Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

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

    Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks[edit]

    XFD backlog
    V Mar Apr May Jun Total
    CfD 0 6 17 61 84
    TfD 0 0 2 4 6
    MfD 0 0 1 3 4
    FfD 0 0 0 0 0
    RfD 0 0 10 12 22
    AfD 0 0 0 0 0


    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection[edit]

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 7854 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Meragram 2024-06-17 17:18 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ivanvector
    Union Council Khot 2024-06-17 17:17 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Ivanvector
    User talk:Aviram7/Editnotice 2024-06-17 16:20 indefinite edit,move user request UtherSRG
    Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:48 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Ad Orientem
    Talk:Malcolm Vaughn 2024-06-17 05:47 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated A7 article Ad Orientem
    Timeline of the 2014 Gaza War 2024-06-17 02:28 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement; requested at WP:RfPP Elli
    DWYE-FM 2024-06-16 21:40 indefinite create Liz
    DWIP-FM 2024-06-16 21:39 indefinite create Liz
    Calls for a ceasefire during the Israel–Hamas war 2024-06-16 20:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan
    Hashim Safi Al Din 2024-06-16 19:44 indefinite edit,move raising to ECP as requested Daniel Case
    Module:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Category disambiguation 2024-06-16 18:00 indefinite edit High-risk template or module: 2502 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    J.Williams 2024-06-16 14:04 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit
    J. Williams 2024-06-16 14:03 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Girth Summit
    Naznin Khan 2024-06-16 05:30 2024-09-16 05:30 create Repeatedly recreated Billinghurst
    2024 University of Pennsylvania pro-Palestine campus encampment 2024-06-16 04:56 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement WP:PIA Chetsford
    User:Ajaynaagwanshi 2024-06-16 04:02 2024-06-23 04:02 create deleted as inappropriate is exactly that, do not redo the same editing Billinghurst
    Wars of the Deccan Sultanates 2024-06-15 22:48 indefinite move reinstate earlier protection due to move warring Graeme Bartlett
    Leve Palestina 2024-06-15 19:49 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    2026 Cricket World Cup Qualifier 2024-06-15 19:30 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case
    Template:Reference column heading 2024-06-15 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2505 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Template:Abbreviation 2024-06-15 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2503 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Dinosaur of Ta Prohm 2024-06-15 14:35 2024-07-06 14:35 edit,move Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content UtherSRG
    2019 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:41 2024-07-15 11:41 edit edit warring Valereee
    2014 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:39 2024-07-15 11:39 edit edit warring Valereee
    2009 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:38 2024-07-15 11:38 edit edit war Valereee
    2004 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:37 2024-07-15 11:37 edit edit war Valereee
    1999 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:35 2024-07-15 11:35 edit edit warring by AC users Valereee
    1994 South African general election 2024-06-15 11:33 2024-07-15 11:33 edit It's an AC user, too. Please discuss. Valereee
    Capital punishment in the Gaza Strip 2024-06-14 19:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    List of pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the United States in 2024 2024-06-14 15:43 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish
    2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestine campus protests 2024-06-14 00:05 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish

    New editors editing an article that appears to be a designated "contentious topic"[edit]

    Can someone more knowledgeable about contentious topics please take a look at 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestine campus protests and its edit history? It appears to be directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict which means that it's a formal "contentious topic" with all of the associated restrictions. The editors focusing on the article seem to be doing a pretty good job in terms of other Wikipedia policies and practices but it doesn't seem like they should be allowed to edit that particular article since they're brand new editors. (There may be other articles about the protests on other campuses and other places that could use similar scrutiny but I haven't looked into it myself.) ElKevbo (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It really should be deleted altogether, since it was created by a non-EC editor. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a specific policy that cites this? Kire1975 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand on that, WP:ECR by way of WP:ARBPIA4. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could try dropping a line in Talk:2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses to see if someone there who is EC would like to "adopt" the article and take responsibility for it, or maybe just see if there is some content that should be saved in some way e.g., copied into that article. ElKevbo (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a decent article. It 'd be a shame to delete it altogether. Kire1975 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indefinitely ecp'd the article. As there have been substantial contributions from extended-confirmed editors I have not deleted it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedurally and practically speaking, I think the best default option for these situations (it seems to come up often) is to draftify the article in question, and if there's consensus among EC editors on the talk page that it's ready to be moved back into mainspace, then that would be fine. Perhaps that can be written into the pertinent contentious topics policy, what do others think? Left guide (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators Levivich (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds reasonable, but it's hard to know whether it's the best strategy given the nature of the PIA topic area because of the law of unintended consequences. This kind of activity can also be seen as probing the topic area to find weak points, edge cases, situations where there is reluctance to enforce the rules, divisions in attitudes towards ECR within the community that can be exploited etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    How to appeal an expired topic ban[edit]

    Hello! This is a bit of a weird question. Roughly 5 years ago (give or take) I received a topic ban for BLP violations. I disagreed with the ban, but did not appeal it - I mostly just stopped editing Wikipedia all that much, as I was getting frustrated with editing and didn't feel I was contributing much of value.

    This topic ban was set to last for 6 months - it's since expired. However, I still think it was inappropriate. I dislike having a 'black mark' on me. Is appealing expired bans a thing? How would I do it?

    WP:UNBAN suggests filing an arbitration request if I have questions about the validity but I really don't think this rises to that level of seriousness. The other recommendations seem to apply more for currently active sanctions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @PeterTheFourth: You have two basic options if you believe the AE decision was incorrect, since the enforcing administrator isn't going to be available (given they've been desysopped for inactivity, I don't see much point in going to them), might as well skip appealing to them. Your next step is either a thread here or at WP:AE to contest the sanction (which is expired, so somewhat moot, but I don't see any procedural reason that you can't do so), with the appropriate formatting. I've attached the process below, and I can help you format a thread if you'd like to do so.
    Standard of review
    On community review
    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:
    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    But ultimately, that there is the process. EggRoll97 (talk) 04:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @EggRoll97: Thanks a ton, that was really clear. I'll start an appeal once I've got it all formatted up. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Topic Ban Appeal Request (PeterTheFourth)[edit]

    I'd like to appeal a since expired topic ban from BLP that was placed on me. My goal in lodging this request is to establish that the topic ban should not have been placed. I realise the topic ban has expired.

    I received a topic ban in September of 2019 as a result of this discussion at arbitration requests for enforcement. Reading through the enforcement request would give a fairly clear picture. I was reported for restoring a link somebody had made to a tweet on a talk page which contained serious allegations against a living person. My personal summary of the discussion would be that my behaviour in doing so was viewed as pointy, unpleasant to a degree, and I should have been more civil and clear headed in my interactions with people. I do agree with that.

    I was mystified at the time by the result being a 6 month BLP topic ban, and asked the imposing moderator (GoldenRing) to explain on my talk page here. This didn't go too well - I didn't feel the reasoning behind the 6 month topic ban was clear, and they did, and it was left at that. I stopped editing shortly after, which was good for me.

    Additional context for the arbitration enforcement request was this ANI thread, roughly a year prior. No action was taken, but editors noted that my edit summaries were unnecessarily rude, or potentially read as threats (I really didn't intend that!) - the closer pointed out the don't insult the vandals essay which was a good call.

    So, why do I think the topic ban was no good? My interpretation of the impetus behind the topic ban was that I violated BLP by restoring comments on a talk page containing links to a statement on social media alleging serious harm by the victim of said harm. I believe this because of what GoldenRing commented here, where GoldenRing says I was edit-warring a tweet into a page as a source alleging sexual assault. I restored this link here and here. These links were contained in a talk page comment by another editor. Said editor had also added a section on the page itself about these allegations to the BLP itself, using said tweet as a source. It should be noted that reliable sources did cover this allegation very shortly after, but I don't think they had covered it when the talk page section was made (this was very close after the initial tweet iirc).

    I don't think restoring this comment/talk section as I did justifies a BLP ban or violates BLP policy. The best policy source for this is (I think) WP:BLPTALK. It contains the text For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating "This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?". A talk page section discussing how to cover a serious allegation of harm, which had been made by the victim of said harm, in a statement published on their social media, is (to my understanding/belief) a reasonable, justifiable thing to have. I may be wrong here, in which case my request should be denied.

    Please feel free to ask me more about the situation (or enlighten me where I'm mistaken). I'm happy to provide context where I can remember or find it. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Considering the person that was the subject of the BLP died by suicide following these allegations, I think the topic ban was more than appropriate. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ??? ...This sounds like you're saying it was because PeterTheFourth linked to a tweet on a Wikipedia talk page (allegations which are now thoroughly documented in the article itself). Couldn't this have happened if the link were to RS coverage of the allegations, too (and thus not a BLP violation)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - if there was RS coverage, I would imagine that would have been far more distressing for anyone than a link to a tweet on a Wikipedia talk page. I think the suicide issue is a distraction here. The question asked was 'was this topic ban appropriate?', and by extension, 'was this edit I kept reinstating a BLP violation?'. It seems to me based on the facts presented that the answer is a clearcut 'hell yes' to both questions. Girth Summit (blether) 12:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a cautionary tale of what could happen (someone committing suicide because of a BLP vio). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have any evidence that the person's suicide had anything to do with the Wikipedia page, or are you just making allegations of it? Lulfas (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you implying things I never said? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 23:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't read through the links above, but I have a question about the link you were posting: did the tweet name the alleged perpetrator? It would be one thing to post a link to a Tweet where a BLP subject says 'I was subject to a sexual assault in the past'; it would be another to post a link to a tweet where a BLP subject says 'John Doe sexually assaulted me in the past'. Which of these scenarios are we talking about here? Girth Summit (blether) 07:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Girth Summit: Yes, it did name the alleged perpetrator. PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think it's pretty obvious that it was a BLP violation to post a link to it anywhere on the project - it's a self-published source, making serious allegations about a named individual. If I saw something like that, I'd remove it, delete any revisions containing the link from the article/talkpage history, and warn the person who posted it that if they did that again I would block them indefinitely, noting that they could be unblocked if they made an undertaking not to do anything like that again. A 6-month BLP TBan seems to me like you got off pretty lightly. Girth Summit (blether) 07:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading all that I'm amazed you've decided to bring this all up instead of just letting it go, nobody would've remembered it otherwise. The fact that you still don't understand BLP and why what you did was an issue, even after the guy committed suicide - likely in response to these allegations and their effects - makes me believe you still need a topic ban from BLP issues. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweets alleging that a living person has committed a serious crime are never going to be acceptable in an article, per WP:BLPSPS. I think GoldenRing was correct when commenting on the AE request: The section of BLPTALK that PTF refers to presupposes that there is the possibility that the link might be used in the article; since there is no chance whatsoever that we would ever source such an allegation to twitter, bringing up such a link on the talk page is not something that BLPTALK allows. And even if linking to the tweet on the article talkpage were acceptable, posting it on their own talkpage clearly cannot be justified as BLPTALK. This was clearly an appropriate TBAN, and like Traumnovelle I am concerned that the fact that PeterTheFourth is trying to relitigate it now suggests they still do not understand our BLP policies. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Two things. First, if this were just about the links I'd sort of get why PeterTheFourth was confused. These weren't random allegations introduced out of the blue onto an article talk page. These were allegations which, at the time of Peter's reverts, had already received coverage in reliable sources -- reliable sources which include the same link. That doesn't mean we should include that link directly, but one could be forgiven for being surprised at a 6month tban for that offense. But, the second thing is that GoldenRing's explanation wasn't simply about restoring those links -- that's just what the usertalk follow-up was about. The full reason for the tban was For an uncollaborative, incivil and BATTLEGROUNDish approach to editing and for repeatedly restoring BLP violations. I haven't examined the AE thread to look at the evidence for the first part, but it also hasn't been contested here. My gut feeling is that, unless the sanction was based on unambiguous flaws, this is not something worth using community time on when the sanction hasn't been active in more than 4 years. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Given all the above, I would strongly suggest PeterTheFourth withdraw this request and just move on. Otherwise, this may wind up in a boomerang with more long-term consequences than an expired topic ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds: I appreciate the concern. I'm comfortable letting someone else close the appeal/discussion when a conclusion has been reached. If that conclusion is that I should be further sanctioned, well, it is what it is. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PeterTheFourth - there are a lot of links above, and as I said when I made my comment above I hadn't read through them all. Something in Rhododendrites' comment above has given me pause, and I think I'd finesse what I said somewhat. My comments above were based on the assumption that the allegations had not been reported by reliable sources. I see now that, when you reinstated them, there were some RS listed at BLPN reporting on the allegations. That casts a slightly different light on things, and I think I agree with Rhod's take on it - reinstating the link would not have necessarily have been a problem in and of itself had it been explained. The way you did it, however, was a problem. If you were aware that these allegations had already been covered in RS, then you could potentially have reinstated it while linking to those sources - so that it was immediately clear to people why you were doing it. Better still, you could have created a new section, citing those sources, and suggesting how the article might be edited to accommodate the material reported in the RS. As it transpired, it looked for all the world like you were simply reinstating a BLP vio. Then when discussing the removals with DFO, you again had the opportunity to explain to him why you were reinstating it - but you just told him that he didn't understand policy and that you weren't willing to explain to him why you felt that.
    Put it this way: making poorly sourced edits regarding potentially criminal activity about a named person without a source is a BLP vio. At the time you made those edits, better sources existed, but you didn't cite them, you didn't mention them, they weren't present on the article, and while someone had alluded to their existence on the talk page, they hadn't linked to them - so the material was still poorly sourced. I therefore still think what you did was a technical BLP vio, but it was a less egregious one than I first thought. I still think the TBan was within GoldenRing's discretion at the time, but I no longer feel that you 'got off lightly' as I suggested above. If you want to return to editing here, I don't think that you need to have the TBan reimposed, but I hope that you're willing to be a bit more communicative than you were five years ago, especially when dealing with sensitive assertions concerning BLPs. Girth Summit (blether) 15:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, quite frankly, given the editor's general attitude at the time, including behavior during the discussion about the dispute itself, getting off with only a six-month topic ban from BLPs, rather than a permanent one or a wider site ban was already fairly generous. That they still not only think it wasn't a serious issue but their initial concern after five years is to relitigate the issue, is strong evidence to me that the initial block was well warranted and that, combined with the editor just leaving for five years, the block wasn't sufficient to cause an adjustment in approach. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unacceptable personal/penile attacks[edit]

    User:Btphelps is blocked for their unacceptable comments. My thanks to all the participants and the various blocking admins. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Note: I am copying this from a thread now closed by Star Mississippi; I believe this matter still needs to be discussed. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, Fram, for this edit, "Evrik has no issue with allowing blatant personal attacks against Graywalls on his talk page it seems": please click the links to see what User:Btphelps had to say, twice, about User:Graywalls and their penis. Or is "weenie" just a sausage in scout talk? It's such an infantile comment that it doesn't bear repeating here. The edits were a few days ago, and perhaps it's too late to block, but this really cannot stand. At a minimum the editor should be given a one-way interaction ban, and perhaps a topic ban from scouting matters. But note also their comments in these diffs about "leftist editors" and "wokist CEO Katherine Maher"--we've blocked for such comments before. Given my history with the scouting stuff I am not going to act administratively, and I think that by now, given the post above, we are into territory where sanctions likely need to be community sanctions. Let me note that I have not looked beyond Fram's diffs at the editor's recent behavior and comments--but let me repeat Fram's point that User:Evrik simply let it stand on their own talk page (until Fram pointed it out). Drmies (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think some of User:Btphelps's criticism is valid and appropriate. are If we are going to follow up on blocking people based on criticism of policies they feel are "leftist" or "woke", that's a few bridges too far. However, snide comments about a user's phallic appendages are completely unacceptable. A warning and directive to remove such content is appropriate. If he refuses, a block until they are removed is a good start. Buffs (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just block Btphelps. Calling people wokes and leftists, while calling suppressing COVID disinformation "censorship", clearly indicate someone who has views incompatible with being on Wikipedia. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling people woke and leftist indicates personal views whose holders are incompatible with the project of Wikipedia? Or am I misunderstanding? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've seen far-right Twitter accounts post messages using those two terms as pejoratives for people they don't like. So yeah, I guess. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. Maybe you can draft an essay on how editors who use words you’ve seen right-wing Twitter accounts use should be banned for incompatibility. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, it could be added to any of the "No (hate group)" essays. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 02:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes. Using pejoratives does not make someone incompatible with being on Wikipedia. "Leftie" and "woke" aren't example of hate speech. Being conservative isn't like being racist or homophobic. The comments were uncivil and both blocks were good blocks, but what happened there wasn't an example of the kind of hate that the "no hate" essays are about. (And BTW, you're displaying an incredible amount of intolerance here. Wikipedia isn't a place where you only have to interact with people who have the same political beliefs as you do.) Levivich (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now, I'll admit that just using "leftist" and "woke" as pejoratives isn't enough to be worthy of a block on its own. But it's never a good sign. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If using the label "wokist" or "leftist" is never a good sign, how about using the label "far-right"? Hypocrisy is not a good sign. Levivich (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to pick a fight is also not a good sign. Maybe take this elsewhere or drop it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, if someone at AN is going to suggest a CIR block for using the labels "leftist" or "wokist," equating those terms with hate speech, I'm going to push back on that, right then and there, just as I'm going to push back on your suggestion that doing so is "trying to pick a fight." It's not. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is allowed to be a valuable project because we don’t ban people based on "not-good signs" about their personal beliefs. It’s good to remember that people can disagree with you radically and still be good-faith actors interested in and capable of bettering the encyclopedia.
    And I’ll echo Levivich: if you can refer to "far-right" alignments, obviously it is just as fair to refer to "leftist" alignments. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that people with extreme beliefs shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia? While I agree in principle that people with extreme beliefs pretty much universally make terrible editors, it's not really something that can or should be enforced through blocks. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think editors with extreme beliefs shouldn't be allowed to edit Wikipedia. But I think that those who publicly express those beliefs through their editing, especially if hateful, aren't compatible with the idea of the project at all. (So really, my thoughts are WP:HID but reworded.) LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 03:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is, and has, been enforced through blocks. People who make statements containing bigotry are blocked due to the fact those comments drive away productive editors who are part of the minorities being targeted. So this isn't a valid argument. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're talking about two different things. It's possible to hold extreme beliefs without expressing hate against a specific group, and it's possible to be hateful without being an extremist. Expressions of hate against any group should result in a block specifically because it creates division and pushes away editors, but there's no agreed upon practice for blocking simply because someone expresses support for extremism, let alone for using wording that extremists use. Based on some of the userboxes we have, that would be quite a few blocks. Would it make the project better if we blocked people for having awful views? Maybe. But that's just not a realistic proposition. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the identification in question is “right-wing”. This is not even an extreme or “awful” alignment; it’s a large proportion of the world’s population. Its equal opposite is “left-wing”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This side tangent started with LilianaUwU's argument that "far-right" was the appropriate identification. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, sorry. Still no further out of bounds than “far-left”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Levivich on this - calling someone a leftist or a wokist isn't hate speech. It makes you look pretty uncollaborative, but it's not the kind of thing we would consider blocking someone for on the spot, in the same way we would for making demeaning comments about someone's gender, race etc. If you were constantly picking fights with other editors you perceive as being leftists, you'd get blocked for the uncollaborative attitude of course, and I'd like to hope we'd do the same to someone who was constantly picking fights with people they see as being conservatives. I consider myself a lefty, in a Guardian-reading British sort of way, but Wikipedia is a broad enough church to encompass people who read the Telegraph, think that young people don't know they're born and believe that political correctness has gone mad. But it's not broad enough to encompass people who think that saying someone has a small penis is an effective rhetorical device. Girth Summit (blether) 14:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the woke/leftist comments for the moment, Btphelps has twice commented on another editors penis which is surely inappropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For sure. No contest there. An editor’s penis is beyond the boundaries of attack; it never asked for any of that. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Aoidh blocked them for 2 weeks earlier today. Secretlondon (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh! For this? I'm still going to let this run because I think that maybe this should be taken as a community matter/judgment on the user's overall attitude. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm of the opinion that someone whmakes comments like that needs to be indef blocked until they commit to never doing it again, on the understanding that a repeat occurrence will be met with another indef block. FWIW, I blocked a long-standing contributor (mainly to another language wiki, but they had been sporadically editing here for many years) years ago for calling another editor stupid. I told them that all they had to do to be unblocked was promise not to do it again - I didn't even require an apology. They refused, and remain blocked. If you can't commit to refrain from openly insulting people in puerile terms, I can't think of a good reason why you should be permitted to continue contributing. Girth Summit (blether) 21:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a big fan of both this policy, and the aptness of the username "Girth Summit" given the direction this is all going. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a name whose bearer is impervious to penile attacks, for sure. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was raised at my RfA; I wrote User:Girth_Summit/My_username in hopes of putting any concerns to rest. Girth Summit (blether) 11:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I have no concern, and I like the name—I was just joking that no troll would dare. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 12:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal - penile - puerile. Anyone want to try for four?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, penal, obviously. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pubic phallic perineum prostate? 12.75.41.67 (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't disagree with this viewpoint at all. I did a two week block because while I felt some action was necessary to try to prevent this from continuing, I'm hopeful that perhaps a shorter block would make it clear that this behavior is unacceptable and would be all that's needed. However, I absolutely have no objection if the community feels the block should be changed in any way, and I don't disagree with the rationale that they should show that they understand the reason for the block before continuing to edit. - Aoidh (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This would be preferable to the current strategy: several rounds of "please don't do that", followed by a few sprawling ANI arguments, eventually leading to a cban after the third or fourth major incident. It would save us a lot of time, and it would make it easier to offer WP:ROPE. It might be worth considering a Village Pump post to reform WP:CIVIL in this direction. My one reservation is that we would need some idea of a clear bright line to limit arguments about bad blocks. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support indefinite sitewide block for obnoxious trolling and violating the Scout Law. Cullen328 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally don't think Btphelps' attitude is stellar in any way, nor is it even really acceptable. They've asked Graywalls to refrain from "further preemptive, rogue edits" as though WP:BRD didn't exist (see here), and openly quote an editor blocked under WP:NONAZIS, seen here with the quote in one of the diffs in Drmies' links. In addition, while this one is a bit older than the current controversy, a new editor self-identified as an article subject's son here and attempted to make multiple changes to the article. Btphelps then encouraged the editor to contact them if they want to add more images to the article, with Btphelps stating they are Jane Beasley and Ted Raph's nephew here, and implying they would be willing to put them into the article for the new editor. I'd say this is sneaky COI attempts at best, and intentional disruption at worst. All of this frankly culminates in wondering if Btphelps is truly here to build an encyclopedia, or because they think they know what is best for articles, and other contributors be damned. I'd honestly support a sitewide indef block. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree, so I'm implementing one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block, at least until he understands that the comments were uncivil and agrees not to do it again. There are almost zero circumstances where it's appropriate to discuss another editor's penis. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't believe there's even a debate here. Obviously we do not censure and block editors because of any political ideology; using administrative powers for political control is right up there with undoing functionary blocks as a guaranteed way to lose the mop. But at the same time, it is obviously not permitted to attack any editor on the basis of any personal ideology, it is obviously not allowed to publish political insults about living persons with an evidently opposing political alignment, and it is so obvious it beggars belief it even needs to be discussed that you cannot make insulting inferences about another editor's genitalia. Good block, good indef, support siteban. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Belated, but good block and support this thread. Btphelps' comments weren't going to get the eyes they needed in the latest incarnation of the dispute about Scouting content, and I'm glad they did here. Whether far-right/leftist/wokist are PAs is moot, that was juvenile trolling which is what that account had devolved to. Star Mississippi 12:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse indef block for obvious trolling. The rest of this thread .... ugh. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 15:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support indef block up to and until the usual. And for those of our clients looking for Featured-quality penile-related material of the lesser kind, may I draw attention to a pre-Internet example of "murder, mayhem and a very small..." ——Serial Number 54129 16:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    A user has requested removal of talk page content at Talk:Oldest people[edit]

    A dispute over whether to include a deceased person in Oldest people, and with what details, resulted in edit-warring (see May 14 in the edit history), blocking and, in one case, an eventual indef for one user. Some of the content on the talk page has already been struck but an editor claiming to be a relative of the deceased person has requested that all comments about the person be deleted. This would (presumably?) require striking of much of the content of Talk:Oldest_people#Corrections: and some of Talk:Oldest_people#Page_protection_request. It might be necessary to pin a notice to ensure the person is not mentioned again or included in the article, though how this could be done without the person's name beats me, unless it is possible to flag the name for bot detection. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This just looks like reliable sources. The person claiming to be family says we have the dob wrong. Where did we get the dob? We only use published sources. Secretlondon (talk) 05:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The dispute was over which of 2 equally reliable sources should be used as they had conflicting information. The solution, agreed by consensus, is to omit the person until such time as the sources agree. The relative wishes all reference to the individual removed. I was under the impression that could be done under a privacy policy (not that I can find an appropriate policy). If there are no grounds under policy for the material to be removed from the talk page (and in future, from preventing their relation from being included in the article), could an admin explain that to the user? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You and I both have been going at this topic for more than a decade now, and still I sometimes find discussions that take lameness to a new level. Given that the two sources in question have vastly different details about this marginally-notable-at-best person, and that these are the only two sources for a topic that has a well-documented history of fraudulent claims, there's no reason Wikipedia should be propagating this. I also, incidentally, note a lot of threats being bandied about on the talkpage, people making them need to stop it immediately. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it would better if we tried to be an encyclopedia based on notable topics, rather than the Guinness Book of Records. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas, there seems to be some disagreement among users as to what "notable" means. Donald Albury 20:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like I'm missing something here. The discussion appears to center around a disagreement between sources, and someone claiming to be the descendant of the person written about in those sources is asking us to delete the entire conversation because it is insulting to her ancestor? Is that right? Because if it is I don't see any grounds for being upset at Wikipedia about it. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings, I asked to delete all inappropriate comments about my grandpa Ilie Ciocan. Later, I deleted my comments because I listed my contact email there so I was worried because it is publicly available. Namely, on the page talking about the oldest people, various comments and arguments appeared where users argued about whether to add or delete grandfather from the list. My family is appalled after reading these comments, a friend of mine sent me a link to this site. I requested the deletion of all comments where my grandfather is mentioned, because I think he did not deserve to have this type of public discussion about his age. As for publicly available sources, there is no disagreement about the date of birth, the LongeviQuest page confirms that he was born on May 28, 1913, as well as the Gerontology Research Group page. Anyway, it doesn't matter to us if he's on the list or not, it's important to us that all comments about him are deleted, it's unacceptable and we feel upset about it, it's humiliating for my sister and I who for over a decade we take care of him, it is very difficult for us, but we will not give up on him. You can see my comment in the change history. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oldest_people&diff=prev&oldid=1229004322
    Sincerely, Camelia Ciocan, Ilie Ciocan's youngest granddaughter Camelia249 (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A number of revisions have already been suppressed (if you look in the edit history, the revisions which are doubly stricken are suppressed). These cannot be seen by anyone other than a very small group of trusted editors. Are there still comments present which you regard as problematic? Simply not liking a comment is not grounds for its removal. I have admittedly only taken a cursory glance through the thread but I don't notice anything libelous or otherwise problematic. If you think any content is libelous, your best option would probably be to contact the oversight team (see Wikipedia:Oversight) with the diff links of the comments you think require suppression, or contact Wikimedia (see Wikipedia:FAQ/Article subjects) detailing your concerns. You could post what content you want removed here, but this is a high-traffic noticeboard and the content in question is likely to be seen by yet more people (for example, I would never have come across the comments in question if it hadn't been posted about here). Adam Black talk • contribs 07:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review User:Jamiesonandy[edit]

    Jamiesonandy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Blocking admin: Orangemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

    The blocked user is clearly an elderly person who misunderstands what Wikipedia is. It was explained to him at the help desk, and he stopped editing. Ten hours later, Mike indef blocked him. I feel like this is far from the first time I have seen Mike come late to a situation and substitute his own judgement for that of others who already adressed the situation. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Egregiously bad block What the hell? Not a single warning on the user's talk page, not a note from the admin prior to jumping to a block, and an indef block at that? For a newbie who seems confused and needs some direction? Have we forgotten WP:BITE and WP:BLOCKP? I daresay I hope Orangemike is able to defend their actions, because I'm not seeing any reason they should be blocked indefinitely for a few questions on the Teahouse and Help Desk (two places designed for people to ask for..wait for it...help!). Not to mention, Orangemike mentions the editor being "belligerent" in the block reason, which I see absolutely zero evidence of, and the rest of their block reason of WP:NOTHERE seems to be a very unsubstantiated position to take. EggRoll97 (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The belligerency was when he demanded, I asked a question; where is your answer? The guy was just not getting it, was using both the Teahouse and Help Desk as general information sources for UK banking questions, and clearly was not going to accept that this was not the place to seek help on this question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)
    It wasn't just one out of place question. It was several on both the Teahouse and the Help Desk, and it didn't seem like the user was ready to give up asking. RudolfRed (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not a good block. I've taken a look at a number of Orangemike's NOTHERE blocks (I didn't look at others), and there were a number of very bad blocks:
    Nearly half of the blocks I looked at were like this. Orangemike really needs to stop doing these no-to-little-warning blocks. —Ingenuity (t • c) 23:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If my colleagues really feel that I'm being quick on the trigger, I will accept your collective judgement and take my trouting like a mensch; but I genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project in the way that somebody like Sideways [nee Beeble] does every day. Two spamming accounts with spammy usernames, one poop joke, one racial epithet username, and our confused British gentleman who thinks we can put him in contact with a bank account dead for over half a century...... --Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't looked into any of your blocks and so have no opinion whether or not you have acted appropriately, but I would say that the fact that you genuinely doubt that any one of these accounts had any intention of contributing to our project does not override Wikipedia policy, specifically the policy on blocking. The intention behind Wikipedia was to create an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Policies which temporarily (even indefinite blocks shouldn't be considered permanent) remove an individual's ability to contribute to the project exist only to limit damage and disruption to the project and should generally be considered a last resort, not the first tool you pull out. I am not and have never been an administrator on this or any other Wikimedia project, but I have been an administrator or bureaucrat on multiple MediaWiki installations through my work and can tell you from experience that biting the newcomers in such a way may temporarily put a stop to vandalism or disruption but long-term only harms the project. Adam Black talk • contribs 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    None of these 4 blocks make any sense, and while I think Mike's explanations are genuine, this is a base breach of the blocking policy, and at least a couple of those user's blocks are concerning. The first, for User:Studio Atinati, based on the contributions looks like they need to be redirected to a different language content project (Google tells me it's Georgian?). The second user, User:Caroline.j.ashleyy, just needs an extra dose of the introduction to Wikipedia, not a block for heaven's sake. The third user, User:Mrpoopbenji, based on their contributions just seems like they need some help getting started, something the Growth Tools like mentorship are supposed to help with. Finally, the fourth user, User:Wilburthewigga, is the only one I'll say should probably be blocked, but not for WP:NOTHERE. If anything they should have been blocked for a UPOL violation, but not for their contributions or whether they are HERE or not. To be quite honest though, their edits are just to their user page then a question to their mentor. Of those edits to their userpage, they didn't seem to have any malicious intent either. In addition, they appear to have responded to the block notice, stating they would learn from it, which isn't typically a trait associated with blocks for WP:NOTHERE. On just a closing note as well, the deletion, unless something else had been added that was horridly obscene other than the page creation with "Woo!", I would say that's a violation of WP:DELTALK and the deletion policy in general. Based on the API result here, there doesn't appear to be any other edits to the page, though. Just out of curiosity, Ingenuity, would you (or of course any other administrator) be able to confirm if there's still a deleted revision on User talk:Wilburthewigga? If there is, I wonder if it would be possible to restore that revision, as it doesn't appear to be a proper use of the deletion tool. EggRoll97 (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I remember encountering Mrpoopbenji (talk · contribs) through WP:UAA, and discovered that all of their edits were created by a large language model. Ther sandbox was deleted for this reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wanted to point out that the blocked editor did not stop editing once it was pointed out (not only on May 14th, which they may have not seen, but also on Jun 14th at 18:34, again at 18:34, at 18:35, and at at 18:44) that wikipedia, including the Help desk and Teahouse, was not an appropriate place for their query. Rather, 20 minutes after that last response, the editor reposted the question asking for legal/financial advice on the userpage. Secondly, while the editor said that they had "contributed to Wikipedia for a number of years" at least this account seemed to be dedicated to a single purpose that was not that of building an encyclopedia. Finally, as Girth Summit eloquently explained on this page a short while back, albeit in a different context, one motivation for applying an indef block is to get assurance from the blocked editor that the problematic behavior will not be repeated.
    Hence, while I understand that the Jamiesonandy block was still a judgement call, and that it is natural to feel sympathy for a senior citizen in distress, I can also see Orangemike's thinking in applying the NOTHERE block. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've noticed for years that Orangemike is quick to block, often without any talk page warnings but I generally have trusted their judgment. I'd ask them to ease up on the trigger finger and try communicating with an editor before laying down the ban hammer first. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking, in my view, a NOTHERE indef block is admissible (although not necessary) if none of the user's edits indicate an ability or intent to improve our articles. This seems to be the case here. It's then up to the user to convince us, in an unblock request, that they are indeed able and willing to edit constructively. Sandstein 08:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A quick show of hands: y'all do realize that the "reason" you fill in at Special:Block isn't just for the entry in the block log, but is shown to the user every time they try to edit, yes? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing here for me is that the Teahouse and the Help Desk are exactly where we want users to go when they are lost or confused as to the purpose of Wikipedia. I don't think anyone is defending this users actual edits, but he hadn't posted anything in many hours and the situation seemed to have settled itself when Mike just indef blocked out of nowhere. Mike, like myself, has contributed for many years at WP:UAA Personally, I don't even think most of the thousands of accounts I've blocked at UAA were here in bad faith, they, like this person, just didn't get it and tried to use Wikipedia in ways it isn't intended to be used. So, they use an WP:ORGNAME and write upa draft article on said organization, and the usual response is that we delete the draft and soft block the user, explicitly allowing them to just start a new account and try to edit within the rules. Looking at some of Mike's blocks, he treats "being lost and confused on help forums" the same way most admins treat "actively disrupting article space." I just don't think being clueless in WP space is what NOTHERE hard indef blocks are for, it is for people who come here to push the content to suit their own needs, not for people who ask deeply misguided questions. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Meirtt123 & ECP status[edit]

    I have concerns that Meirtt123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may have obtained their ECP status through gaming the system.

    They registered their account in November of 2023. In June 2024, they started editing, making minor edits to numerous disparate topics, such as Tobacco politics (60 edits); Malaysia–Romania relations (29 edits); US & Canada's Ledcor Group of Companies (22 edits); Pollution in China (22 edits); Oak Creek, Wisconsin (22 edits); the disease Schistosomiasis (21 edits); etc.; source: Xtools. Immediately upon obtaining 500 edits, they jumped into Israel-Palestine topics.

    Could an administrator please review the situation? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This editor is currently making POV edits on Israeli settlement articles in breach of a long time consensus, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements. When reverted, reinserted the material with a dubious edit summary. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a link to some data showing the gaming in User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Peak_gaming? Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Worth noting that the impressive efficiency was thanks to the Wikimedia Foundation Growth team's "Newcomer tasks" project. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed their ECR status, this is an obvious example of gaming. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I pinged Black Kite on the user's page after a few more reverts, not realizing that the matter was already being discussed and that User:K.e.coffman already followed the track. It's ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Page[edit]

    The page Botola is always vandalized. Please lock it for a long time 160.177.133.23 (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) I see an edit war that began on May 30 with heavy involvement from this user and from زكرياء نوير (talk · contribs), where all sides are making unsourced changes to statistics. Actually, almost all of the statistics on this page are unsourced. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently the page is good now, someone deletes the numbers every time, it should be closed 160.177.133.23 (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing 'good' about unsourced content on the scale of that page. I suggest you find some sources, and then settle your dispute on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES edit another contributors' post like this. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The user زكرياء_نوير posted the following under their notice for this AN: Yes, there is sabotage every time the page has to be closed. So both users are accusing the other of vandalism, and that's even worse than the lack of sourcing. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like accidentally editing the template they intended to copy to edit their own comment? That's what it looks like. – 2804:F1...57:945F (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, article is semi-protected until 21 June. I would advise all participants to discuss on the talk page and source their additions/changes/kept text. Buffs (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    troll at Talk:7 Days to Die[edit]

    The IP is now blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This person verbally attacked me, but I was clearly discussing this in a friendly manner, and I did not attack back. I remained friendly from beginning to end. Mcx8202229 🇨🇳❤️ (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    First, you are required to notify the editor about this discussion. I have done that for you. Second, yes, I agree this edit is definitely a personal attack, and is worthy of a block. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1229604278"