Yes, I just came here to ask the same question. You can't delete categories like you would an article or talk page unless it is empty. You either have to manually change each page in the category or have a bot do it. But it doesn't happen automatically. LizRead!Talk! 04:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, BrownHairedGirl and Liz, I'd asked about this at VPT before and was given the impression this was done by a bot automatically at CfD. Is there a closing script to do this? I've added it now; does it work post-deletion? Fences&Windows 11:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the bot works fine post-deletion. The bot just does what it's told at WP:CFDW, where your entry looks fine.
@Fences and windows: I hadn't thought of the banned-user-rollbacks. But, to be honest, I deplore those speedy deletions of category pages cos they were created by a banned user. It's quite rare for a banned user to be the only person to populate a category, so it is a v bad idea to delete the whole show just because the category page creator has been banned.
Much better to list the categories at CFD, as @Redrose64 advised at VPT. This doesn't involve lots of extra work, because WP:TWINKLE makes a CFD nomination easy, and it saves a lot of work from undoing inappropriate speedies. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A brownie for you!
Here is a brownie for you for all the immense amount of help you gave by reviewing my article on Puneett Chouksey and closing the AFD of Speedily delete on that article.
Have a great day Sir/Ma'am!--Aleyamma38 (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Would you be so kind to block this anonymous user. He keeps reverting my edits and it’s so annoying. TylerKutschbach (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss with them on the talk pages, TylerKutschbach. Also leave a message on the IP's talk pages. I've semi-protected the pages for two days - that is not an invitation for you to revert again, as you risk being blocked for edit warring. You may already have breached WP:3RR. Fences&Windows 01:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anything I can clarify for you?
Hi Fences and windows. I'm very concerned that your comments at BLPN regarding the Sasha Grey misrepresent my position, my comments, and the available references. If there's anything I can do to clarify my position, please let me know. --Hipal (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can continue discussion at BLP/N; my comments my not capture your intent, but I believe they address the consequences of your position. I will edit to clarify. Fences&Windows 16:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that can work, as I don't think you understand my position despite my clarifications. Thanks for the refactoring. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I don't understand your position or the basis for your position, Hipal, but it's best not to fork the debate. I think consensus is against you at both the talk page and noticeboard so you need to better articulate 1) the grounding of your position in our policies and guidelines and 2) the practical consequences of your position for the article and its sourcing in order to persuade people. I'm really not aiming to be obtuse. Fences&Windows 21:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a debate. There are no sides. I agreed to allow the article to be revised to whatever Morbidthoughts wanted, provided there are BLP-quality references backing them. He's done so as best he can, so that's resolved.
I've reached out to you to try to prevent misunderstanding and the problems that develop from working from misunderstanding.
I'd hoped that editors would discuss quality of sources, weight, and any other relevant policies, guidelines, or general consensus. It appears that will not happen. --Hipal (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your responses at BLP/N have been quite terse and you don't always clearly explain what you are proposing and what the policy basis is. If you could expand more on that and not take pushback personally (which I acknowledge is difficult, especially in light of some of my own rhetoric) then others might understand what you're aiming for. Fences&Windows 00:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've put far too much time and effort into this already. At this point, I'm going to wait to see what the ip's do when the protection is lifted. --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fences and Window. I wanted get your advice and follow up on an issue we discussed at WP:AI#Incidents involving User:Sundayclose. I respect your opinion. First, thanks for the even-handed manner in which you handled that matter. I need advice about the IP socks of Cadeken (talk·contribs). As I said at ANI, Cadeken is a prolific sockmaster, using both registered socks and numerous IP socks. I'm almost certain that Cadeken's latest registered sock is Keith Ann Nikolas (talk·contribs) because of an identical editing pattern (articles related to mass killers and other violent crimes), but I'll deal with that at SPI. My concern is that inevitably when a Cadeken sock is blocked, soon after an IP located in central California emerges, making similar edits, often amid a registered sock edits. For example, here. Sometimes they are constructive edits, but often they are disruptive. To determine whether the sources are constructive, I would have to go to every source to confirm, and often these socks cite multiple sources. That's very time consuming, and with my limited time on Wikipedia, I probably would not take the time to do so. I could report the IP at SPI, but that often doesn't confirm sockpuppetry (and I understand why). So are those my only options? If so, I suspect the IPs problem edits will remain in articles for a long time, as they typically have in the past. I'm not complaining about how Wikipedia operates, but I want to make sure I have no other options before moving on to other matters here. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sundayclose, one thing I can do is semi-protect the usual/recent editing targets - let's put that together. I suspect they'll widen their target articles, but it'll disrupt their editing pattern.
If there is an obvious IP sockpuppet immediately after a block, reverting on sight and noting the block evasion in the edit summary and at the talk page seems reasonable. Fences&Windows 23:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are some articles that are frequent targets. I'll let you know when I see them. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
F&W, please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken. Is it appropriate for me now to revert Keith Ann Nikolas on sight, or do I need to cull through edits to separate the good from the bad? How about the IP? I'm not asking for your admin action, just advice. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sundayclose, it's a DUCK case, but wait for the SPI close then revert en masse. You're not obliged to check each edit, though be careful not to restore BLP violations etc.
I am new to all of this BLP bullshit. But I really appreciated your edits on the BLP board for the porn star. (Remember the internet was built on porn!) But seriously it is cool that you want to save edits.
That’s OK, I think we should give a complete picture of any person's career including Grey's. My go-to response for most issues on Wikipedia is to hunt for sources. Fences&Windows 09:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
me too. Anytime you need a second look at something or help finding sources, let me know. Is there a group of editors like you? I know that BLP Noticeboard tends to attract people that like to delete other people's work, is there a page that people who support edits gather? thanks again! have a great weekend! Infinitepeace (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if the editor whose IP 22.214.171.124 you blocked for block evasion after I raised their edits at BLPN is back, now at 126.96.36.199, making the same categorisations on often flimsy evidence, Do you want to deal with it or should I raise it elsewhere? NebY (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're back again on 188.8.131.52 categorising or (new) decategorising people as having a personality disorder, sometimes aligned with mentions in the articles and sometimes not, with facetious and serious edit summaries. NebY (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NebY, I've blocked the range again for another three months. Fences&Windows 10:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I've discovered watchlisting categories works now, hurrah, so I've done that. They seem a bit of a BLP risk. NebY (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've revdel'd one article. I don't know if you want to go back so far, but I found the claim inserted into the articles's text in 2017. I removed it last month without thinking to ask for revdel, sorry. NebY (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your vigilance! I revdelled further back, I couldn't verify that claim. Fences&Windows 19:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just over three months later, they're back as IP 184.108.40.206, adding disorder categories that aren't supported by article text in any I've sampled, mostly with the summary "i added him to another category". Some are BLPs again. Would you like to block them again? NebY (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Infinitepeace(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) seems to be inviting proxy editing on their talk page. I tried to post the actual policies, hoping to have a discussion as to whether what they are doing is allowed, but the links to the policies were deleted and I was asked to stay off their talk page (which of course I will do). I am still not sure whether the invitation to proxy edit is allowed, so I am reluctant to go to ANI. What do you think? Allowed or not allowed? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy Macon, I've been pinged myself to save the article up for speedy deletion, but I'm not going near a checkuser block by a member of ArbCom. Fences&Windows 14:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to just go ahead and delete the section where they invite proxy editing. If they revert again I will have to think of something else. If that happens, can a speedy be used for just part of a page, should I request speedy on the whole thing, go to MfD, or go to AE? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone will answer the request to edit on their behalf or pursue their complaints, but a discussion about principles at AN wouldn't hurt. I think an editor who is blocked for a period of time might still legitimately prepare content in their talk page and discuss with editors things other than their block, but not an indef blocked editor - and especially not a sockpuppet of a blocked editor. Fences&Windows 17:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin blocked talk page access, so we are done here. Thanks for the clarification. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pearl Petroleum et al
Hi. Just curious about what you think of this. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had submitted an article and it was deleted under Section G4 for speedy deletion on the basis of a discussion which was done in September, 2018. The Wikipedia page submitted in 2018 was not prepared by me. I had submitted the link to a forbes article on the company that was published on 27th January, 2021, was the article considered before deleting the page?
"The pages slugged ‘Brand Connect’ are equivalent to advertisements and are not written and produced by Forbes India journalists." Adv.devanshmalhotra, the article was written using promotional sources like this. We can’t use such sources, see WP:RS. Fences&Windows 08:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I will go through the same for a better understanding. Can you please recover the article as a draft in my account so that I can continue working on it.
--Adv.devanshmalhotra (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
I'm not convinced it's the same user, Beyond My Ken, but I have indef blocked them for their repeated personal attacks and digging a deeper hole at AN/I. Fences&Windows 00:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I appreciate it. When I get the time I may dig a little deeper into the LTA and into Wikieditorial101's contribs, just because it might come in handy if (when?) this editor re-appears. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HI. Just a heads up that there was a comment by David Fuchs on the above AFD, which i believe got deleted in the midst of it being moved. I noticed it because it was a short comment that was cited as 16KB in the history, which only had one entry. I think it's sort of an interstitial metaphysical space thing.--- Possibly (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check and restore once I've cleaned up incoming links. Fences&Windows 01:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, it's all sorted now I think. It took an hour to tidy up after the move - there's a reason AfDs are not usually moved... Fences&Windows 01:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm super glad you did it. Thanks.--- Possibly (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
Thank you! I was really depressed when I saw that Guliolopez had continued his harassment of me (even after I took a long break), this time for what he called "implausible" redirects and dismissing as "linkspam" my work when many of these supposedly "excessive" alternative spellings were even cited if he had troubled himself to look closely. I was actually on the verge of giving up entirely but your interventions have made my day! Publisa (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Page Caesar DePaco victim again of edit warring, vandalism, and sanitization
have both continued to attempt to sanitize the page Caesar DePaco. Ive had to revert all their edits, since they were mostly deletions through false assertions. Ruimbarreira introduced a huge rant on both the english and portuguese wikipedia, about how the media is engaged in a conspiracy and acting against his client. He is the individual's lawyer, and threatened to sue people in PT wikipedia. In fact he did file in court agaisnt PT wikipedia. See this edit for the rant
see this edit and the final paragraph of the introduction. The only reference to this is the individual's own assertions, which are fine to be linked and part of the article, even if they are completely and demonstrably false.
Gustav Benedictis is a new account, suddenly appeared, says they've lived in Florida and they are from Madeira... the same location as the person the article is about. (amazing coincidence). He also sanitizes the page for Summit Nutritionals Int., the company that's owned by Caesar DePaco. Another amazing coincidence.
Hope I can get your attention as this page is being constantly vandalised both here and in PT wikipedia, where I've contacted the admins there.
Hi, definitely not trying to make this a 'I know/am smarter than you' or anything, but I am very big into video games, especially Nintendo. This draft is definitely a hoax:
From the talk page: "If the game is officially announced we need to really update this article, and if its not real lets not delete it." - this was created by the same IP who created Draft:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD + Ganondorf's Fury (that you've now just deleted) as well as Draft:The Legend of Zelda 35 (also recently deleted)
Also just found Draft:Game & Watch: The Legend of Zelda, another hoax... the two sources used in there are both regarding the recent Mario Game & Watch, not a Zelda one. Same draft also says it releases in November 2020 in the lead, and says in 2021 in the infobox. Same scenario regarding a comment on the talk page: "We need to update this article a lot if its real and please do not delete it if its not real. OK."
Note the usage of 'likely' and 'could' throughout the article
The article is from January 26, 2021. Note how one of the paragraphs starts off with, "February 21 marks the 35th anniversary of The Legend of Zelda series. If a Zelda 3D All-Stars exists, then it will likely be announced shortly before or on the anniversary." It's now May 2021, so clearly that did not happen...
TL;DR- game is definitely something not in existence currently, as in not announced by any means whatsoever by Nintendo. Article you linked to is purely speculation about it existing/what it could contain.
I think it's probably a hoax too, Magitroopa, but the existence of speculative sourcing for such a release makes it hard to apply the CSD criterion. It says "This only applies to cases where the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism" and WP:DWHOAX says "Hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates". CSD is conservative by design. If you nominate at MfD, it'll likely not last long. Fences&Windows 00:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FIA Drivers' Categorisation (Platinum)
Hi. Now I don't have enough time to be in Wiki, so I have missed your message. This site copypasted my list not vice versa, please restore. The major content was the list of actual drivers with the Platinum status and references, not the requirements for the platinum categorisation. Corvus tristis (talk) 05:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Corvus tristis, I've restored it and I'm sorry I didn't check more carefully. The Wikipedia page does precede that website. This was caught up in some pages AS19Portsmouth created. Fences&Windows 20:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello F&W, the discussion at AN was automatically archived again (shouldn't it wait a bit more after new comments? Less than 24h had passed I think). But I would really appreciate some guidance and an answer to my questions. Sorry to bother you specifically but nobody else took action (I really appreciate you did) and I don't know who to ask. I would rather not reopen that discussion myself if I can receive an answer in another way. Thank you. -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gtoffoletto, you said at AN/I you want to "clear my name from this Sword of Damocles", however a topic ban is not a threat but protective. You've successfully edited for a year without impinging on your topic ban area so you may breathe easy.
You have a tendency to wikilawyer and bludgeon, being over-fixated on process and self-justification, which I believe leads you to not take on board what people say. In appearing to minimize the reasons for your topic ban and arguing with those opposed to it being lifted, you gave too many people the wrong impression.
The issue is not process but trust. An admin assessed that the community no longer trusted you to edit about UFOs and you have yet to regain that trust. Had I commented at AN/I then I might have agreed to lift the topic ban to give you a second chance, but I cannot override a lack of consensus. You might regain trust by self-reflection, e.g. accepting what JoJo Anthrax said, taking Wikipedia:Fringe theories to heart, and studying Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing and the other essays linked to in "More on civil POV pushing" for tips on following a more productive path.
You might lurk or engage at WP:NPOVN, or other noticeboards to get more of a feel for where community consensus lies on contentious issues. You engaged at WP:FTN briefly last year but it was always connected to UFOs, by your own admission engaging in "wild speculation" (see WP:NOTFORUM);  you might try again on other topics in the spirit of the board, i.e. dispassionately discussing how to write about ideas that fall outside the mainstream neutrally and based on high-quality, independent sources.
A topic ban appeal that might be more successful would acknowledge without spin where you went wrong before, why you want to return to this area, what particular articles you're interested in and what sources you might use to improve them, how you've edited in other (perhaps adjacent) areas without disruption, and how you'll avoid disruption recurring. Fences&Windows 16:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your suggestions and explanations. I often edit about space and aeronautics in my time on Wikipedia (with some interesting detours into other topics) so that is why I feel this is a "Sword of Damocles" hanging over my head (although I don't intend to edit the subject area again given the excessive toxicity). I recognise my failures in dealing with past disputes and agree I could have handled them better. However, I reject accusations of POV pushing and find them unfair. Even the admin that blocked me reviewed the evidence and modified the reason for my ban to disruptive editing in the subject area. I agree I was disruptive as I have stated many times. However, I strive to always cite reliable sources and to follow them faithfully. And I believe my record shows that and that has lead the admin to change the ban reason. Is this a fair assessment of the situation in your opinion? JoJo Anthrax said I believe it is accurate to say that the basis for your topic ban was expanded, and not simply "changed.". But I don't believe that to be accurate from how I understand it.
I can see from my window the latin inscription on the Court of Milan which I will post here for you: "Sumus ad iustitiam nati neque opinione / sed natura constitutum est ius” We are called to justice since birth and law is based on nature, not on opinion.
p.s. on a philosophical note: process is necessary to ensure trust. Without clear and fair processes people tend to make decisions based on opinion, which is affected by bias and is easily manipulated resulting in unfairness. This is a big problem for Wikipedia. And not an easy one to fix. -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 21:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey F&W. Understand if you don't want to reply. But could you point me in the right direction to receive answers/guidance with questions like this? I am struggling to understand how all this works. Are there admins that volunteer to give guidance/coaching on such issues for example? I am lost here. Thanks. -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 09:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I've greatly appreciated and read carefully all your suggestions and guidance. I'll do the same with your last advice and see if an admin has time to help me out with some of the questions that I still have. Thanks for the help. -- ((u|Gtoffoletto))talk 10:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I replied to your comment here. Telmo6T has not edited since your warning, but shortly after my comments and a couple of article edits, a brand new single-purpose account UTorontoPHD was registered and emerged to the scene with similar behaviour; making promotional edits, including promotional edits like this.
I considered opening a sockpuppet investigation or another COIN discussion, but I realise that neither may not be an optimal solution in this case. Do you have a suggestion? Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Politrukki. It's plainly the same editor, but as they've abandoned that old account there's no call for SPI. I've reiterated the earlier warning, let's see if that and discussion is enough without needing to go to COIN. They appear to be engaging at the talk page. Fences&Windows 22:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I will give them a BLP DS alert in case these are two different people. Hopefully that's enough for now. Politrukki (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. User:SteveBenassi, whom I reported earlier and whom gave a final warning about edit warring and ArbCom violations (and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior, has begun to post very POV and forum-like material expressing his opinions across Talk pages (relating to Jews and Jewish history/origins in ways that seem to go against WP:NOTAFORUM). Previously, he intentionally made disruptive edits and edit warred in order to, by his admission, "make a scene" in order to push his POV.
Here are his recent edits to the Talk pages of three articles so far, first at Zionism
And then at Italian Jews, here:
At Zionism, it seemed to be in response to a ref another user had added, but at Italian Jews it seemed to be for the purpose of calling attention to his opinion.
I warned him and removed his addition to the Talk page at Italian Jews, referring him to WP:POV and WP:NOTAFORUM but he has again posted similar material to the Talk page of Genetic studies on Jews, here [], this time initially pinging a user who (a while ago) edit warred (adding fringe material) and with whom I had an exchange. His notifying of them also seems somewhat like WP:CANVASSING, since he would know they would be likely to agree with him.
SteveBenassi has a history of making intentionally provacative edits (by his own admission) and edit warring on purpose. Here is seems to again be pushing a POV, and it seems that he is interested in adding this materials to articles that concern Jews or Jewish history. His recent behavior could also be an ArbCom violation (but I am not as familiar with that).
This seems to me problematic and disruptive, and indicates, like the edits he was reported for before, that he is WP:NOTHERE and attempting to right WP:GREATWRONGS. It is also strange in light of his earlier statement that he would no longer edit Wikipedia ([]).
Any attention to this issue is greatly appreciated.
Hello. User:Skllagyook You continue to try to block a new paper, The Geography of Jewish Ethnogenesis (2019), http://www.biblaridion.info/video/ethnogenesis.pdf , because it is opposite to your POV, and you try block my comments about it. I do not make edits on any pages now, I try to engage users on the talk section of the pages. I am trying to follow the "Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia". You don't like this paper and are still trying to suppress it. You do not like my analysis of this paper because it is anathema to your views. No one else is complaining but you three, who work as a team to block changes.
User:SteveBenassi I explained the issue with the paper repeatedly. The issue, as explained, is that it makes extraordinary claims strongly at odds with the mainstream (research both early and recent) and has received no engagement from the maimstrean (e.g. in the form of citations). This issue is not my personal opinions, and your repeated claim that it is (assuming bad faith) is less than appropriate (see WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. Adding variations of the same material accross Talk pages with your own POV, with headlines like "Are most modern day Jews or their ancestors indigenous to the Levant? The answer is no." (here []) and slanted, pov, and misleading descriptions of the "old" positions of "Ostrer and his camp" (here []), seems to suggest a battleground approach similar to that you admitted to in earlier instances (such as here []. Instead of editing the articles directly, you now seem to be posting opinionated material in the Talk pages designed to get others to make edits along the lines of those you prefer. Skllagyook (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Skllagyook Others disagree with your POV of me and my work, see RS debate ...
"I have read the paper of Yardumian and Schurr. It is a secondary source by two qualified authors published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The authors openly disagree with the conclusions drawn by some of the papers they review and give reasons for their disagreement; this is how science works and it isn't our business to take sides. I don't want to comment on exactly how it is used in articles, but I don't see the slightest reason to prohibit its use. Zerotalk 07:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Neutral editors please note that the use of this perfectly normal academic article is being edited out of several pages: not only at the Eran Elhaik page, which is crammed with references hostile to the author (in violation of wiki bio's NPOV policy) but also at the Khazar hypothesis of Ashkenazi ancestry here by Skllagyook, and then by User:Shrike (here and at Genetic studies on Jews here by Skllagyook, and at Jewish History here, again by Skllagyook.
It would appear in all four cases that Skllagyook has taken it upon himself to disallow a new perfectly normal piece of academic research to be cited for its conclusions anywhere on Wikipedia; That they do so because they are convinced the majority view is tantamount to the truth and not a contestable opinion. That is not only abusive POV pushing. It is outright censorship of any dissonant voice, one in this case, coming from perfectly respectable scholars. I.e. we have the extraordinary phenomenon of a peer-reviewed piece of scholarship suffering interdiction from appearing on Wikipedia because an editor has arrogated the right to step in an assume the mantle of ultimate judge on what can, and cannot be thought, about the topic. An editor of unknown background is acting as if they knew more about the topic of population statistics, genetics and Jewish history than the scholars who specialize in it or the peer-review committee who approved its publication on vetting it. Nishidani (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)"
You lost the RS debate and are still trying to suppress me and this paper, get over it, and leave me alone.
That was the opinion of Nishidani. But I was not the only one who thought the paper might be WP:UNDUE, and that, if used at all, should be incorporated only according to WP:WEIGHT (as it was in the criticism section of Eran Elhaik). Skllagyook (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked SteveBenassi for 72 hours under Arbitration Enforcement. The post to Talk:Zionism breached ARBPIA. Fences&Windows 11:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So did the posts to the other pages, since they all contain the same statement:”Elhaik's paper was highly cited, it created a firestorm, many articles were written about it, because it threatens one of the justifications for Israel's right to exist in Palestine, DNA“. Even after being specifically told that these edits were a breach of sanctions he spammed it across multiple pages. I am genuinely curious why he is being cut so much slack, when it is abundantly clear that he is wp:nothere to build an encyclopedia. It would be different of he had a history of positive contributions, but literally the only edits he has ever made have been either to repeatedly insert his own original research (see his edits to wendigo) or inserting this specific rant about Elhaik’s work meaning Isreal has less of a right to exist (plus his rev-delled edits for “outing and off wiki harassment”) it seems like he is being given far too much leniency, and it is pretty much certain that as soon as this short block expires he will be right back at it. NonReproBlue (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NonReproBlue, I don't generally get involved in Arbitration Enforcement. I don't think a 72 hour block for talk page posts is lenient and if he returns to disruptive behaviour I am sure it will be dealt with. However, if you believe further action is needed, please go to WP:AE. Fences&Windows 13:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that I wasn't thinking that it was solely under the purview of AE, as the ARBPIA violations are only a part of what I see as a very troubling larger pattern of WP:BATTLEGROUNDWP:PROFRINGE and WP:NOTHERE behaviors, but I apologize for bothering you and and will take your advice if it persists.NonReproBlue (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One last question; in their unblock request they said "Three Users of unknown background are consistently blocking me and others, Shrike, NonReproBlue, and Skllagyook. They are probably Israeli or Zionist trained SockPuppet civilians." What would be the appropriate noticeboard to bring this to? AE because of the content of the accusation, or general Incident board? Because this seems egregious to me. NonReproBlue (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.
Hi, can you renew the protection of the page "FOR TWO YEARS NOW" Sylvain Charlebois with ([Edit=Require extended confirmed access] like it was recently made in French to Sylvain Charlebois. The sockpuppet of Janvez is back again with the account Atkcp wich should be blocked too like on French Wikipedia.
Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.
IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.
Is there a formal process? You said I could come back to you after six months. Thank you in advance. Kire1975 (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Kire1975, I forgot to reply to your message here. Thanks for the reminder. To appeal the topic ban, you need to go to WP:AN to ask for consensus for it to be lifted or modified. See WP:UNBAN for the policy. As this was a community ban I cannot unilaterally remove it. Fences&Windows 21:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, I've been reluctant to appeal the block because I don't see a clear and specific block reason posted anywhere. Nothing was posted on my user talk page, and all it says on the block log is "See ANI" but I have not saved the ANI link before it disappeared from WP:ANI. Would you mind putting that notification on my talk page properly per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK? Thank you. Kire1975 (talk)
Of course. I had linked to the wording in my comment above, but I've now placed it on your talk page. Fences&Windows 13:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A user with an IP 220.127.116.11 has been making nonsense edits on Saginaw Grant for the past day or two, a page for a Native American actor who has recently died. The user leaves no explanations and has now started reverting my undoings of his nonsense edits. After my experience with you blocking me last January, I won't dare try to get into an argument with anybody on any noticeboards or anything else. At the same time, this user has a history of vandalism and is being very disruptive and is now taking it to a page of a recently deceased person who is a beloved sacred elder/now ancestor in many communities. So my emotions are up. Can you please take a look at the edits this user made on this page and elsewhere and help me determine what to do next? Kire1975 (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kire1975, I suggest you discuss this on their talk page so they understand what they're doing wrong. If they persist and appear to be vandalising/disruptive, go to WP:AIV. Fences&Windows 20:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be sensible, but since it's an IP user, they don't have a talk page? Kire1975 (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kire1975, there's a talk page for each IP user: User talk:18.104.22.168. You can also explain in the edit summary and on the article talk, in case they miss the talk page comment. I think this user may be editing in good faith, but they appear confused and clumsy. Fences&Windows 21:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I congratulate your coolness, and have a better opinon on you that months ago, but did you sent this same warning to Marquardtika? Because I believed a consensus was reached months ago, and this guy is the one that it´s breaking it. You yourself wrote the part that this guy is "objecting."
Look, I´m writing a book on the fraud done by CNN. You, wikipedians, could appear as heroes for the truth or manipulated yes men for them. Think about it, if you block me then I will appear not like a right wing conspiracy theorist trying to hack Wikipedia kind of guy, but a truth teller that CNN is scared to death to attemp to sue me for saying they comitted a fraud, that is being censored by you.
Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia editors love to appear like the good guys, right?
Your recent editing history at Chloe Melas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Fences&Windows 03:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your friendly warning Fences, but it´s true what I wrote you. I don´t have any fear of being blocked or even banned from here because as I already said to you and will keep saying it, some people here obviously are owned by Chloe Melas. If they were already bought by her, any reason will not change "their" decision. Tomoo Terada (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada[reply]
Sir, I got your reference from User:Hatchens on  regarding on a draft, which I want to produce it on a wiki page. But it was neglected 2 times due to unreliable resources. Bu I gave those reference which are some reliable and few Independent. Please look into my draft and Please give some advice where I can fix this. I even don't if there is any Indian origin to review it. But no offense. Please ping me.Jyoti Roy (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is open to decide when, if ever, should discord logs be eligible for removal when posted onwiki (including whether to oversight them)
A RfC on the next steps after the trial of pending changes on TFAs has resulted in a 30 day trial of automatic semi protection for TFAs.
The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.
Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.
Hi, a page that you deleted is "Operation Swift Retort Film" because of G4, can u please restore it or move it to draft so I can make it references? I have now 3 top newspapers references from last month so that will come in handy.
--Static Hash (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Static Hash, I've restored it at User:Static Hash/Operation Swift Retort (film). Please ensure the issues raised at AfD are fully addressed. Please check with me, the deleting admin, or go via WP:DRV before moving to articlespace. Fences&Windows 15:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, admin, I think it's not notable at this time.
--Static Hash (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Static Hash, shall I delete it again? The sources you added either didn't mention the film or were by the filmmaker so cannot be used. We can document polemical or propaganda films, but we must not ourselves convey their message. The writing was not neutral and left out critical reception from at least two reviews. Fences&Windows 17:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sir you can delete it, thanks for your precious time.
--Static Hash (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You might want to take a look at this fellow too. He shows up in most of the places user:CappellsFromSkelmersdale has in the last two days with inane deletion remarks, and the contribs suggest a compromised account or something. Mangoe (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not talk to me first? Of seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you should be ran off. Please try to communicate with me first next time.Super (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super, I also noticed your account but I concluded that there was no immediate indication of a concern. Mangoe's skepticism comes because accounts that return after a long absence with a burst of activity in a new area are often compromised or disruptive.
You seem interested in AfD and have joined the ARS, but please note the ARS is controversial (there have been recent sanctions for certain members due to disruption). You may want to observe AfD and DRV for a while before contributing so extensively so you get a feel for the norms. A few well-researched comments are more valuable than many drive-by !votes. Fences&Windows 22:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I just retired and am filling my free time. I wish more editors were as polite as you.Super (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)
How do you handle a editor who apparently had a hatred for pornography and is attempting to delete as many article as he can? An example can be seen here  There is zero reason for an AfD. If you have time I would love advice on how to proceed. Another user mentioned a topic ban? Super (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Super, as you've already gone to AN/I then I think my advice is mainly moot. I think the AN/I post was premature: you've not gathered sufficient evidence of bias or a need for a topic ban. You need to be quite forensic and specific in presenting your case - shows diffs, quotes, examples.
My advice for AfD is always to search for more and better sources rather than focusing on the present state of the article. This is not easy in the field of pornography, but is still necessary. Editors nominating porn bios for deletion are often motivated by BLP concerns, because these articles can attract editors who want to add real names and other private information and the sourcing to porn industry sources is often promotional and low quality. Fences&Windows 11:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Merchandise giveaway nomination
A token of thanks
Hi Fences and windows! 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 ~~~~~
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.
The functionaries email list (functionaries-enlists.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.
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.
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.
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.
I saw that you are one of admins. In the event that List of feature films with LGBT characters is deleted (which is a distinct possibility), would you be willing to provide a copy of that article, after the deletion of that page, so the content can then be used on other pages on here? That would be very helpful. Thanks. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01, yes, I would. I doubt from a quick skim it'll be deleted, but I'll probably comment on the debate tomorrow. Fences&Windows 23:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A RfC is open to discuss prohibiting draftification of articles over 90 days old.
The deployment of the reply tool as an opt-out feature, as announced in last month's newsletter, has been delayed to 7 March. Feedback and comments are being welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Talk pages project. (T296645)
Hi - I don’t think our paths have crossed to date. I see you’re the major author of the William Jacques article. I’m interested in the connection between Jacques and the Read School, Drax. Our article states he was head boy, but I’m struggling to find an RS that confirms this. Do you happen to have one? Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back so promptly. I think that is best for now, although I actually think it’s true. I’ll continue to look for a source, and I’ve posted the question on the school’s Talkpage. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)
I'm not going to alter the duration of the protection on Neil Parish, but I would have preferred that you discussed with me if you disagreed with the duration of the protection I put in place before reducing it. Mjroots (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Honest error Mjroots, I thought it was only move protected and saw it needed quick action. I'll restore duration. Fences&Windows 15:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. I've just created an edit notice, so hopefully the level of vandalism will now drop. Mjroots (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.