Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

This is a message board for talking about tasks on Wikipedia that only administrators can do. Please put new messages at the bottom of the talk page or click here to start a new discussion.

Please note that the messages on this page are archived periodically. A message may therefore have been archived. Note however, that the archives must not be modified, so if something needs discussing, please start a new discussion on this page.

Are you in the right place?

• This is the Simple English Wikipedia. Click here for the Administrators' Noticeboard on the regular English Wikipedia.
• Use Vandalism in progress to report serious and urgent vandalism from other users to administrators.
• Use Requests for permissions to request administrators to give you tools that can help you do things faster on Wikipedia, such as rollback.
• Use Simple talk to ask general questions about Wikipedia and how to use it.
• See meta:Steward requests/Username changes to change your user name or take another user name.
• See WP:RFCU for CheckUser requests.
• See WP:OS for oversight.

Hi, Could someone delete the talkpages 212.82.88.23 has created and block said IP please?, They've repeatedly been doing this under new IPs, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's seems pretty petty for creating talk pages? (Unless it's against our rules and guidelines.) RiggedMint 14:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RiggedMint See my reply below - this IP spends their time creating redirects and creating talkpages for no actual reason, Unless you're going to actually use the talkpage (for either attribution purposes or for discussion purposes) then there's no need to mass-create empty talkpages which is what this IP does, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 14:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The listed IPs (below), I don't think are very related much? From the contributions the fourth one mass-created redirects, and so did the third IP. The second one seems to be unrelated, the first one could be related to this IP. RiggedMint 14:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are all related, All 4 IPs below have created talkpages (which have been deleted) as well as created redirects which is exactly what the above IP has been doing, It's obvious to anyone this is the same person. –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IPs are in the same country, but are in different locations, I doubt they are related, they do share much of the same interests (pertaining to bangladesh), but it's likely they're different people (except 3 and 4). RiggedMint 14:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's how dynamic IPs or VPNs work - For instance if you were to track me for a month I would be in my home town (or close) one week and then London the next or some random place I've never even heard of, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree o whether they're related. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, they are not dynamic IPs. I checked and all the IPs are non-dynamic or residential (likely the latter) and so doesn't work with the basis that it's 'dynamic'. RiggedMint 18:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It takes time to perform these actions and while they may be right to do at times, most times should just be ignored. fr33kman 22:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them for a week. fr33kman 22:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Pages deleted. User not blocked because this specific IP has not been warned. I'll reconsider blocking if you point me to the other IPs that have been doing the same thing. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 Thanks for deleting, I've made reports here, here, here and here, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 14:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: All the reports except that first one were from a long time ago, at least from the viewpoint of whether to block an IP. Also, I can't consider the IPs to be related since the IP numbers aren't similar. I'm not going to block at this time. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers not being the same is irrelevant ... most users outside the US have dynamic IPs - My IP pretty much changes weekly,

Anyway I disagree whole heartedly with you however having thought about it - once the vandal returns they'll probably be on a new IP anyway (like they have been the last 4 blocks) so I guess one could argue blocking wont achieve much anyway except potentially blocking a good editor from contributing here,

Thank you for deleting the talkpages, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We use many tools rather than just IPs. CUs for instance can connect vastly different IPs based on XFF data, usage of useragents, and other things. I don't see a need for CU but wanted to say there's more than one way to skin a cat. Yes, ICMP changes IP addresses quickly that's when CU comes in handy. fr33kman 04:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome feedback about the actions around this page. Best regards. MathXplore (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the response is on key. It is important to be harsh with schools at times and force them to deal with the problem themselves. fr33kman 01:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just allow them to do what they want. The principal must take responsibility and ban the culprit fr33kman 02:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman: Do you have opinions related to Special:Diff/9750643 and the threads after this? MathXplore (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death threats must be taken seriously. I'd take it to the stewards. fr33kman 02:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And WMF as well fr33kman 22:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does WMF mean? ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 23:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation. The legal owner of the wikis we all work at. fr33kman 23:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we have to block them then we must do so. fr33kman 02:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fr33kman the school IP address hasn't have it’s talk page access revoked on the main English Wikipedia, can you please get an administrator from the English Wikipedia to revoke their talk page access as soon as possible? ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 03:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to interfere with enwiki acfions. I don't expect them to tell us what th do. We just don't do it. fr33kman 22:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They do their thing we do ours. fr33kman 22:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP range should be globally locked for a long period of time, so that way students cannot change any Wikipedia (and to extension, any Wikimedia project) due to persistent vandalism used by that IP range, the same should apply to all IP ranges who are registered to other schools. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the principal should take responsibility, in my opinion, the stewards should take the responsibility to globally lock and ban the IP range and all other school IP ranges indefinitely. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that the IP should be globally locked due to being registered to a school. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:06, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A limited time frame should be implemented fr33kman 02:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, I feel like an indefinite block or ban on all school IP ranges would work, but since IP ranges rarely get indefinite blocks and bans, that may never happen. However, I was keeping track of the changes the IP range creates on the Simple English Wikipedia. I also received an indefinite ban on the English Wikipedia for vandalism too tho. But I am redeeming myself on this Wikipedia for a sooner eligibility for unblock requests than given by the administrators at the Simple English Wikipedia. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should take this conversation to the stewards. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already requested a global lock for this IP range at Steward requests/Global. No need to continue. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 02:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did a second global block request on the same ip address but it explicitly tells the edits the ip address did on the simple English Wikipedia and the French Wikipedia along with stating cross-wiki vandalism. ImAWubbox1984 (💬) 03:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ImAWubbox1984 Sure, I see some cross-wiki vandalism but if your reason is that the IP address (range) belongs to a school, I can guarantee you that your request will be declined by any steward reviewing it (I typed this before seeing your SRG report and, as I expected, it was declined), because it is not policy to block IP addresses/ranges belonging to educational institutions. They are not open proxies and should not be treated as such. You could have at least reported the /24 range, because the user is active not only on that one address, but other addresses in that /24 range. If the IP address hasn't abused their talk page on enwiki, I see no reason to revoke it. It's entirely up to the enwiki admins to do so, and they don't usually take preemptive actions. Please just drop this and move on before this turns into a timesink. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 05:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed fr33kman 19:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We really want to ban as few schools as we can fr33kman 22:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Admins, as the page JTA International Investment Holding has been tagged with speedy Delation with reason G2( Test Page), as The page is Notable not a Test Page. Kindly look into the matter, Thank you very much Zeroify (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the instructions given on the article page to add the WAIT template and then say why it should not be deleted on the article's talk page (https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:JTA_International_Investment_Holding&action=edit&redlink=1). Ternera (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I did the same as per your instructions Zeroify (talk) 18:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: User is blocked. MathXplore (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Kobesh and Ruslan Saberov is related to Ruslan Saberov, which was deleted under G5. 2607:F140:6000:816A:B00D:998:ECBC:5055 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, global lock requested. MathXplore (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: The author is locked. MathXplore (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a person on line who said he was a skilled and connected Wiki expert and could get my page on line. I paid him to do that. The page is now written to my satisfaction - but seems to be stalled in getting on line. The paid provider seems to have dropped out. Was I ripped off? I am 83 and have a long career, good reputation, many citations - more than some who are on line with Wiki pages. My computer skills have faded and I am pretty helpless reading your suggestions. Can you recommend an expert for hire who will satisfy the requirements and get my completed page up and running? 174.85.86.60 (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you were ripped off. There is a scam going around, in which people will ask you for money to create an article for you. See en:WP:SCAM for more info. Kurnahusa (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can make your own article easily or ask one of our real editors for help. A real editor would never ask for payment. We do things free here, we are volunteers. 🪐●Haumeon●🪐 21:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was the paged called? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 07:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing again regarding this editor because I have reason to believe that the original range of issues that culminated in their de facto ban on EN is happening on this project as well. The case that I am bringing to this noticeboard is that this editor is engaged in a pattern of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR violations via anachronistic editing and misrepresentations of various things as Pakistani in origin (e.g. inventions and monarchs) on the basis that said things existed in the geographic area that is now modern-day Pakistan. The word "Pakistan" did not exist prior to the British's creation of the Dominion of Pakistan in the early 20th century. As far as I know, no historical sources reference the area by the "Pakistan" name prior to that time, and especially not in previous time eras.

I will note that many of the above claims that are not explicitly supported by reliable sources. I have reviewed some of those cited sources myself, and agree with Gotitbro's concerns brought up above and in the other discussion threads. Some of the added content even outright contradict what is on EN.

My assertion is that the current editing pattern has caused a non-trivial amount of damage to content integrity on this wiki in the form of huge amounts of article content that is seemingly cited by inline sources, but not actually supported by said sources. Re-review of these content additions is going to take a significant amount of time and effort.

Relevant prior discussions:

• AN (still available above as of time of writing)
• ST
• Talk:List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries

...and while my personal information is usually irrelevant in such a discussion, I want to preempt potential counterarguments by clarifying that I am neither Indian nor Pakistani, have no ties to them whatsoever, and therefore have no stake in this matter on nationalistic or ethnic grounds.

As additional background, article issues regarding India and Pakistan are a frequent source of en:WP:BATTLEGROUND editing on EN too, and are subjected to the contentious topics procedure (formerly discretionary sanctions) by ArbCom decision. See en:WP:ARBIP. Chenzw  Talk  13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses from my side to some of the points raised above:

I wasn’t banned on EnWiki for violations of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR or anything related to that as stated above. My initial block was due to edit warring with an editor on a completely unrelated topic, and later I was blocked for sockpuppetry (I regret it). I have never claimed or tried to prove that "Pakistan" or even the word itself existed before the country was created. My rationale for my edits is given in the relevant RFDs, Talks and ST discussions, which Chenzw has already linked for reference. Editors can review those for better context.

While we do follow EnWiki for rules that Simple doesn't have, does that also mean we have to follow their consensuses and specific edits? I don't think so. EnWiki isn’t a reliable source in itself, and it’s not like everything there is perfect. So, saying things like "Some of the added content even outright contradicts what is on EN" doesn’t seem like a convincing argument to me. En can have outdated, missing, or incorrect content—does that make Simple’s content "problematic" just because it contradicts EN?

This has been going on for a while now, with many of my contributions being reverted with the reasons being Non-RS sources or anachronistic content by User:Gotitbro. Sure, some of my sources may not be reliable, and that could be my mistake. But outright attacking isn’t the solution (Which has happened to me multiple times). That’s why we have WP:DISPUTE in place. If we can settle this issue properly once and for all, that would be ideal. I’ll let the editors and admins here judge the contributions to this wiki I've made in my time here. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 14:30, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I did not go into detail about your conduct at enwiki in the thread above as WP:ONESTRIKE was cited, I am now convinced that it has been wilfully violated and am even more concerned that you still have not fully come to terms about your problematic edits at enwiki or here (the exact same reason your unblock appeals at enwiki have been denied 5 times; this was despite the fact that you cited your alleged good conduct at simplewiki for your appeals, which was deemed to be false by the community on the basis of the same anachronistic/nationalistic POV issues that have been raised here, see en:User talk:Cyber.Eyes.2005.

This account of yours on enwiki was not banned for for WP:EDITWARring, but for being WP:NOTHERE and WP:DISRUPTIVE [1]. And the initial block stemmed from the same nationalistic POV edits that have taken place here (examples abound at [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]).

The evidence becomes even more damning when you consider the massive disruption and outright WP:HOAXing done by you through socks at enwiki (which has also filtered on simplewiki through this account) as seen at en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyber.Eyes.2005/Archive (the sockpuppeting might even go far beyond this main account to 2021[7]) i.e. inserting 'Pakistan' and the like into whatever may or may not be even remotely connected to it.

Some selected comments from the SPI:

• Basically promoting Pakistan's role in Central Asian demography-related figures, and vice versa.[8]
• More: trying to make it seem as if Uzbeks are a massive, native group to Pakistan, similar to earlier blocked socks.[9]

User:Nima Lhamo, which you have verified as your 'alt' here, was massively adding OR and other SYNTH material (scripts and other ethnically disruptive materia) to articles which is what lead to its discovery as a sock and an obvious four time unblock denial.[10].

Other nationalistic POV sock edits on enwiki which were basically paralleled here (paranthesis): [11] ([12]), [13] ([14]), [15] and [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] (Gandhara art), [21] (Gandhara).

And that the edits fall squarely within WP:ARBIPA is substantiated by the fact that while the user appears to have no problem with their preferred nationalistic anachronisms such as "Ancient Pakistan" and the like, he has created numerous dubious articles like India naming dispute (there is no such actual dispute by the way [unlike Macedonia, Persian Gulf, Sea of Japan], the whole article being a SYNTH collection of disparate news articles and sources) and its dubious creation and the user's response was one of the reasons the latest unblock appeal was denied[22], the user also completely redirected the long standing Ancient India to India naming dispute. Other edits in the same veign include [23], [24] among others.

There was also an effort to legitimize the spurious article creations through DYK, purveying the same anachronistic POV. Here is a sampling [all of these are factually dubious or incorrect beyond the very obvious anachronism]:

• "that the name 'India' was first used by the Greeks to refer specifically to the Lower Indus Valley in ancient Pakistan?" (the Greeks knew very well that India as they knew it extended beyond Sindh but never ventured beyond it until after Alexander; its original limited bearing is sought to justify the dispute article)
• "that the name India comes from the Indus River, which is located mostly in Pakistan and is the national river of the country?" (the Indus originates in Tibet and passes through Indian-controlled territory, these facts clearly do not fit in well with the POV sought here)
• "that Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was against the use of the name India by the Republic of India, saying that it was misleading and would cause confusion?" (an entire dispute [India naming dispute] has been fabulated by the editor from a single miff by Jinnah)
• "that the oldest recorded name of Ancient Pakistan is Meluhha, the Sumerian name for the Indus Valley?" (Meluhha has never been conclusively identified though is generally thought to refer to the Indus Valley Civilization, which wasn't limited to Pakistan)
• "that the region of Gandhara in Pakistan is the second holy land of Buddhism, the first being Magadha in Nepal and India?" (Buddhism largely has no concept of designated holy lands, let alone first and second ones; I am not sure which poor sources are being used to again insert misleading info)
• "that the Indus Valley civilization of Pakistan is among the four oldest civilisations in the world and also the earliest known urban culture of South Asia?" (as noted above IVC was never limited to Pakistan, and much like Mesopotamia isn't equivalent to Iraq, it isn't either)

Along with the outright falsification of sources to justify such DYKs and new articles and the numerous entries at List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries and with the outright denial of even a hint to accept misconduct, I think much like at enwiki, the user is NOTHERE. Simple Wiki would then not appear to be a chance at reform for past mistakes but another platform to replay their POV and disruptions. Gotitbro (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My block on EnWiki was declined a few times due to "procedural issues." So, interpreting that as "the exact same reason your unblock appeals at enwiki have been denied 5 times" doesn’t seem like a fair or good-faith interpretation to me. FYI, WP:NOTHERE also covers WP:EDITWAR, which is what led to my block on the en:Brokpa article.

You've linked examples of what you call my "POV edits." those were among my first contributions on Wikipedia. I’d encourage editors here to review them in context to see if they were really disruptive. The content I removed was unsourced—no single source mentions some Brokpas following Hinduism or some Baltis following Buddhism, so it was in line with policy to remove those claims. Yes, one of my edits did contain a typo ("rrrdrrrrfrrras"), which was unintentional and a mistake on my side. And while we're sharing comments from En, here's what an editor on SPI had to say about my edits (The same ones you've linked above)

• When I saw the result of this SPI, I was at first relieved: 'Phew! One fewer overenthusiastic rookie to clean up after!'. But then I looked at the previous account, and how they got banned, and I frankly don't get it. So, Cyber.Eyes.2005 registers and account and makes 7 edits on 19 March. Some are improvements, some aren't, all are good-faith. What they needed at that stage was a welcome message thanking them for the copyediting but also explaining how wikipedia works, and especially the need for sourcing. What do they get? All their edits are reverted without explanation by Aman.kumar.goel, who then posts the very first message on that user talk page, which is a level-2 (?!) warning about unspecified disruptive behaviour. Cyber.Eyes.2005 then makes 8 more edits, predictably of the same overall level of good-faith and mixed CIR as the first batch, which earns them further unexplained blanket reverts and a level-3 warning by Aman Kumar Goel. On the following day, four more edit – again not well-executed, but all in good faith – and they get indeffed by Alexf per NOTHERE (?!).
  Now that ship has sailed. This young person has walked away believing Wikipedia to be a place where reverts and blocks are dished out arbitrarily and where no explanations are given. Nothing we do will change that, and we're probably stuck with the prospect of returning socks. But really, guys, this could have been handled differently. Next time a new editor bungles it with an article, just try to help out first, alright? It's not a lot of effort to check if some part of an edit can be retained instead of blankly reverted, and it's not a lot of effort to post {{welcome}} or to leave a pointer to WP:RS.

The "selected comments" from the SPI investigation you quoted merely show similarities that editors noticed and do not imply that those edits were POV, as you've claimed. The edits themselves were good-faith improvements, not policy violations. Regarding the addition of the native script, how is that WP:SYNTH? This (...an obvious four time unblock denial.) seems like another attempt to suggest that my block requests were declined because of "my edits" rather than for sockpuppetry. The block requests were declined for procedural reasons, not the edits themselves.

The examples of so-called "nationalistic" edits you provided were properly sourced and not POV. They were reverted due to en:WP:BANREVERT, not because they were problematic. What you're doing here is synthesizing comments and edits to create a narrative, but they don't actually connect the way you're suggesting. – Cyber.Eyes.2005^Talk 04:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That you non-chalantly treat sock disruption and still refuse to acknowledge the problematic edits is all that one needs to know (no simply operating socks is not what lead to your ban [ban not a block]), you were extensively disruptive there on articles about ethnic groups and whatever demography-related woo you were trying to PUSH all over with the Pakistan POV; your last comment shows an unwillingness to acknowledge this at all. I know Uanfala whose comment you have linked above, who was only assuming AGF, but if I was to ping him here and ask about your behaviour now [with the litany at SPI and the nonsense purveyed here along with a likely even longer socking record [25]] I am pretty sure he would reasses that comment (that is the very first comment at the SPI by the way, before you kept digging your hole deeper and deeper with your conduct at enwiki).

Nothing you say can be seen as truthful if you keep falsifying what is there for everyone to see. WP:NOTHERE is an elevated form of disruption than WP:EDITWAR and you would know it. Coming to your 'first' edits (unlikely [26]), the refs shown in the diffs that you claim did not contain the info you removed, do and did [27], [28], [29].

Your socks were POVPUSHing the same nationalist viewpoints you have been here and were reverted for the same, these are not BANRVERTS [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Nima Lhamo, your sock, was adding unattested OR scripts [Tibetic scripts are almost nowhere used in Pakistan and the proper names/terms in them which were being inserted were completely made up by you] and SYNTH material all over (those who had to cleanup after would know). The reference to "four time unblock denial" was that it was from a disruptive sock who would obviously be denied those appeals and that an admittance of the obvious socking never came until much later.

Since you seem to fixate on the fact that you never abused beyond socking (oxymoron), the reasons/comments declining your appeals obviously never found these convincing despite your protestations (en:User talk:Cyber.Eyes.2005), even those considering a leeway saw enough South Asia-related disruption to warrant a topic ban:

• I concur with Aman.kumar.goel that you shouldn't be unblocked without a topic ban. It would not be forever, but we'll need to see what edits you make in other areas first. (331dot)
• Note to Cyber Eyes, and any reiewing admins: this account isn't just CU-blocked, it is banned per WP:3X. No individual checkuser or other administrator can accept an unblock request, it would need to be made by the community via a consensus at WP:AN. ... Daniel Case I've personally spent too much of my volunteer time chasing down socks of this particular LTA to be motivated to spend any in copying their unblock request to AN. You are at liberty to do so if you choose to; if you do, I'd be grateful for a ping, I have some comments I would want to make with regards to the request. (Girth Summit)
• Saying in effect "I agree to a topic ban but I don't think I need to and I'm only doing it to get unblocked" is unlikely to be persuasive. (331dot)

From en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive355#Unblock request by Cyber.Eyes.2005 (26 October 2023):

• Oppose, at this time. I'm generally in favour of second chances, but let's take a look at their history. The Cyber.Eyes.2005 account did not make many edits before getting blocked, but amongst them were this edit, which looks like vandalism but could just have been an accident, and then this reinstatement of the garbled string of characters after Cluebot reverted them. So far, fine, just a newby mistake, but they were already using a sock (Shayyan Behzad) to edit war at various articles (documented at the original SPI report). Now, they were new, but I don't buy it when people say 'I didn't know it wasn't allowed' in circumstances like that. Dishonesty is thought of as immoral in all cultures that I'm aware of. I do not accept that anyone needs to consult a policy document to work out that pretending to be two different people in order to win an edit war is inherently dishonest. I also reject their assertion that everything they have done has been 'in good faith' - using multiple accounts to try to win arguments is an inherently bad faith action. Since their block, their history has been that of someone who just cannot abide by the rules - they have persistently created socks (28 tagged as confirmed, 2 as suspected, who knows how many more that didn't get tagged), all returning to the same articles trying to force their edits in, while fully aware that they were contested. And while they have been doing all this, they have wasted countless hours of contributors' time in chasing down and blocking their socks. They have, as far as I can tell, waited out their 'standard offer' six months, but apart from that we have nothing to go on to establish whether they have changed their attitude towards collaborative editing. (Girth Summit) [as I was saying about the 'first' edits]
• Weak support but only under appropriate unblock conditions. Namely, the topic ban from South Asia, sticking to "one account", and put on final warning conditions, where further disruption will merit blocks for any period of time or indefinitely. I haven't dug too deep to come to a definite conclusion though. (Awesome Aasim)
• 28 socks? With others possibly still out there? They have violated the trust of the community to the point that they need to remain blocked. WP:ROPE was already applied. 28 times. (RickinBaltimore)

en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive364#Block/ban appeal - Cyber.Eyes.2005 (28 August 2024):

• But either way, that aggressive response, made by someone while they're appealing a community ban, was pretty self destructive. I still suspect most of the problem is in the IPA topic area, so I think there's still a decent chance they could productively edit other topic areas. (Floquenbeam) [IPA being the sanctioned India, Pakistan, Afghanistan or South Asia area on enwiki]
• The diff from Lorstalking is very concerning; I think some topic-ban will be necessary with an unblock. (Walsh90210)
• Per above. His disruption on Simple Wikipedia is simply too big to ignore. It refutes his claims of being "a constructive editor". (Dympies)
• The battleground mentality as evident from their latest response is appalling. (Lorstalking)
• Also, they socked several times a months for months, repeatedly being blocked; 'I got involved in sockpuppetry. I didn't know much about Wikipedias policies at that time', far from being a credible excuse, is an abnegation of personal responsibility. (NebY)
• as someone who has contributed extensively in the area of the so-called "Hellenic Pakistan", a formulation which I don't believe has ever been used in scholarship, I oppose this unblock as a preventative measure. (AirshipJungleman29)

Seeing the same abusive behavior here, a South Asia topic ban becomes evident but considering the general attitude of 'I was only a sockpuppeteer and was never disruptive' despite evidence to the contrary here and at enwiki, a general ban is perhaps necessary. Gotitbro (talk) 07:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edits, I come to the same conclusion that these edits are concerning.

What took my attention in particular was Talk:List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries where Chenzw pointed out how the entry for Rain gauge on this article was copied directly from w:Rain gauge by Cyber.Eyes.2005, with instances of India simply being replaced with Pakistan. (Special:Diff/9765766#Tools and Mechanisms can be compared against w:Special:Diff/1235340698#History to confirm this.) I find issue even with Cyber.Eyes.2005's response to this comment. Cyber.Eyes.2005 pointed out how a source said The first known reference to rainfall measurement is in Arthashastra by Kautilya..., but even then, this is not equivalent to the first use of the rain gauge, and is not alone sufficient explanation for replacing instances of India with Pakistan. Even if it were the first known reference to rain gauges, this is still anachronistic editing.

I should note that these anachronistic edits on the English Wikipedia have been an issue since as early in 2022, where it was pointed out on the first sockpuppet investigation into Cyber.Eyes.2005 (w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cyber.Eyes.2005/Archive#28 April 2022). Continued abuse of multiple accounts in that area resulted in Cyber.Eyes.2005's three-strike sockpuppetry ban on the English Wikipedia. Yes, the ban was due to sockpuppetry, but the sockpuppetry was made evident by those issues. Her ban was also reviewed last month, yet declined because of the edits she made here.

Her responses to these issues have not been satisfactory, noticeably above where she is trying to deny this was an issue on the English Wikipedia. The situation I addressed regarding List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries is alone reason to block Cyber.Eyes.2005 under the one-strike rule. Unfortunately, as Chenzw notes above, it appears this editing pattern is extensive and will require a lot of time to review. As her articles are needing to be reviewed, I have revoked the patroller right from Cyber.Eyes.2005, as she should not have it even if she is unblocked for these issues.

Gotitbro, I'd also like to apologise for the way your concerns were seemingly dismissed by other members of the community. The responses and sockpuppet accusations, from Haumeon and Davey2010 in particular, towards you above are just not good enough. Your concerns evidently were not baseless and your significant contributions to enwiki were seemingly ignored, as sockpuppet accusations were thrown towards you for addressing issues with someone who genuinely did abuse multiple accounts. I'd like to thank you for bringing attention to these issues and continuing to point out these issues in spite of these accusations and attacks. --Ferien (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro, I too would like to sincerely and unreservedly apologise for my comments towards you and for dismissing your valid concerns, At that time It read in a way that you simply wanted this editor blocked for their EN behaviour and that you were also using "anachronistic editing" as an excuse. Unfortunately I didn't do my due diligence here and didn't check any further than that and I simply believed your accusations were baseless when they clearly wasn't, so I sincerely and unreservedly apologise for my comments and for the way I treated you and your complaint and too would like to thank you for not only bringing this to the admins attention but for also for your contributions to the Simple Wikipedia. Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 20:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. (I'm not as eloquent, so read the above comment by Davey. I am sorry for the same reason) 🪐●Haumeon 00:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me three Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro, I am really sorry for all I did during this debate. Like with Davey2010, it read to me like you wanted the user blocked for Enwiki behavior and you were using excuses. I didn't give a single thought to your concerns and flicked them away like flies. I acknowledge that at time I was hounding and tracking down your every reply, and I was being mean to a certain degree. In short, you could say I lost my head. This I deeply regret. I would to thank you for staying patient through this and for all you did for Simplewiki and Enwiki. I gave you a barnstar for this, check your user talk page.

And please, don't hold grudges. I am sorry if it reached the point that you had to mute me. 🪐●Haumeon●🪐 16:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an interesting turn of events... RiggedMint 18:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. 🪐●Haumeon●🪐 20:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an interesting turn of events as such, it's just that they ended up finally being caught for the edits they have been making for months. Cyber.Eyes.2005 combined their problematic edits with anti-vandalism and other edits, likely to (try to) keep their problematic edits under the radar. It was only when they tried to make their unban request that the enwiki community properly evaluated their activity and found the problematic edits over here, and that wasn't even a month ago. The fact this happened should have sent alarm bells ringing immediately considering they are on WP:ONESTRIKE as an enwiki-blocked user, which is why I highlighted the response to the original thread above. --Ferien (talk) 20:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so she was just doing bad edits all of the time on here? RiggedMint 21:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate cases have been focused on, because these discussions have been fragmented – there are two discussions here and one on ST. Ancient history of Pakistan, originally Ancient Pakistan which was a largely disputed term per the discussion on ST, was created by CE2005 back in April. List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries was the most blatant case of anachronistic editing, and the one I blocked for, that was in July. That shows this has been happening for a while at least. I haven't gone through all her edits, but weirdly it seems she went into the Pakistan area pretty much the moment she got here. That is something an editor in her case would usually steer clear of, considering the one-strike rule and the fact she was blocked for her edits in that area on enwiki. --Ferien (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised she wasn't found out when she applied for rollback and patroller. I hear that when you apply for rights your contributions are scrutinized. 🪐●Haumeon●🪐 21:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally gave Cyber.Eyes.2005 rollback so I should take responsibility for my actions here. In checking rollback, I considered her last request that was declined simply based on lack of experience and would be given later by that same admin on request, and her reverts looked reasonable. It was indeed a missed opportunity to give greater scrutiny to her edits considering the issue on enwiki. But for me, my biggest regret was my somewhat approving comment on Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Patroller/Archives/2024#User:Cyber.Eyes.2005 2, reviewing the reason for declining as opposed to the situation as a whole. If I had even checked her page creations, treating it as a new patroller request with no comments, I would have seen they are not simple enough for patroller and I would have declined it immediately. I regret it took this long to notice these issues and I should certainly take some blame for that. --Ferien (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say this: we shouldn't choose a position on a contentious issue based on good rapport with the proponents of one side, but rather on our perspective on the issue itself. I also think it's better for us to avoid classifying editors as "good" or "bad", using wording like an editor "being found out", or assuming that anyone else is making an error if they agree with an editor who we find disruptive. Even if, for example, I think an editor is using sources inappropriately; even if they disregard warnings from other editors/admins; they could still be acting in good faith, because good faith means with an intention to improve Wikipedia, and no intention to mislead others. They could think the other editors are just wrong! But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be banned. Batrachoseps (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2024/DG Hamblin was scheduled to closed a week ago, but it seems to have never been on the RFD page. Batrachoseps (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed the discussion on WP:RFD and extended the discussion term. MathXplore (talk) 07:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could someone go through 49.228.235.140's contribs and see if any need revdelling and also possibly block the IP please, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP's been globally blocked, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Ferien (talk) 20:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant thanks for your help @Ferien, Apologies for removing it no idea why I just assumed they weren't revdellable, Also thank you for the ping above it's greatly appreciated, –Davey2010^Talk 20:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnhild Myklebust was originally a user sandbox and it was protected per user request. When it was moved to mainspace, the protection remained, but it should be un-protected, because no vandalism has affected that article. Batrachoseps (talk) 05:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was my mistake, while moving Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can do anything about it; I think protection always transfers when a page is moved. Batrachoseps (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I requested deletion Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to delete it? It should just have the protection removed. Batrachoseps (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want it messing people up when they check the protection log. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

deletd and recreated Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved.

Batrachoseps (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Ichkabal there was a quote taken from Mexico News Daily. It was very short, so it might not be a copyvio, but I am asking just in case. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 23:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's cited and small then it's fine. If it's not cited you could cite it or delete it. fr33kman 00:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was cited. Thank you so much for the info! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 01:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright law is interesting. For our purposes, with text, you can exactly copy a small amount of text into an article if it's cited. You can also copy anything if the end purpose is parody, but that's not an issue here really. Ideally copied material should use a citation box but inline copying of a very small amount is permitted. fr33kman 16:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, I'll keep that in mind. Thank you so much again! ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request protection? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 12:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme  Done — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fehufanga For List of Brawlers in Brawl Stars ? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 01:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People adding wrong information and blanking the page. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 01:31, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme You should open a new section for new articles for better visibility next time. I'm not keen on protecting this one. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 11:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 12:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contribs/186.251.245.0/24 keeps making hoaxes, some using real titles but completely false content. These include Nelvana Studios and Frenzy Entertainment. They are doing the same thing on English Wikipedia: en:Special:Contribs/186.251.245.0/24 2601:644:9083:5730:D907:C854:507B:E53B (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note: Already blocked. MathXplore (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request is being discussed at Talk:Sleep. Feedback from the community is welcomed. MathXplore (talk) 10:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MathXplore: The community, or just the admins (whose noticeboard this is)? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the case is related to page protection (admin action), and only admins can perform unprotection, I thought that posting here is correct. MathXplore (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it was 2806:101E:A:1CA8:2996:99E9:98C8:BB56 132.147.197.111 (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2806:101E:A:1CA8:2996:99E9:98C8:BB56 132.147.197.111 (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2806:101E:A:1CA8:2996:99E9:98C8:BB56 132.147.197.111 (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no edits by the 2806: IP address. — *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 00:08, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fehufanga The user probably giving out false warnings Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:59, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I deserve it and i am active every day. Ty-Balint, Balint0826 tokaji (talk) 06:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Patroller, you highly likely won't get it as you have 3 edits on this wiki Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it on hu wiki, go ask there Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Balint0826 tokaji Pinging Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can some revdel this? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cactusisme: Edit summary revdelled. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 08:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting my talk page archive User talk:FusionSub/Archive 1 to be semi-protected as I don't like the idea that a bad actor could meddle with my archives without me knowing.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]