her multiple lead roles in the filmography section and fleeting mentions in the prose. The prose is lacking in my opinion, but overall it should satisfy as least a stub. I am prepared to accept the submission and move it into mainspace. If it meets a second AfD discussion, all the better and let's have the rest of the community decide on its notability and survival on wikipedia.

I should request for a total removal of the protection on the redirect, but can you lower the protection to temporary ECP instead? I would like to preemptively prevent potential copy paste moves and then I will perform a page swap within my own rights. Thanks! – robertsky (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

urgh. just found out about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chahat Pandey. I guess all these (above) are on hold then. – robertsky (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
@Robertsky: I actually have no personal opinion as to whether the article should exist; my actions were because of the particular ways used to try to get it restored. I have made a comment at the MfD discussion, but I agree with you that it's best to put the whole thing on hold pending the outcome of that discussion. JBW (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

2600:1002:B000::/64 edits

Hi - I saw you put not vandalism in AIV when I reported 2600:1002:B038:A2CD:711E:1307:197F:61E9. I'm not too sure what to do with the pattern of disruptive editing from 2600:1002:B000:0:0:0:0:0/40 as the whole range has been blocked for a month in December and February but the user came right back with many edits on March 22, the day the block expired (13 on this address, 9 on this address). I make it about 180 disruptive edits with the tag "Actually" in 2022. It seems like sometimes people block the /64, and sometimes the /40. Similar edits have led to blocks on 2601:989:4005:C4F0:0:0:0:0/64 (presumably a Comcast home connection), 2601:989:4002:EF90:0:0:0:0/64, and 174.60.49.187, mostly with edit comments of "Actually" or "Mejora de información". I'm not sure where to raise this. Ttwaring (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Ttwaring: Thanks for that further information, which has prompted me to look at more of the history, rather than just enough to persuade me that it isn't vandalism. I still think it probably isn't vandalism, but it's certainly persistent disruptive editing.
I see that 2600:1002:b038:a2cd::/64 is currently blocked by ToBeFree, but that is nowhere enough, as that range has been responsible for only a tiny minority of the editing by the "Actually" editor. There's quite a lot of other editing in the range 2600:1002:B000::/40, by no means all of it looking as though it's this editor. Normally I am very reluctant to block a range used by a lot of different editors for anything more than a short time, but in this case the substantial majority of the editing has been reverted, and a quick check suggests that most of the editing has been unconstructive. Nevertheless, there has been some unambiguously constructive editing, so I am not 100% happy with an extended block. On the other hand nothing short of an extended block on the whole of that range looks like having any chance of being effective. NinjaRobotPirate has blocked the range three times, including twice fairly recently, for a month on each of those two occasions, so he may like to express an opinion. I considered compromising by blocking the /40 range for another month. However, if the range is going to be subject to multiple blocks for a month at a time, then a single block for several months would probably not produce a greater total amount of collateral damage, while standing a far better chance of deterring this persistently disruptive editor, since experience shows that they are willing to sit out month-long blocks. It would also, of course, stop the other unconstructive editing from other people. For now, therefore, I'll block the /40 range for six months, but I am open to reconsidering that in light of opinions anyone else may like to express. JBW (talk) 12:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
As you say, it looks like there are no good choices: either soak up lots of editor time reverting this "Actually" person, or give a bad experience to many Verizon users on the East Coast. Thanks for taking a look at this. Ttwaring (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
If it's impulsive vandalism, not sock puppetry, you can do an anon-only block with account creation enabled, and that will stop most of the vandalism without restricting constructive editors from making accounts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Not often I get to give a beer to a "tyrant." For your years of putting up with the nonsense. Unbroken Chain (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

New message from Pavlov2

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Assume bad faith of commonedits. Sorry for interruption. Pavlov2 (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft. Yoruba Nation

Pls help me review this article Fieldmarshalgoldenboy (talk) 20:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fieldmarshalgoldenboy: I haven't yet had time to check the draft thoroughly, but a quick glance suggests that the references may give significant coverage. However, I can't yet comment on other aspects of the draft or of the references.
It took me a while to find the draft, because its title is in fact Draft:Yorùbá Nation. It can be helpful to other editors to try to get titles exactly right.JBW (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft.Think Yoruba First

Please help me review and modified this draft into an encyclopedia format so as to be moved to an article Fieldmarshalgoldenboy (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@jbw Fieldmarshalgoldenboy (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fieldmarshalgoldenboy: I have every sympathy with your aim to further the cause of your people. I also personally agree with you about the balkanisation of much of Africa by European imperialists. However, what you are trying to do is really outside the scope of Wikipedia. Your aim is clearly both to promote the cause of the Yoruba people in general, and specifically to publicise and promote the organisation "Think Yoruba First", both of which aims are contrary to Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view and promotional editing. Such language as, to give a few examples, "The Yoruba are a pride of the black race", "considered to be the site of creation of Mother Earth", "Yoruba are so resilient", and "there is an urgent need for renaissance" are certainly not written from a neutral point of view. For that reason there is no question of the draft being accepted as a Wikipedia article in anything like its present form.
The promotional nature of the draft could be dealt with by editing the draft to make it suitable. However, there is another problem which may not be so easy to deal with, concerning Wikipedia's notability guidelines. You should have at least a brief look at the general notability guideline, but the essential point is that a subject is normally considered notable enough to be the topic of a Wikipedia article if there is substantial coverage of the subject in multiple reliable independent sources. I have checked the references you have cited in the draft, and apart from the organisation's own web site, as far as I can see none of them even mentions the organisation, let alone gives it substantial coverage. That doesn't necessarily mean that those references are no use at all, because they may be suitable for verification of the content of the draft, but it does mean that they are no use for the purpose of demonstrating notability. The organisation's own website is no use for demonstrating notability either, because it isn't independent of the organisation: any organisation can post a lot of stuff about itself on its own website, however notable or unnotable it is. One of the references you gave was on Wikipedia. That is no use at all as a reference, because anyone can post anything to Wikipedia, so it isn't a reliable source. If you can produce a few reliable sources independent of "Think Yoruba First" which give it significant coverage, then it will be worth rewriting the draft to make it acceptable, but nothing that I have seen suggests to me that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability standards. While many problems with articles can be addressed by editing them, no amount of editing a Wikipedia article can alter the notability of the subject of that article.
Another thing you should look at is Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline, if you are personally connected to "Think Yoruba First".
Evidently you have put a significant amount of work into creating this draft, and the prospect of seeing it deleted almost immediately must be frustrating, to say the least. If you can show that the subject satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines then I'll have a look and see whether I can help to save it, but if it doesn't satisfy them then no matter what you or I do, it is unlikely to survive, and any work put into trying to save it is likely to be wasted.
My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. Obviously that advice is unlikely to appeal to you if you have no interest in contributing in any way apart from promoting your organisation, but in that case Wikipedia isn't the right place for you to do so. JBW (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Even though seeing the article deleted gives me a lot of concerned I joined this page some years ago and I have publicized some articles which is still on today but many people are trying to get some of people work deleted because it's been done to there for many times. Fieldmarshalgoldenboy (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
love Abdullahskme (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Linus Hagenbach

Hey there, I saw you recently blocked Linus Hagenbach (talk · contribs) for persistent disruptive editing changing population numbers with false sources. The editor soon after their block ended is now back at it again restoring their edit on Swedes here. There seems to be a refusal to get the point and learn from mistakes here, perhaps a longer block is needed/justified given how recently they got blocked for this exact behaviour? TylerBurden (talk) 15:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: Thanks for telling me 😊. Actually, while at first I assumed good faith, which is why the first block was for a fairly short time, I am not convinced that it is a question of learning from "mistakes". It looks to me more like deliberately and knowingly posting things they have made up. However, it doesn't really matter, because whether it's deliberate or not, the editor's contributions are close to 100% disruptive and harmful, and a short block has not led to any change, so this time I've blocked indefinitely. JBW (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Yea you are probably right, I also assumed good faith at first but shoehorning content in again and again while misrepresenting a source (and insulting people who interfere) is not a good look to say the least. Thanks for saving everyone the trouble by making it indef. TylerBurden (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Inikiri Umuezeoka

Hello, I wish to request for your assistance in review and publishing of my articles: Inikiri Umuezeoka and Inikiri Bernard market. Thanks for your quick response. Topsy4men (talk) 06:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/1.144.96.0/20 is back at it again.

You had blocked this one following an ANI report, and things have been quiet lately, but this new one has just popped up, on a totally different range. Going out to the /18 showed no further IPs that they were using. Special:Contributions/202.125.164.100. Passes the duck test with flying colours, adding elevation details, (same as raised at the ANI report), edit warring when reverted, never using any meaningful edit summaries. Same geographical interest. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 06:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

And they just tried to delete this. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Original ANI thread Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:15, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
@Mako001: Well, if there was any doubt as to whether they would be blocked, then the way the person in question responded to your posting here made sure that all doubt was removed. So very kind of them to save me the trouble of extensively checking their editing history. What a pity not all block-evading editors are so helpful. JBW (talk) 07:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Not to mention blanking the ANI archive. That's always a good way to get blocked quickly. I note that they seem to have changed ISP somehow. They were originally on a massive /11 that most Teltra mobile phones in Australia are on (I dunno how familiar you are with Australian telecoms companies, but Telstra's mobile network is the largest in the country, by far). Now they are on a much narrower range, from Nexon, locating more specifically to Sydney. Which kinda confirmed the hunch I had that they were from NSW. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Chuglesper Grant

Hello JBW, I need your help please. Please have a look at the talk page of Praxidicae , I believe there is a clear case of vandalism, and I am a fairly new editor, but it seems this user is in the habit of bullying me. This is in regards to the deletion of the page "Christian J Smith". There is also an archive of the discussion on my talk page, I need the help of an experienced editor or administrator (that doesn't have a bias) that can oversee this situation properly, and speak to me in the proper way so i can understand what is going on, and improve in wikipedia. Thank you so much for your help and your time. -Chuglesper — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuglesper Grant (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@Chuglesper Grant: I've had a quick look and formed a general impression of the situation, but I'd prefer not to make a rushed statement about it before I've had a chance to consider it more fully. I will try to get back to you within 24 hours. If I don't do it within that time, please feel welcome to remind me. JBW (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

New Elmin seems to be evading their block.

Just noticed this newly active account doing exactly the same sort of edits as User:New Elmin that you blocked back on 16 April (UTC). They are inserting unattributed machine translations, at about the same speed as New Elmin did, and even at the same times of day (11:00 - 12:00 UTC) as New Elmin did on 15 April. Similar interest in Western European topics. Doesn't use edit summaries either, and effectively unresponsive to warnings. Figured I'd give you the chance to block this one since you'd blocked New Elmin, and this will likely result in them being sent away for a good deal longer. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Recreating the redirect COVID-22

While checking out the page COVID-22 (which predictably is not an actual Wikipedia page, and which I planned to make into a redirect to the disambiguation page COVID-20), I noticed that you'd deleted it as an implausible redirect a month ago. I respectfully disagree with your assessment that "COVID-22" is an implausible search term; as evidence, I offer the following example websites (there are plenty of others with this term, by the way):

Duckmather (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Duckmather: I don't understand. As far as I can see, the reasons you are putting forward to justify having a redirect are as follows. (1) There's a computer virus called "COVID-22". That may be notable enough to justify creating an article about it, but at present there is no such article, and no useful purpose would be served by a redirect to a disambiguation page which doesn't even mention the topic. (2) People on Twitter have been writing about a nonexistent "COVID-22". I very much doubt that that fact satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but again, if it does, then that would justify writing an article about it, not making a redirect to a page which doesn't even mention it. (3) A research paper about COVID-19 briefly refers to "COVID-22", without any explanation as to what it refers to. In the context of that paper it seems certain that it was merely a mistake, but mistake or not I see no evidence that it's ever been referred to anywhere else. Absolutely no question of satisfying the notability guidelines. (4) The expression is commonly searched for on Google. We don't have redirects for an expression just because people are likely to search for it, we have redirects because people are likely to search for it and there's a Wikipedia article which contains relevant information about what they are searching for. In fact, all of what I have said essentially comes down to one point: neither the page you advocate redirecting to nor any other page in Wikipedia's mainspace has any information about "COVID-22". Why would it help someone searching for something to redirect them to a page full of numerous links to various pages which don't contain anything about what they are trying to find? All it would stand any chance of doing is causing them to waste their time searching those pages for something that isn't there. JBW (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Attilios block

Hi JBW, hope you're well. Your block of Attilios popped up on my watchlist. Seems like you blocked them for using 'something' as an edit summary after being warned to stop. To my mind that's basically the same as leaving a blank edit summary. Seems a little harsh to block someone for three days for occasionally neglecting to provide edit summaries for minor edits? Hopefully there would be better alternatives than blocking at all, but a three day block especially might be a little over-the-top? - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Kingpin13: If you've read my messages on the editor's talk page, you will know that I thought a block for something as trivial as giving unhelpful edit summaries would be undesirable, and I did consider very carefully before blocking, eventually doing so with distinct misgivings. I totally agree with you that "Hopefully there would be better alternatives than blocking at all", but after two messages asking for a change, I couldn't think of any other method.
Probably "sthg" meant "something", as you suggest. Maybe it's even a well established abbreviation which I just don't happen to be acquainted with. However, it doesn't tell anyone anything about the editing being done, which is unhelpful. In that respect it is similar in effect to leaving the edit summary blank, but in my opinion there is a significant difference. Leaving a blank may be just a mistake, or at worst carelessness or laziness, but to give the edit summary "sthg" one has to make a positive decision to give an edit summary which one knows will not be in any way helpful. I therefore can't see "neglecting to provide edit summaries" as an accurate description.
Yes, three days is a long time for something so minor, and I would have preferred a shorter, token block, 24 hours or even less. However, looking at Attilios's editing history I saw that there have from time to time been gaps of longer than that in which he didn't edit, leading to the possibility that the block might fall in one of those gaps, thus making no impact at all.
However, having said all that, I have thought about what you have said, and re-examined Attilios's editing history. I see that usually he does give meaningful edit summaries, and the unhelpful ones are actually less common than I thought. I shall therefore remove the block. Thank you for encouraging me to think again about it.
@Attilios: You may like to read this too. JBW (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Omaha Steaks request

Hello there, JBW. I appreciated your help updating the infobox for Omaha Steaks and I'm hoping you can look at another request I recently posted on the article's Talk page. I'm hoping editors can review a draft I put together that streamlines the article's content and updates references. Any help would be appreciated! Omaha Steaks Ashley (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The Phillips Academy Poll deletion

Hey, JBW. I saw that you deleted the page that I created, The Phillips Academy Poll. The reason given was that, the topic of the article was not notable and was not already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources. Reviewing the page, I'm not sure if either of these apply. The Phillips Academy Poll was covered by reliable and independent sources. I recall that the Concord Monitor, the National Republican Congressional Committee, New Hampshire Public Radio, WHDH-TV, and FiveThirtyEight were cited in the references section. Furthermore, generally speaking, the polling world, polls cited by FiveThirtyEight, and those widely cited are considered to be "notable". If the concern is regarding the tone of the article please let me know what can be done to recreate the article in a more neutral tone. I, being on the newer side, did not see anything glaringly wrong with the article. I attempted to mimic the style I used in previous polling page, such as Emerson College Polling and the tone of other pages about polls and media sources. Please let me know what can be done better for the page to be recreated. Robertsilver270 (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that you state that the reason I gave was that the topic of the page had not already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources, because I didn't actually say that, nor indeed anything about coverage in existing sources. As for the article Emerson College Polling, thanks for pointing it out. A quick glance suggests it may not be suitable as an article, but I'll have a more thorough look at it. JBW (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Business Purpose

Why you deleted my user page Contribution Enterprise is a business enterprise that purpose is to publish an encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and why you do not allowed for enter the world of encyclopedia. Please get back my user page. 122.55.137.241 (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If you say what further explanation you need, in addition to that which I have already given you, then I will try to help to clarify things for you. At present, though, I don’t know what other information you need. Wikipedia is simply not a tool for businesses to use. JBW (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Multi-stage fitness test

  • That info you are trying to remove it's been there since the creation of the entry in 2006, if it's been there all that time is for a reason, me myself and I am sure many others come back to that entry specifically for those calculations.
    Regarding the sources, the source of the calculations is the multi stage fitness or beep test itself and anyone can check if they are correct or not, don't need an eminence to tell us, just don't want to redo them every time.
    Kind Regards. Rodersb (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Template:Under construction

Hi there. I don't know if we've ever interacted before, but in case we haven't, pleased to meet you. Your edit (which, btw can't be reverted by non-admins) is one which I understand making a change, just not so drastic. There is already Template:In use which serves basically the same purpose. I use the construction template frequently, and it's due to the research I need to do in old newspapers, which can be very time consuming. That being said, I would have no issue with you changing it to 24 hours, as I agree that it's absurd to leave it up for days at a time. But sometimes I don't get back to the article for 12-16 hours due to real life stuff. Anyway, hope that makes sense. And thanks for all you do on the project. Onel5969 TT me 14:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Onel5969: I certainly know your username well, having seen you around many times over the years, but I don't remember ever having had any direct contact with you before. Naturally I realise that, as you say, getting back to an article to carry on with editing in progress may take quite a while. However, my feeling is that in that case one should accept that in that period others may make significant changes, and that discouraging them from doing so is questionable. I see these templates as reasonable only when it's a question of trying to avoid immediate edit conflicts while one is actively editing. However, a compromise of 24 hours would, I think, be much better than what was there before. JBW (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree with the 24 hours range. Even 16 or 18 hours would work for me. But I also used to do a little bit over at NPP, and other editors use it similarly to the way I do, and they may only have an hour or two each day to be able to work on an article, then they have to go to school/work and don't get back to it until about the same time next day. So that's where the 24 came from. Regardless, thanks for your understanding.Onel5969 TT me 12:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Minor point on English interdental geminates at word boundaries -- wɪθˈθæŋks

More FYI than correction: at least in isolation, my Midwestern AmE produces [wɪθˈθæŋks], seemingly in any register. I can voice the first one, but it does take a bit of effort. That's anecdotal and might be challenged by recordings of natural speech in context, but it does suggest that "With thanks" is pronounced wɪðˈθæŋks, not wɪθˈθæŋks is not valid as a general statement. Barefoot through the chollas (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@Barefoot through the chollas: Yes. Since making the post you refer to, I have checked both by looking in dictionaries and by asking a native speaker of American English, and discovered that, while both pronunciations exist, wɪθ is indeed the more usual one in American English. I must have heard it countless thousands of times, and most often not noticed, as my attention was on the meaning rather than the sound, and moreover the preposition "with" is rarely likely to be the focus in an utterance. I had very occasionally noticed the θ, but on those few occasions had put it down to an idiosyncracy of the particular speaker, without giving it much thought. JBW (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Anna Koimantou

Dear JBW I am anna Koumantou and I can provide you proof for everything I am adding in my profile. Please amend and accept my changes

If you need further jnfo please contact me [redacted].

I dont add any information which is NOT true or accurate Best regards Anna Happy to send u the content and you can update it on my behalf AKoumantaki (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@AKoumantaki: First of all, please read Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest. Secondly, if what you have said is true then you should find no diffat all in providing links to reliable sources confirming that. Membership of Olympic teams, for example, is very widely publicised. If you can provide links to reliable sites which confirm what you have said then I will be perfectly happy to correct the article for you.
Publicly posting personal email addresses on Wikipedia is not a good idea. If you use the "preferences" link at the top of the page you can set an email address on your Wikipedia account, and then you can email other editors through Wikipedia without making your email address public. However, it is much better to post information on Wikipedia, so that other editors can see it, unless there is material to email which needs to be kept confidential. JBW (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Great and thank you. I will provide all the info you need once collect everything. Can you forward you attachements confirming that? Major mistake - i was born in Athens foo not in Patras. AKoumantaki (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Correction: can I sent you proof of papers confirming some info as some if them are not on the web AKoumantaki (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I ran across something odd while patrolling Recent Changes

37.111.192.0/24 is evidently having an edit war with itself at Commander of the Army (Sri Lanka).   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Skywatcher68: There have actually been only three edits from that range, as far as I can see, and I don't see any edit-warring there. However, there have been far more edits from the larger range 37.111.192.0/19, so maybe that's what you have in mind. At a quick glance I didn't se any obvious edit-warring against the same IP range, and I'm afraid I'm far too tired to put in the effort it would take to investigate more thoroughly. If you feel like spelling out to me "this edit changed X to Y, this one changed it back, and then this one did so and so..." then by all means do, but otherwise I'm afraid I'm giving it a miss. JBW (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, 37.111.192.0/19; all those similar numbers make it difficult for me to tell which is which. Could just be a big coincidence so I'll leave it alone for now.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Requesting for Article

Dear Administrator, Thank you for your contributions, but I would request you to Draft an Article by using the previous details and citations, for "Aarushi Nishank". I am seeking for help or request or trying from years but couldn't get. Please help me with these too many complications & regulations for drafting a new article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantis7807 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Atlantis7807: I have looked into this fairly extensively, including checking the history of deleted Wikipedia pages about Arushi Nishank, the history of user accounts which have created those pages, and the references in the article you created, and also making my own searches for information about her on other websites. As a result, I have a number of things I may be able usefully to say about this. However, before I say anything else, I will be grateful if you say exactly what your own personal connection to Arushi Nishank is. JBW (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@JBW Aarushi Nishank is an Indian celeb and I handle her social profiles along with couple of her digital related stuffs. It'll be really appreaciated if you can draft an article for her as per your own searches. And, the Fly gif is really amazing. LOl.! Atlantis7807 (talk) 11:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@JBW Looking forward to your guidance for the same. On what paremeters should I work on? It's not true that this celebrity isn't popular, so, when it comes to drafting an article about her all the mentions in the content we include are 100% unique and plagiarism free. Please tell me what has to be done now? Atlantis7807 (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

IP harassment

Hey JPW, you know the IPs you blocked for a month from editing my talkpage? Well things are kind of bad. On Toyah Battersby’s page, the exact same IP is still hell bent on harassing me and reverting my edits to make me angry, per their summaries. I really want them to stop, Blanchey has warned them many times too. Think you could help? WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The IPs are basically stalking my edit history on purpose just to revert whatever I do. WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

You see the edit I made was in no way majorly disruptive, any form of vandalism etc it was a reliable source from a reliable news site and it was described as “Fancruft” so I went to read the policy and I noticed it never said “you cannot add [this]” there was infact no strict policy. The IPs are out of control. WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@WikiFlame50: I see they also reverted you at List of Coronation Street characters (2017). This is difficult, because it's a very large IP range, with quite a lot of other editing, probably by different people, so a total block of the range for anything other than a very short time isn't acceptable. I could block the range from those two articles, but no doubt they would just move on to another one that you have edited, so that probably wouldn't achieve anything. However, all of the most recent harassment of you comes from the much smaller range 2A01:4C8:C06:91C3:0:0:0:0/64 and 100% of the editing from that range is from one person, to judge from the choice of articles to edit and the kind of editing, so I've blocked that range for a month. When I get time I'll look at the possibility of some more limited blocks on other subranges of the whole /40 range, in the hope that it may help a little. JBW (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Since you got them for a month, it’s good enough for me WikiFlame50 (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Trump era

It's only a draft & I'm not done editing it yet. Give me time to straighten it out and provide sources. Can you? Bloodthirsty Bob (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bloodthirsty Bob: Yes, by all means, but there is no need to start out with a version which promotes a point of view and attacks a person if you are just going to edit all that out and finish with neutral text. If you like, start out like that on your own computer, and post it to Wikipedia when you have got it ready. JBW (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Good idea. Thx. Bloodthirsty Bob (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Another disruptive Ip

Another IP who you blocked from my talkpage is yet again stalking and trying to harass me. On Phil Mitchell’s page. Reverting my edits for no valid reason at all. The IPs thinks he’s the longest serving character when Woodyatt (Ian Beale) left when he clearly isn’t since Kathy Beale Sharon Watts etc all joined in the first episode in 1985, McFadden first joined his role in 1990 in episode 526. It’s another case of harassment and is trying to make someone report me again. Could you deal with them? WikiFlame50 (talk) 08:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

And now the exact same IP a just miraculously appeared after I edited Sam Mitchell (EastEnders). They are definitely stalking my edit history. WikiFlame50 (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

THE IPS ARE ALL ZESTYLEMONZ SOCKS! WikiFlame50 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@WikiFlame50:
  1. I've had another look at the editing history of the IP range, and decided a large enough proportion of the editing is vandalism to make it reasonable to block the range. I've blocked it for two weeks, and we can reconsider the situation after that if necessary. (I've actually put separate blocks on the two halves of the range, so as not to interfere with the existing partial block on editing your talk page.)
  2. I thought this was likely to be a sockpuppeteer, but didn't know who. However, there's no such account as ZESTYLEMONZ, nor Zestylemonz, so can you check and give me the exact username, so that I can look into it? JBW (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

User:ZestyLemonz is the guy WikiFlame50 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

He’s a notorious sock puppet who won’t stop making accounts. He confessed on Blancheys page and it means every ip who used my talk page and reverted my edits where all him. WikiFlame50 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I was just panicked and really frustrated. Hence the caps WikiFlame50 (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I discovered it was him because of a dumb move he did on Phil Mitchell. First he reverted an edit I did, then I reverted and then he made a sock account called HaveSomeSoups and he screwed up by saying “and as I have just said”. WikiFlame50 (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

He said some really bad stuff to me and Blanchey. Check his talk page history WikiFlame50 (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

And zesty really hates me. He tormented me to make me leave Wikipedia. Which failed. He even sent me a death threat once. He’s a crazy deranged user. WikiFlame50 (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

anonblock

I will preface this by saying I have no idea if it is appropriate to address you here about this. If not, deepest apologies.

I wanted to edit an article, and was told that my IP had been blocked by JBW until June 12, but that I also shouldn't really worry. As for the reason, the space was blank, but there was a paragraph about unregistered users.

I thought that I needed to register, but it told me the same (IP address blocked), however giving me a reason this time: "

To edit, please log in.

Editing by unregistered users from your shared IP address or address range may be currently disabled due to abuse. However, you are still able to edit if you sign in with an account. If you are currently blocked from creating an account, and cannot create one elsewhere in the foreseeable future, you may follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Request an account to request that volunteers create your username for you. Please use an email address issued to you by your ISP, school or organization so that we may verify that you are a legitimate user on this network. Please reference this block in the comment section of the form.

Please check on this list that the username you choose has not already been taken. We apologize for any inconvenience.

".

Is it simply because I edited a few things while being unregistered, or was there some objectionable editing from my IP address?

Furthermore, the text mentioned something about my ISP? How precise is this block?

Note that I'm perfetly content with not editing until June, or even afterwards, I'm just curious, as this hasn't happened to me before.

Again, I'm not really a Wikipedia person, so I'm sorry if it was inappropriate to ask about this here. 2A02:2F0D:B70A:AE00:4D6A:F04A:D0D0:CACD (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no idea what block you are referring to, so I have no way of telling what the reasons for the block are, or what circumstances relate to it. If you tell me what IP address the block applies to then I will try to answer your query as best I can. (Obviously it isn't the IP address that you posted this message from.)
I don't know whether it's of any interest to you, but I originally just did minor corrections when I happened to see errors in articles, and didn't bother to have an account. Then one day I tried to make some minor edit at the local library, only to find that I couldn't, as the IP address was blocked because of vandalism. When I got a chance, I created an account on another computer, and 15 years later I have never suffered from the effect of a block again. You may find it helpful to do the same to avoid future problems, even if you don't expect to do much editing. JBW (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Thegaganbhullar‎

Hi JBW! Thanks for the block on the above-noted editor. Just a heads up that earlier today I opened up an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gaganbhullarsingh where I identified the editor as one of two possible socks of an older account (which is unblocked currently). Singularity42 (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

@Singularity42: I was actually in the process of checking that SPI when you posted your message here. I've blocked all three accounts. JBW (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Omaha Steaks request

Hi there, JBW. I'm reaching out because you helped me out with a request to update the Omaha Steaks Infobox back in March. A few weeks ago I posted another request to the Talk page, this one regarding the History section. I've had limited success getting other editors to review my proposed updates, so I'm hopeful that you'll have time to take a look. Really appreciate your help on this. Omaha Steaks Ashley (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

EC userflag

If you remember me from yesterday, I’m MxArya and I requested the EC flag here. Could you please add it to my account? MxArya (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Chaudhary Wasil Ali

Hi, thanks for declining the speedy on Draft:Chaudhary Wasil Ali. The editor who requested it is new, and they seem to be running around doing pretty random things. So far I'm not sure if they're just a bit over-eager, or whether there's something more to it, so I'm keeping an eye on them. I've left them an informal advice/warning, rather than taking to ANI; let's see if that calms them down at all. Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of Chaudhary, there's some weirdness going on with Special:Contributions/Firoz6767 and Special:Contributions/Sana543 and some various related pages. I'm at a loss to explain any of this, but it does smell like a sock drawer. casualdejekyll 19:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
At the very least, it looks like a page with the same general content has existed at the titles of Draft:Ch. Wasil Ali, Draft:Hoti_hsbila, and some other now deleted titles. Is someone not understanding something here, or is this promotion? See also Draft:Firoz_Chaudhary, whot's existence supports the latter, methinks. casualdejekyll 19:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Rob Manfred

Could you please hide the edit I reverted on Rob Manfred? Thanks! Nythar (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Nythar: Is there any special reason for doing so? The policy on revision deletion says RevisionDelete does not exist to remove "ordinary" offensive comments and incivility ... Material must be grossly offensive... Unless there's a specific reason that I don't know about, this looks like a typical example of childish vandalism of a kind which occurs hundreds if not thousands of times a day; very much "ordinary" offensive comments. JBW (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:REVDEL also states, in section WP:CRD, "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material," and later states "This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value." Nythar (talk) 08:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Nelum Pokuna "Naki Maina" Theater

Can I please know why the speedy deletion request for blatant redirect with an vandal/personal attack title Nelum Pokuna "Naki Maina" Theater is absurd. -UtoD 09:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is it a "vandal/personal attack title"? Who is attacked by it, and how? JBW (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The name Mahinda Rajapaksa has been named Maina (Myna). Maina is the nickname for Mahinda Rajapaksa used during the 2022 Sri Lanka protests and it is used as an insult. Its not a name for the theater, its just a redirect page left after reverting the move done by a vandal. Naki is just a Sinhalese offensive term for Old people. Thank you -UtoD 09:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@UtoD: OK, thanks for the explanation. I did try Google translate to see whether the title had an offensive meaning, but as you may know Google translate is far from perfect, and it didn't tell me anything useful. Perhaps it was a mistake to use the word "absurd". I will delete the redirect, but bear in mind that speedy deletion tagging is suitable only for cases where the reason for deletion is so obvious that any administrator on the English language Wikipedia is likely to see it easily; that certainly isn't so if it requires a knowledge of a language other than English. JBW (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Here is an example for the Naki Maina vandalism. Typing නාකි මයිනා in Google translate would help confirm it if you have any doubts. Translation is still not perfect but it should give the idea -UtoD 10:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism: Categories

User MercifulEarthMother is going around adding categories to characters that they don't have[8], I've been reading that character since 1990, he's never had any of those abilities, the Powers and abilities section on the page doesn't state any of that, and that user is not trying to prove it with sources. 108.208.136.197 (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no more time, and I can't follow this up now. My apologies. JBW (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

User talk:XiaaAsh

You may wish to revoke TPA.--Cahk (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Cahk:  Done In fact I can't think why I didn't block without TPA in the first place, in view of the behaviour of the editor's earlier accounts. Thanks for pointing it out to me. JBW (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Mistaken G8

Umm... was your deletion of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 119 an accident? It is normal for project talk archives not to have a live project page at the same subtitle, and you seem to have singled out a single talk archive amongst the hundred, so I assume it was an error? Can you restore? Cheers :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 13:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ben: I've restored the talk page archive, which of course I deleted in the way you suggested. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Normally if I delete any page which has a talk page I check the talk page before deleting, but evidently I slipped this time. JBW (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ben: All the creations of that page have been by sockpuppets of one vandal. In this situation I prefer not to salt the page. Since the person has repeatedly come back to the same page, it's likely that they will do so again, and it's easy to watch that page, and block if they show up. If we salt the page, however, it's likely they will just move on to another one, and since it isn't possible to watch every page they might choose, it's likely they won't be spotted. JBW (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
No problemo. And don't sweat it, I've made far worse mistakes than deleting a random years-old talk archive. :p Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 22:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding IP Addresses

Hi JBW, I hope you are well. I wanted to ask, how do I find out which editing range my IP Address comes from? Obviously I don’t edit anonymously anymore since creating this account although I noticed that my range had been partially blocked and when I saw what had happened, someone (I’m assuming they lived near me) had been anonymously vandalising articles. The partial block is no longer in place although now I cannot seem to click on the range as it no longer shows on my page when I’m not logged in. How do I find out where it comes from? Many thanks Blanchey (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Saurashtra Premier League

Dear JBW This Is India Domestic League It's Back 2022 Season Starts From June Please Create Article... MaazRajput123 (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@MaazRajput123: I have restored the previously deleted article Saurashtra Premier League. I assume that is what you wanted. JBW (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks... MaazRajput123 (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the reported IP at AIV

Hello JBW, sorry for the late reply since I've just came back from school. I've seen your message on my report at the WP:AIV and thanks for blocking it, though the IP address that I've reported has not been blocked yet. For now these three articles are usually often targets of the IP user. Also can you possibly block the entire range too since the editor often jumps from the other IP to another to continue their disruptive behavior in those articles. Regards. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 09:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@VictorTorres2002: You reported 112.203.238.15 and also mentioned 112.203.254.195, which are both covered by the range 112.203.128.0/17, which I have blocked from the pages ABS-CBN Sports, ABS-CBN News and Current Affairs, and List of programs distributed by ABS-CBN for three months. You can confirm that the IP addresses in question are part of that block by looking at Special:Contributions/112.203.238.15 and Special:Contributions/112.203.254.195. You also ask me to block "the entire range". The block that I placed covers all the relevant editing that I have seen, but if you know of any other IP addresses that have been used that lie outside that range, then please let me know so that I can consider blocking a larger range. JBW (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: Sure thing. I'll try my best to find previous IPs that previously disrupted these articles, then I'll tell it to you once I've traced them all. Cheers! VictorTorres2002 (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: Here's the IP I've found that have similar edit patterns and it also belongs to the same range. I had to check their contributions carefully to identify if it has indeed similar edits as 112.203.238.15. I've compared the edits after to the other two IPs:
Regards. VictorTorres2002 (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@VictorTorres2002: Yes, that one's covered by my block too. I don't know how much, if anything, you know about how IP ranges work, but a block on 112.203.128.0/17 means all IP addresses that begin 112.203 and then have 128 or more as the next number. The next bigger blockable range is 112.203.0.0/16, which means anything beginning 112.203, no matter what the next number is. I've skimmed through the editing history for the rest of that range from the middle of February up to now, and didn't spot anything looking like the disruptive editor we're concerned with. Obviously if you spot any that I've missed, let me know, but I'm fairly confident that there isn't any. Also, of course, if you see the same person becoming active on any other articles let me know, and I'll block them from those too. If the editor moves on to further IP addresses well away from this range, article protection could be considered, though I would much prefer to avoid that if possible, because of the risk of collateral damage. A total block on such a large IP range, as opposed to blocking from certain pages, would cause far too much collateral damage to consider. JBW (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: Alright then. It's really difficult to detect these disruptive editors since these ranges are also used by different editors and I don't want to cause a problem and get into trouble if the entire IP range gets blocked just due to a disruptive editor and I don't want you to get involved too in the situation also. Cheers! VictorTorres2002 (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

IP Talk page

Hi JBW; It may be a good idea to revoke TPA for this IP/edit. Just wanted to let you know about it. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 17:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188:  Done Thanks for letting me know. JBW (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Question about self-blocking

Hey! I was looking at WP:BLOCKME, and it doesn't exactly cover the case I'm looking at. I have an account thats designed to be used for testing a view from an unconfirmed account and it should not be editing. Would it be possible to have this account blocked to ensure this is kept the case incase something went awry?

Also, I'd consider adding {{pp}} to the top of your talk page to leave a notice for users who may be a little bit confused about why they cant talk to you. Aidan9382 (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aidan9382:
  1. I assume you want the account Permless blocked, so I have blocked it from all editing, including editing its own talk page, indefinitely. Please let me know if that wasn't what you wanted.
  2. Thank you so much for mentioning the protection of this page. I had intended to just leave the protection in place for a very short time and then lift it, in the hope that woul be enough to persuade the troublemaker responsible to give up. Evidently I then forgot about it. I would never intentionally leave this page protected for any significant time without putting a message on the page providing a link to an alternative talk page. (I have occasionally done that over the years.) Naturally, now that you've drawn it to my attention I've unprottected the page. JBW (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No problem. And yes, Permless was the account I was enquiring about. Thanks for the help! Aidan9382 (talk) 20:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

A message from Brakshit23

Hello JBW. why to delete page when we can correct it. it takes bit time to structure it. help with edits and contributions why straight away delete??? Brakshit23 (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Why you want to delete pages??? Brakshit23 (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Brakshit23: There are various reasons for deleting pages. In the case of the article which you no doubt have in mind, the most important reason was that it infringed copyright. That is a matter of law, not just a matter of Wikipedia policy: it is a matter of law. We cannot knowingly or negligently oallow copyright infringements to remain. If we regularly did so, Wikipedia would be closed down by legal authorities. Other than that, if you wish to know in detail what the reasons are for the various aspects of Wikipedia's deletion policy then you will have to look through the history of the numerous discussions on the subject over the years, but the essential idea, it seems to me, is that if we were to allow articles on just any subject at all, Wikipedia would be brought down to the level of all the mindless blogs, fansites, internet forums, personal web pages etc etc that exist. Wikipedia has a higher profile than any of those, and is taken more notice of, because unlike those, we have standards as to what is suitable for inclusion, and for the most part exclude stuff which would lower the quality of the encyclopaedia.
Better to improve bad articles instead of deleting them? Yes, of course, and if it weren't for the copyright problem I would be happy to restore the article and move it to draft space to allow you a chance to change it from a sycophantic accolade into a neutral piece of reporting.
One more point. When articles on a particular topic have been repeatedly created over the course of many years, every time written in blatantly promotional terms, several times created by single-purpose accounts that do no editing apart from promoting that one subject, and when following protection of the article title another promotional article on the same subject is created under a different title, what thought do you think it is bound to prompt? It is bound to raise a very strong suspicion that it is paid-for spam. I can't tell whether you have been offered payment for that article, or for any other editing you have done, but if you have then you need to be aware that the Wikipedia Foundation's terms of use require anyone doing editing for pay to clearly and openly state that they are being paid, who is paying them, and if the paymaster is acting on behalf of someone else, then who that client is. JBW (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi JBW, just wanted to let you know that Brakshit23 couldn't wait for your reply and opened an ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_got_deleted_by_JBW. Looks like he didn't inform you.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree: Thanks very much for letting me know. JBW (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
informed to respective authority i can not take this as its unfair and unacceptable Brakshit23 (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Bring that article back and prove that its was infringement and violation of copy rights?? Lets check that parallelly. very similar or more promotional content i can share with you of other wiki pages. why no action on that?? absolute bias attempt to do it without having words and now just bringing unacceptable reasonings. it never goes through once's assumptions or belief at once. it works on mutual respect and better understanding. What reputed newspaper have written i have quoted that, what people have said i have quoted that. image was given by the person him self on my request because i want to write article on him and when everything is on fair line than why false feeling and it seems to you you wanted to bring in..
prove me that, its illegal or not fair??? Brakshit23 (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Dear JBW Already discussed with you. We could have correct it without deleting it. 2nd if you felt that link might be not appropriate which has been deleted way back. We have made more simpler content. As much as possible and real content aligned with reputed newspaper and magazines which are not paid. That person is well known on Gujarat and Mumbai.why whole article to delete. It was absolute abuse of given power and skills Brakshit23 (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello JBW
please help me to restart that article. Govind Laljibhai Dholakia. i am not an admin. please help Brakshit23 (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JBW/Archive_80&oldid=1094908622"