There are backlogs at WP:PERM in at least three sections/categories (AutoWikiBrowser, Page Mover, and Pending Changes Reviewer). Some additional eyes would be appreciated. For full disclosure, I do have a request there myself, but I excluded my own request in evaluating the backlogs. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Two of those three always have a backlog. They do not any more. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I have been reviewing the subpages of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, blanking and marking as historical LTA pages like this that have been inactive for years. The material is still available in history if there is a need for it. From what I have seen, it is an acceptable practice to blank inactive LTA pages so they won't continue to exist as a shrine giving recognition to long gone vandals from years ago. This search shows 30 pages blanked this way from 2018 onwards excluding the 5 or so I blanked today.

User:331dot asked me to post a notice about this since previously it was usually done by admins. I became interested in this task as it is somewhat related to MalnadachBot task 13 (approved following this) which is to blank warnings and other stale message from inactive IP talkpages. If there is no objections, I will continue with blanking and marking historical. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for performing this type of maintenance tasks in general. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

LGTM as well. I have no concerns. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Rescued from archive[edit]

The above may be OK, but is not ideal. The blanking of LTA pages should be done with visibility at WP:SPI. Ideally, clerking of LTA subpages should be done by accredited SPI clerks. If you are interested in clerking LTA subpages, why not get experienced and accredited at SPI? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

As an SPI clerk, I have no interest in maintaining LTA subpages and don't particularly care about what happens to them. I suspect most other clerks and CUs feel the same way, which is why there is no policy or guideline about this. I wasn't aware we were accredited, by the way. How much do I have to pay to renew my SPI clerk license? Spicy (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Your accreditation, trainee and promotion, are recorded in the history of [[this page. It’s helpful to know that SPI clerks have no interest in WP:LTA and this supports the option to shut it down completely. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

LTA subpages have been occasionally helpful to identify some behavior, but I have no strong opinion on them. I think they should generally not be created in the first place, except in cases where it is useful to admins dealing with them. I have checked the list of LTA subpages marked as historical... none of them ring a bell, so I guess there are not relevant to current activity we see at SPI. MarioGom (talk) 09:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

For transparency, here is a list of LTA pages I have blanked. I am not interested in becoming an SPI clerk for a one time sweep. LTA pages, unlike SPI archives, can be created by anyone, so I don't think editing it should be restricted only to them. Any editor in good standing should be able to edit LTA pages and blank inactive ones. It is questionable whether some of them should even exist. Take for example Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/貴花 which was recently created by someone in their very first edit. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The lack of interest in clerking LTA, beyond sporadic driveby blanking of its inappropriate content, is a reason to shut LTA down. The creation of a new LTA page by the drive-by SPA is another reason. It is quite concerning, was it created in a WP:game to harass? How would anyone know. If a user’s LTAbuse doesn’t involve any sock puppetry, then why not use their user_talk page? Shut down LTA. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The disinterest of SPI clerks in LTA pages says nothing about the usefulness of these pages to the rest of us poor benighted souls who don't have advanced permissions and wish to find out about these people when we come across misbehavior. The pages are there for the community, not for the very small number of SPI clerks who, if they're not availing themselves of this information, are only hobbling themselves (and perhaps hurting valid SPI cases).

As for the deletion of these pages, I don't understand the purpose - are we running out of storage space? I suggest that the pages already deleted be restored, and if a culling needs to take place, which I doubt, it be done by an admin with more experience. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, SPI clerks know a lot and stuff, and are good at finding out who to ask, but it's the other people in the trenches who usually know about this stuff. I've been seeing the blanking, and haven't seen anything to complain about. LTAs have a coloured history at MfD, so it may be worth consulting before MfDing any more of them. One of us competent rouge admins might just speedy it. I do think these pages should probably remain categorised under LTA, so we can properly clean them up at some point. Blank uncategorised pages are not a lot of good. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

When I first saw this come up in the original thread I thought exactly what BMK has written: what on earth is the benefit in blanking these pages? I assumed there's some issue that I was unaware of that everyone knew about, that meant that blanking these pages was a good thing. It seems blanking is (a) pointless (b) takes away potentially useful information from the community. I second BMK's suggestion pages already blanked be restored. DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There is I think a persuasive argument that too many pages only serve to glorify or inspire copycats (see WP:DENY). I've seen several LTAs who literally run through the lists joe-jobbing as many old MOs as they can. These pages should be considered a working tool, and if they're no longer useful we may as well get rid. Sometimes vandals do actually go away. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:07, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

And sometimes they come back. Do joe-jobbers prefer MO's that appear dormant rather than active? That seems doubtful. Those all seem arguments for not having LTA pages at all rather than blanking older ones. There may be some validity for that but I'm very doubtful that they negate the usefulness of those pages on a day-to-day basis. DeCausa (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

We should only keep pages which are useful, and some of them are useful. I'd encourage a look through the list which was blanked, and ask if they're still around. It's notable (to me at least) in all the ones which were skipped. It seems to have been a well-performed exercise. And yes, on a broad scale, we still get WoW and Grawp copycats to this day, along with some others. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

LTAs that fall in the category of often-copied should have a warning on them to look out for copycats and joe jobs - but it's not possible to disseminate such warnings if there's no page to put it on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Just as a curious aside I can't quite get my head around Spicy's earlier comments that they (and none of the SPI clerks) have any interest in the LTA pages and, more surprisingly, the sarcasm around being "accredited" given what it says in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks. Could they clarify? DeCausa (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"Accredited" seems like a slightly pompous term for an informal volunteer position on a website. In case it's not clear, the point of my comment was that I don't agree with SmokeyJoe's idea that clerks/CUs should have authority over the community at large in regard to LTA pages. LTA pages were not a part of my clerk training and I'm not aware of any other clerk who uses them on more than a very occasional basis (in my experience, the SPI case archives are usually much more useful). That's all the more reason for these pages to be managed by the community. Spicy (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I have now reviewed all subpages, haven't blanked any that remotely look useful or active. no page to put it on is misleading, they are not deleted and removed completely, only blanked and can be restored if necessary. Of the two joe job targets mentioned above, Grawp is not blanked and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels was deleted 12 years ago and salted. The only MFD I have started is for a completely useless page Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kiyanu Kim. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• LTA is mostly a moribund process; the information there has mostly been subsumed by SPI reports. It feels like LTA was once a more active area of Wikipedia, but it has basically fallen into disuse as any purpose it served has been taken up by other processes. There's a few of the pages I use from time to time mostly for tagging block summaries so any reviewing admin will know the background (such as WP:LTA/VXFC), but otherwise I'd be mostly OK with merging and/or redirecting LTA pages to SPI pages, since that's where most of the active work in the area tends to happen. --Jayron32 14:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've never known it to be a "process", since there was no desired immediate outcome to the creation of an LTA page. I've always seen it as informational and educational, for those editors interested in that corner of the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• The problem is that, in order to be such, it needs to be actively updated. Otherwise, it's just a memorial to trolls, something we don't do. If we're using the LTA pages and creating new ones and updating them on the regular as a community, then they serve a use beyond simply being a memorial to trolls. However, if we aren't, then it isn't a useful corner of Wikipedia, and whatever small purpose it is currently serving in terms of being "informational" and "educational" could also be served in a part of Wikipedia which is being updated regularly, such as SPI pages. Just as an example as to how moribund most LTA pages are; WP:LTA/VXFC, which is a banned user which has been active as recently as the past week and which has never not been active, has an LTA page which was last updated once in 2021, and 3 times in 2022. Being that it's only seen 4 substantive edits in basically 3 years, it's not really serving its purpose of tracking ongoing long-term abuse. It's just a memorial to VXFC. --Jayron32 13:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, moribund, not functional, despite some wishful thinking. I think that virtually all long term abuse worth central tracking involves sockpuppettry or editing abusively while logged out while blocked, and so it has negligible scope outside SPI.

  WP:SPI in impressively professional-like and well functioning, and no one at SPI seems able to say that LTA has any known value. LTA is moribund, and we see it being a place of trolling. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

  "we see it being a place of trolling" Who is "we"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Incidentally, "X is moribund, therefore delete it" is an interesting philosophy. Generally, if there are things on Wikipedia which need to be updated, we -- you know -- update them, we don't "tsk-tsk" and delete them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I said we should remove all information entirely. I've said we should move the pages to relevant SPI pages, and house it there instead. It's redundant with SPI, and no one is using it. Imagining that some day, some time in the future, someone may use it is not a useful way to run things. We have a way to track long-term trolls that is currently being used many times per day. It's called SPI. Let's just merge the content of the LTA pages with the SPI pages, and get rid of the LTA process as historical. There are many things we used to do at Wikipedia that we have shut down and don't do anymore. That you claim such a thing is so novel as to be confusing to you is beyond-the-pale, given that you've been here as long as as have, if not longer. We shut things down at Wikipedia often enough. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates. All of these were shut down and marked "historical" or "closed" and we now direct users to other processes instead of trying to use them. My suggestion is we do the same with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. We mark it historical, merge any relevant cases to SPI, etc. --Jayron32 17:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Marking something as ""historical" is not what was being discussed - at least, that's not how I understood it. It's deletion I'm opposed to. (About the same, incidentally, first edit with an account: 26 June 2005). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you don't have a problem with what I proposed, why did you spend so much energy telling me I was wrong. If you have a problem with deletion, then find the person that proposed deletion and tell that person they are wrong. I proposed merging with SPI and marking LTA as historical. If that's not what you disagree with, then don't argue with me!!! --Jayron32 13:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Woah, hold on a bit. I'm allowed to disagree with you, I'm even allowed to disagree with what I thought you were saying, and I'm allowed to change directions once I understand what your argument actually is in fact, but chastising me for disagreeing with what the general thrust of the conversation was (exclusive of your contributions) doesn't seem very productive. I did misunderstand you, and I apologize for that. I'm certain if there was ever a real effort to deal with LTAs in connection with SPI you and I could probably agree on some procedure that preserved information in one form or another, but since it seems unlikely that that is going to happen, I don't see much point in expending energy over it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

• The problem is both WP:DENY and WP:BEANS. If we really updated LTA pages with as much information as possible, it would become a troll memorial (a WP:DENY problem), and also a guide of trolling ideas and block evasion techniques (a WP:BEANS problem). That being said, some LTA pages of prolific sockmaster who have been active in recent years are sometimes useful. Not every day, but occasionally they are. MarioGom (talk) 17:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Prolific sockmaster? Why is not covered by SPI? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  DENY is not working well if it leads to regular editors losing useful info. The practice of not tagging sock accounts already leads to issues in gaining a good understanding of any particular case, deleting LTA pages would make that task even more inaccessible. CMD (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed the recent proliferation of a number of user accounts where the user self-describes as the "Wikimedian In Residence" at some institution, then lists a set of "interests"; what caught my eye is the repetition in form from these supposedly unrelated accounts, such as:

User:VidEwan: Hi, my name is Ewan and I work at the University of Edinburgh as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland and the suffragettes. Resolved as ok. BD2412 T 14:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Vaishnodevimandir: Hi, my name is Elly and I work at the University of Texas at Austin as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland, Activists and the suffragettes.

User:Skmagar1500: Hi my name is ewan and i study at the University of Edinburgh as the wikimedian in residence. I am intrested in writing articles about film,Scotland and the suffragettes.

User:Fightersword: Hi, my name is Tom Peter and I work at the University of Edinburgh as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interested in writing articles about film, Scotland, Activists and the suffragettes.

User:DonJovanie: Hi, my name is Don and I work at the University of San Diego as the Wikimedian in Residence. I'm interesting in writing articles about musician, film, and the suffragettes.

User:Hiteshsagarjatav: Hi, my name is Hitesh Sagar Jatav. I am working at Bloomberg as the Wikimedian in Residence. I am interested to writing articles in technology, religion, music and India.

User:Sayeedsam1234: Hi My Name Is Sahim Haneef And I Work At Digital Company As The Wikimedian In Residence I'm Interested In Writing Articles About Film, Graphic, Animation & Photoshop Tricks.

Unless there is some training program for Wikimedians In Residence that instructs editors to introduce themselves in this way, I think we're looking at some kind of account farm. Also, that's an unusual amount of interest in "the suffragettes". BD2412 T 15:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: As you appear to be (or have been) a legitimate Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh, can you speak to the three accounts claiming that role above? Cheers! BD2412 T 15:48, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I ran a quick check (I have to run, so I can't do as much digging as I'd like to right now). Vaishnodevimandir and Fightersword are  Confirmed to each other, and Vaishnodevimandir's creations look a lot like UPE. Blocked those two. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

• The others haven't edited in 2-4 years, so there's no rush in dealing with them. At this point, I'd guess they're 99% likely to be the same person (or using the same tactic). Good catch, BD2412. But what did you mean about a "recent proliferation"? All but the two blocked accounts are years old. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  First impression - the two new ones were the first two that I came across. BD2412 T 16:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Someone experienced in UPE might want to look at active editor User:Scoffworld, who has a few similarities of user page, and has recreated at least one article that shows up in the deleted contribs of one or two of the accounts above. Image in the article is claimed to have been taken by Scoffworld. I'll notify them after I save this edit. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for flagging this. My main account is User:Stinglehammer but I have other training accounts User:EMcAndrew and User:VidEwan for when I am creating video tutorials. So VidEwan is one of my accounts. I'll add some text to make that clearer. The other ones are interesting/problematic. During training, I do advise to add an introductory sentence of text to a) make sure we have content to turn the user page into a blue clickable link b) to provide transparency about someone's affiliations/motives for editing and any potential COI and c) I also demo how to create a short bullet pointed list of approx 2-3 things they are interested in editing about again for transparency. What's striking is that we have obviously written about Scotland and the Scottish suffragettes at the University of Edinburgh during my tenure to date and I do use my own userpage as a base exemplar. But they are instructed not to replicate but make their own. Clearly one or two here have just copied my base userpage too literally. which is obviously problematic. Can we ask them to remove clearly misleading/factually incorrect info or am I legitimated to edit these userpages in this case? not sure how active they are for instance and I don't want too many of these existing and causing confusion. Stinglehammer (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

NB: looks like they are replicating what I demo in a 2018 video tutorial. I can mothball/archive that video tutorial if it is causing issues as we have newer video resources now which might be better in any case. Stinglehammer (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: Thanks for the clarification on that point. When I see a number of accounts created following a pattern such as this, my mind jumps to bots, an unfortunate effect of the times we live in. BD2412 T 14:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• Having been a proper WiR in the past (Royal Society and Cancer Research UK), one problem is that there is no real control over the title. At WMUK some 10 years ago there were discussions about trying to at least assert an "official" status for the ones WMUK supported and usually paid (or the host institution or a charity did). But it was decided not to do this, so in effect anyone can claim the title - I don't think there is any legal restriction on doing so, just in terms of using the name. You can see from User:Pigsonthewing's (Andy Mabbett) user page that he has done a number of these, some paid some not, without asking anyone's permission first (and without causing significant problems afaik). Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

While I'm still struggling to understand the difference between my Wikimedian residences and being "a proper WiR", I can state categorically that I have never claimed to be a Wikimedian in Residence at any institution without first gaining the appropriate permission to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

My recollection from when I was on the WMUK board is that we only heard of some of yours when you announced them. Who did you get "the appropriate permission" from? Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• The meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network is the peer to peer regulatory organization, to the extent that any standards exist. There are no formal processes there but sometimes organizations write in asking for guidance about whether a user is in good standing to be hired as a Wikimedian in Residence, or for information about recruiting one. The majority of active Wikimedians in Residence have participated in the activities of that organization, and it is the only organization with any standing to speak for the community. I posted notice of this on the talk page there. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • WREN is not a regulatory organization, has no authority to act as a regulatory organization, and nor does its page on meta make any claims to that effect. On that page, the section "Mission and Goals" says in full:
    "The Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network advocates for Wikimedia community members in professional or volunteer roles at institutions.
    "Goals of the organization include defining and protecting the common elements of the Wikimedian in Residence role, creating a peer support network which invites new and experienced Wikimedians in Residence to find each other for collaboration, and to encourage a global professional environment which inspires institutions to offer appointments to persons to engage with Wikimedia projects.". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Am I still topic banned. Arif80s (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unless you appealed it successfully (you would certainly know of the appeal, and should be able to find it, if this is the case). The discussion you linked to doesn't state the ban is temporary, which makes it indefinite (appealable, but forever unless successfully appealed). Your ban is also listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions Animal lover |666| 05:56, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Respected, I am not happy with this decision. In my view, this decision is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. This decision of the English Wikipedia will hurt the trust of users. Since we are from a country where most of its users do not have much understanding of the English Wikipedia's rules and policies, I am of the opinion that the English Wikipedia should not make such tough decisions and lift my ban soon as possible. thanks Arif80s (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What decision? Your indefinite topic ban is over 4.5 years old so it's well past time to get over any unhappiness with it. The fact that an indefinite topic ban lasts until it is successfully appealed is something that in some ways predates Wikipedia and isn't even really a 'decision' more a matter of definitions. I'd note that the 3 months minimum before any appeals is over 4 years past so you can appeal at anytime. However you will need to convince the community that 4.5 years later you now understand our policies and guidelines and whatever problems that got you topic banned are unlikely to reoccur. A good way to demostrate this to the community is simply via your editing. Again, it's been over 4.5 years. And the scope of your topic was very narrow, there was nothing stopping you creating well sourced and overall excellent articles that are basically FA quality, related to Pakistan or whatever, even with the topic ban in place. If you have done so, it would like make your appeal very simple. If you haven't, I'm not sure why the community is at fault for that, since your topic ban shouldn't have stopped you. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

P.S. For clarity I'm not saying you must write FAs for an appeal to succeed. I'm saying that it would definitely help, and more importantly although you seem to be presenting our restrictions on you as some make unfairness and loss to Wikipedia they are actually very limited. And they should not be stopping you making some of the best contributions any editor can make to Wikipedia even when it comes to your country. Indeed the loss to us from restricting you in that way even if it's no longer needed is surely very limited (which doesn't mean we should continue them if it's not) and the loss to you should really be seen that way too. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

It has certainly been long enough to allow an appeal. I'd recommend that you look over your behavior leading up to the ban, and write a convincing statement why the ban is no longer necessary. If it succeeds, then an admin will officially unban you. If it's unsuccessful, read the opposing comments and figure out how to fix your own behavior over the next few months to increase your chances of success next time. Animal lover |666| 14:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you take my opinion before making a decision? Don't you see the bias of the few users? Was it a big enough deal to ban on me and 3 other users?--Arif80s (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't make the decision. It was made in the discussion you linked to. I'm simply following it. And 4 years after it was closed you can't claim the closure was incorrect. Animal lover |666| 06:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Animal lover. I am addressing to administrators of Eng Wiki not you. Arif80s (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This was not a decision of an individual admin (by the way, the closing admin left Wikipedia 4 months after that discussion). It was concensus of all the users who participated in that discussion. You will need to convince enough users to establish a consensus that it's no longer needed. Animal lover |666| 08:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither will I appeal nor will I work on the English wiki. You are reducing your users. Congratulations. Arif80s (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that you've made only a sporadic handful of edits in the years since that topic ban (including a couple after you said you would no longer work on the English Wikipedia), and just a few hundred before then, I expect we'll manage. What would genuinely "hurt the trust of users" would be to have policies we did not enforce. Editors are just as bound by Wikipedia's policies and rules as visitors to your own country are bound by those laws, however strange they may be to foreigners. (I don't expect, for example, that your country would waive its blasphemy laws for my benefit, however much the criminalization of blasphemy is a strange and deplorable concept to Americans.) Ravenswing 17:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

A mobile editor with a 2604... 2605... range, has been messing with the owners section in the infoboxes of all 32 NHL team pages, for several months. Is a range block possible? or will attempting to get long term semi-protection of those 32 pages, be required. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Some diffs might help work out the ranges - or at least some links to the articles involved. (I'm afraid I don't know what the NHL is, or what the teams in it are called...). Girth Summit _(blether) 18:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you're going to have to help us here. I looked at 6 different NHL teams and only found 2607:FEA8:E99F:9610:0:0:0:0/64 which I have blocked for a year, and that's not a 2604 or 2605 IP. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I went a few months back through the history of the articles for the teams in the Western Conference (NHL) and found a few patterns. First, the cases I saw:

• 2605:B100:710:938E:F544:AB8A:8F80:37C8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (geolocates to Calgary), Chicago Blackhawks, 28 October adds Evander Kane
• 2604:3D09:6188:FB00:38DB:5863:2859:8D28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Calgary), Calgary Flames, 30 October changes owner to Connor McDavid
• 2600:6C4A:7B7F:7CCD:DCAF:B441:EC29:6E70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Denver), Dallas Stars, 31 October changes owner to Anthony Mantha
• 156.57.148.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Halifax), Vancouver Canucks, 11 November adds Mike Hoffman (I assume they meant this one), this was self-reverted a minute later
• 2600:1700:2DF0:1450:B9F5:785A:3D57:60A5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Atlanta), Edmonton Oilers, 21 November changes owner to Andrei Svechnikov
• And then, Nashville Predators on 2 November, mostly changing the owner to Leon Draisaitl:
  • 23.17.161.46 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (St. Paul, Alberta) [8]
  • 24.65.73.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Edmonton) [9]
  • 68.150.98.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Edmonton) [10][11]
  • 96.52.46.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Edmonton) [12][13]
  • 204.83.140.89 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Regina) [14]
  • 2605:8D80:461:F76B:DCD5:AFDD:D7DE:1DFC (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Toronto) [15]
  • And finally, 2604:3D09:7189:1E00:300B:A671:9889:D079 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (Calgary) [16] on 13 December

So, what's the point here? Well, these are all opposing players, so I guess the joke is that they "owned" the other team in the slang sense (see definition #5 here if you don't understand). Note how shortly before the vandalism, the team that the player is on beat the team whose page is modified (e.g. Oilers def. Predators on 1 November). From the diverse locations, teams/players affected, and timing, I'm guessing this is a group of friends or online community that is vandalizing these pages, not a single user. As for what to do about it...just whack-a-mole I guess. There are often IP editors making reasonable contributions and updates on sports team pages in general (including these NHL ones), so wholesale protection is probably not useful. Nashville Predators could have used a short semi on the 2nd, but it's probably not worthwhile at this point (although they did just play the Oilers again yesterday, so maybe). ansh.666 20:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The third definition of "own" applies even more that the fifth: To defeat or embarrass; to overwhelm. I will own my enemies. If he wins, he will own you. I am not a big team sports fan but I have a few professional sports teams on my watchlist, and have seen this pattern of vandalism three or four times previously. Not just hockey but basketball, NFL football and baseball as well. Team A beats Team B, and the vandal replaces the real owner of Team B with the star player of Team A. Now, sometimes wealthy pro athletes do buy teams. But it takes about 30 seconds on Google to verify that most of these so-called purchases are spurious. Cullen328 (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Would permanent semi-protection of all 32 NHL team pages, be too drastic? GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not think that is called for. Good faith IP editors frequently make productive improvements to professional sports team articles, and this specific problem is not limited to National Hockey League team articles. Maybe our brilliant edit filter coders can develop a filter that draws human attention to team ownership edits to professional sports teams. I do not have the technical expertise to evaluate whether this is possible. It is not a gigantic number of articles. There are 30 Major League Baseball teams, 30 National Basketball Association teams, 32 National Football League teams and 32 National Hockey League teams. So, only 124 articles are subject to this type of vandalism as identified so far. Most are in the United States but some are in Canada. Cullen328 (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, far too drastic. These are pretty heavily trafficked and watched pages, so this type of childish vandalism is caught and reverted quickly. There are far more useful IP edits than bad edits as well, so it would probably end up being pretty counterproductive. Also, obviously, there isn't an issue during the offseason (the NHL season started in October, and there wasn't anything from before that). ansh.666 10:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Due to a misconfigured edit filter, for 2 hours and 23 minutes we blocked most edits by new users containing the letter "j". I've been going through the hits, most of which are net-positive edits and should be restored, but it's slow going, and I was wondering if I could get some help. User:Suffusion of Yellow/effp-helper.js​ makes it just two clicks to proxy a filter-blocked edit, so with a few people we could clear this backlog quickly. Posting here as it's a private filter and thus only admins and edit filter helpers can do this. (Will cross-post to EFN.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Made it through the first 150... so all of 16 minutes. It's tedious, but rescued a few full articles in the process! If anyone wants to pick up where I've left off, that'd be here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to remind folks that it is not recommended to make changes to filters which are set to disallow without using the AbuseFilter's testing functionality or at least first dropping back to log-only temporarily. It's very easy to make a mistake :) Sam Walton (talk) 10:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I dropped a note at WP:EFN but there's a userscript to help do a FP check before saving. (Posting here too for more awareness, it's a useful script to have; I'd recommend it to all EFMs) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't we have a page wherein are memorialized great feats of klutziness like the time someone deleted the Main Page? EEng 15:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@eeng: what, this one? lettherebedarklight晚安 15:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

That is indeed the one. EEng 15:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry for the schadenfreude, but I can only chuckle at the WP:DDMP-level silliness of disallowing all edits with the letter "j". Brilliant. --Jayron32 16:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @ayron32: Don't Say Jay? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  😆--Jayron32 17:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Seems to me like it's time to dust off the old WP:STOCKS - if those responsible are in support, of course. casualdejekyll 17:49, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  In the 21st century, people only go in the stocks with their consent. EEng 06:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

  Don't threaten me with a good time... --Jayron32 15:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

A "tl;dr" summary would be appropriate, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I was mentioned in this tweet, apparently due to Commons deletion, but it looks like we have undeclared paid editing here. May be administrators more experienced in handling these issues could have a look. Ymblanter (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

There may be undeclared COI (paid or unpaid) editing as well, but that tweet looks like it is talking about commissioning an artwork to be created and then complaining that it keeps getting taken down from commons as having inadequate permissions. If so, the permissions are a matter for commons rather than here and paying for an artwork is not problematic from our point of view. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I see, this makes sense. Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought Ymblanter was talking about this SPA, who seems to show a very determined interest in Connor Ratliff. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I actually thought this is the same person as mentioned in the tweet. Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

That's why I suggested there may be undeclared COI as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi all - this concerns Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leaves38, and Special:Contributions/2402:D000:811C:0:0:0:0:0/48. Long story short - this user is adding copyright violations in form of puffy content from a book at lots of different articles, mostly (but not exclusively) in the Sri Lanka subject area. They started out as User:Leaves38, but are now bouncing around the /48 IP range doing the same stuff. They've ignored my attempts to reach out to them on the account's talk page. I could put a range block in place, but the collateral would be non-zero. Is this something a clever person could do something about with an edit filter? Girth Summit _(blether) 15:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to have another set of eyes look at the range before we make a decision, but when I look at it, I see a mix of editing that may be indicative of multiple users. It's pretty varied in subject area and style, and some of the edits don't appear to be from Leaves38, though others are. Can someone check my analysis? I'm not against blocking, but I also don't want to pull the trigger on the rangeblock if it's being used by constructive editors as well. --Jayron32 16:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean about non-zero collateral. This has to be stopped, but there are other people using the range for sure - if a filter could catch it, without inconveniencing those people, I'd prefer that, but I'm not a big whizz on what filters can do. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement that there's definitely editing by others than Leaves38 on the talk. I imagine that one could create a filter that checks to see if some any X-word-long string from the full text of the document was pasted into an article, but I feel like this probably would run into technical limitations (my understanding is that filters can only check so many conditions in one edit, and we wouldn't want it to check a large number like this . It might be better to outsource it to somethink akin to a special-purpose bot that's like XLinkBot that would check to see if any long strings from the source text were copied, and revert when an editor first introduces the copyvio to a page. This doesn't seem like it would be terrible to write in Python; my only concern would be about whether it's worth the community effort to have something like this go through RFBot if we're essentially dealing with a single user. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 08:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• In the absence of any alternative proposals, and with the issue continuing, I have blocked the range for two weeks. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  That's probably for the best. I just responded to a WP:RFPP situation related to this, and I think it was from the same range. Sometimes the unpleasant thing needs to be done. --Jayron32 13:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to restore the old delete article? Harry Kane is now the current joint top scorer for England with Wayne Rooney(List). I asked on WT:Football two days ago but got no response. So please, can anyone help? Provide an answer? Govvy (talk) 10:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The list is already in the article, so it sounds like the best way to deal with this is discuss the matter on Talk:Harry Kane and see if it's large enough to merit a page split. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

No discussion is needed. He is the current all time England scorer ([17]) which is grounds to have the article restored! Harry Kane page is 178,149bites page length, that alone makes a perfectly valid content fork. I never got peoples arguments for deletion at the last time. Still can an admin not restore the old page or not?? Govvy (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how we can overrule a well-attended deletion discussion without a discussion here, just because one editor thinks the topic is warranted. It may well be warranted now, but given that the majority of the AFD !voting was not based on him not being the top scorer (was mentioned, but not the predominate cause for deletion), there ought to be a discussion before recreating this. Hog Farm _Talk 15:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Govvy: There was consensus to delete the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international goals scored by Harry Kane. It should not be recreated unless and until you establish consensus to do so. --Jayron32 15:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what you say is wrong, his record passes GNG, [18], ]https://www.nationalworld.com/sport/football/world-cup/who-has-scored-the-most-england-goals-where-is-harry-kane-in-the-all-time-highest-goal-scorers-leaderboard-3459648], [19], [20], [21]. I can go one, those are some of the top hits. No a discussion does not need to take place, if you want it to take place, that is just cat and mouse. Forgive me, but not one person has answered the question. Can an admin restore the article or not. It's a simple yes or no! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What I say is not wrong There was a discussion. It came to the conclusion to delete the article. You should not act unilaterally to recreate the article unless you establish consensus first. Everything else you might have to say here is irrelevant absent a new discussion to establish consensus to recreate it. I am an admin, and I am telling you that the article will not be recreated until after there is consensus established via a discussion. Not before. --Jayron32 16:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

However, if the main problem mentioned at the AfD - that the topic had no reliable sources specifically about the topic - are addressed (which they will almost certainly be when he breaks the record) then any appeal should easily pass DRV. Black Kite (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't need to pass DRV for someone to just write a new article. Anything restored at DRV would need to be massively updated anyway, and since the "meat" of the information is already at the main article, might as well just start from there. If someone still thinks it is not worth having, they can nominate a second time at AFD. Primefac (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, except for a couple of things. 1) The original article shouldn't be restored because the prior AFD still applies unless consensus says it doesn't and 2) any re-creation of such a list would be eligible for WP:CSD#G4 if it were substantially similar to the original deleted list. Given the narrowness of the subject, I can't imagine that a list of such goals wouldn't be substantially similar to what was deleted. Which is why I advise against re-creating it unilaterally by anyone until after a new discussion is held to determine if there is the AFD consensus has been superseded by new information. That discussion needs to happen first, such a thing can't be unilaterally declared by one user. --Jayron32 13:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This is probably too soon to be overly concerned, but information including the full date of birth of judges and justices may be illegal to publish online if the DAJSPA remains in the NDAA bill. As we publish this information on Wikipedia, is this something for us to be concerned about? I imagine that this portion of the law would be struck down for being overly broad. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a 100% chance this is enjoined by the courts. It's completely incompatible with first amendment protections. I wouldn't put any thought in to it at all. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 07:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems to be very USA focused. Is that a problem? What about the rest of the world? --Bduke (talk) 08:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, this bill is coming before the US Congress, so of course it is focussed on that country. We have a large number of editors in the US, and many articles on American judges, so it is still a potential problem even though the bill does not apply to the rest of us. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Last I checked the WP servers were in the US so US law applies to them. That may have changed in the last 10 years, so If I'm incorrect and its primary host is elsewhere then the (potential) law doesn't apply to the project at all. --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 09:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The law (if it becomes law and if it's enforceable - both very big ifs) would apply to editors in the US wherever the servers happen to be. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Very true, but it wouldn't apply to a foreign project or create any sort of possible liability to project itself. It would be up to the users to maintain their own personal compliance like we do with Thailand's Lèse-majesté law. That said, I looked it up and 3 of the 5 servers the foundation uses are in the US: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers --WhoIs 127.0.0.1 ping/loopback 10:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Per the ongoing discussion of this topic at the Village Pump, Section 4(d) of that act states:

(ii) EXCEPTIONS.—Clause (i) shall not apply to—

(I) the display on the internet of the covered information of an at-risk individual or immediate family if the information is relevant to and displayed as part of a news story, commentary, editorial, or other speech on a matter of public concern;

(II) covered information that the at-risk individual voluntarily publishes on the internet after the date of enactment of this Act; or

(III) covered information received from a Federal Government source (or from an employee or agent of the Federal Government).

Wikipedia coverage of judicial officers arguably constitutes "speech on a matter of public concern"; additionally, most information we have on federal judges originated as "information received from a Federal Government source", specifically scraped from the database of the Federal Judicial Center. Even if the FJC is required to remove that information, we have already received it. BD2412 T 14:24, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The article Air Force One (film) has been hit by a sockpuppet so many times and they have been blocked, but are evading bans to continue on that article, among other film articles as you will see on their contributions. I requested protection from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection in the past, but they didn't anything enough to help protect that article and I don't think pending change protection will be enough. Here is the evidence by page links and the sockpuppet in various sock accounts.

Page links: Air Force One (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sockpupput contributions:

Cartoon State (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Funky Beckles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Colonel Reid Evans (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please, find a way to protect that page from being vandalized by that sockpuppet. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I did a month of extended confirmed protection. If it continues, I can extend it. I'll also look into harsher range blocks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

What a weird thing to spend your time sockpuppeting over. Canterbury Tail talk 14:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

That's why I requested protection for it. That sockpuppet also did so in other film articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

User @Sideswipe9th has requested that I ask for a closure review of the discussion that I closed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#RfC on Denials as they do not believe that the reasoning that I gave at User talk:Gusfriend#Closure of RfC on Denials was sufficient and it should be closed by an uninvolved administrator or someone intimately familiar with core content policies.

Apologies if I overstepped by closing the discussion. Gusfriend (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

On you talk page you describe some additional comments you would have made if closing the discussion now. Can I suggest you amend the close with the those additional thoughts, as it will likely reduce any issues anyone might have with the result. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse closure Regardless of the closing statement, the consensus in support of Option 1 in that discussion is clear and obvious. The closing statement was perhaps a bit badly worded but in the end it's a minor issue. If the closer wants to amend their statement to make it the rationale better, that's fine, but there's no need to negate the result as the end result is the same. Option 1 was the clear consensus choice. The rest is just window dressing. For future reference, closing statements should avoid mentioning vote counting, because someone who voted for a different outcome will go apoplectic and cry "zOMG! WP:NOTAVOTE!". Instead, weigh the relative arguments (and the number of people making and endorsing certain arguments is a major factor in assessing consensus) and avoid mentioning the counting of votes the way you did. --Jayron32 20:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse closure The close, though succinct, clearly represents the consensus emergent in the RfC. If the additional comments from Gusfriend's Talk page are added to the closing statement (and I would strongly urge they not be added), it would be better to exclude the parenthetical (including the sections WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE); there was significant argument in the RfC that FALSEBALANCE does not apply to allegations or assertions which have not been the focus of commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) ^talk 21:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your comments which I will take on board for future closures. I will add a note to the closure notice pointing to this discussion. Gusfriend (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Would someone please take a look at the comments posted on Talk:Pope Pius XII by User:HistoryAndPoliticalAnalyst? I believe them to be copyright violations, and have redacted some and collapsed others, but I'm not certain that those are the correct actions to have taken. I redacted long excerpts of copyright material, and collapsed a series of short excerpts which individually might be acceptable, but which collectively seem to violate the copyright holder's rights.

I would appreciate someone more familiar with Wikipedia's copyright policies looking at the comments as posted and my actions in relation to them.

The user has also commented on Talk:Hitler's rise to power, and these might be worth looking at as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• Omni-Edition (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Omni-Edition
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morrigan_Aensland&oldid=1127860624
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Darkstalkers_(comics)&oldid=1124125214
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Udon_Entertainment&diff=next&oldid=1124125344

From a concern received from a user, I have found multiple counts of threats to other users left on the summary edit and their talk pages [22], [23] on the article Morrigan Aensland because they would not follow this user's point of view.

I am reporting this user for WP:THREAT, WP:NPOV, WP:ORIGINAL Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 03:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

やれやれ。Blocked as NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 06:14, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

(EC) The editor has been blocked per WP:NOTHERE which is probably for the best. I'd note that while their edits were very problematic, I'd be reluctant to say they can reasonably be construed as making legal threats even considering the risk of a chilling effect. While they did sometimes leave some vague mentions of reporting people their talk page comment seems to make it clear they were just referring to reportings editors to "mods". So while demonstrating a common lack of understanding how Wikipedia works, I think it's fair to say when they said "report" it clearly wasn't a legal threat. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I was overreacting, but thank you! Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 06:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I had a discussion with this user. I'm not suprised that their editing career ended this way. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Nurlac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Qiure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 2405:4802:1CD:D40:5D2A:A173:3282:A792 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
4. 2405:4802:1CD:D40:C518:5AD2:F112:B168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

All these accounts are involved in changing the name of the Vietnamese opera genre from "cải lương" to the fake term "cairoless", which has zero uses and mentions all over the internet. They do this simultaneously on wikicommons, wikidata and enwiki. This user also has been engaged in multiwiki vandalism on adding fake emblems and logos on Vietnamese articles. Each account is currently banned on wiki-commons and several other wikis or globally banned. Yesterday they've renamed the entire article about the genre to Cairoless and reworked its content, also added a YouTube video as a fake source, where the term is never mentioned. The whole thing looks like ongoing vandalism. Solidest (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Solidest Accounts blocked for sock puppetry, both IPs blocked last month by [[User:NinjaRobotPirate]] what I don't understand is how the accounts were editing using globally locked IPS. Anyway, I suggest you revert them. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Doug Weller:, They keep vandalizing under a new IP with the same edits: 2405:4802:2e0:9fe0:a80c:aacf:c9c1:7c2b (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I guess it's worth protecting the article. Solidest (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Solidest semi protected for a month. Doug Weller talk 15:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I reported 45.8.146.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) at AIV 45 minutes ago, but that report has apparently received no investigation. The IP is very rapidly removing {{portal}} templates, seemingly constructive wikilinks, and other content from a wide range of articles, currently focusing on the geography of the western United States. The IP's Talk page contains numerous warnings over the past 45 days, but the IP has made no effort to respond to any of them. Could someone take a look and see if the IPs edits appear to be constructive? While some appear to be so, or at least defensible, the vast majority do not. General Ization ^Talk 05:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm an admin but not an AIV watcher. I just happened to stumble across this IP editor via my watchlist. I'm combing through their edits now. They do have a lot of helpful edits (including sourced additions to articles using citation templates), but a lot of nonsense too. Among the nonsense, randomly removing portals from some articles, while adding them to others (with no apparent rhyme or reason as to which have the portals removed and which have the portals added), also removing redlinks. I'm tempted to block as they apparently have been warned adequately. But I'm also concerned this may be a bigger issue, like maybe a block evasion. This editor clearly knows their way around Wikipedia more than the average IP vandal. If anybody can clear up what's going on please advise.Dave (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I note that the IP stopped about the time that another editor started systematically reverting their edits, and appears now to have started again using IP 80.71.157.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (with some overlap on the previous IP's edits). General Ization ^Talk 05:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. I didn't notice they switched IP's. So yeah they know how to game the system. I blocked the 80.x IP. Now we see how many more IP's they have at their disposal. Dave (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Saintstephen000 (talk)

Since we seem to agree this is not your run-of-the-mill vandal, and my report at AIV had received no attention anyway, I removed it. Thanks for looking into it (and to @Saintstephen000 for reverting many of the IP's stranger edits). General Ization ^Talk 06:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The editor resumed the same mostly non-constructive editing pattern using the 45.x IP around 0217 EST and continued through around 0500 EST. General Ization ^Talk 18:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

they are back at it, removing flags and creating frivolous categories. Saintstephen000 (talk)

And also back to using 80.71.157.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to make edits that fit the same pattern. General Ization ^Talk 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

A few editors have taken on Wikipedia:Database reports/Ownerless pages in the user space recently, reducing the population of the report from about 1,500 to about 120 pages. Most of the remaining pages are .js and .css pages, which are actionable only by administrators. Having these pages on the report makes it less easy to see any remaining actual pages.

I can't really make sense of most of them, which appear maybe to be redirects that may or may not work. Many or most (or all?) of them appear to be connected to user renames.

Taking one specific example, User:Érico Júnior Wouters/CommonsHelper Labs.js does not have any incoming links in What links here (although with a .js file, I don't know if What links here really works to know if the page is being referenced), and the file exists at its new location. The page appears to be safe to delete, since there is no user to log in and load it.

Is there an admin here who would be willing to look at these pages and do something appropriate with them? Deleting or moving comes to mind, but there may be other options. Thanks for your time. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I have linked this from WP:IANB. Some of them are double redirects from users who got renamed twice and need to retargeted. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 14:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

They really shouldn't be "re-targeted", they should just be deleted or moved. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

This kind of search might be more thorough than looking for links. This would hopefully catch things like importScript('User:Érico Júnior Wouters/CommonsHelper Labs.js'); that may not have a proper backlink. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I will work on this. Izno (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I have cleared out the set that were trivial.

• User:Cumbril/RefConsolidate start.js
• User:Cumbril/RefConsolidate.js
• User:Cumbril/IPLabeller.js

These 3 remain as protected JavaScript 'redirects' (I understand why). Several users import them directly. We really should make a gadget that can provide a couple functions to move people to the supported name directly and/or consider moving Wikipedia:User scripts/Most imported scripts to gadgets. I can also myself make the edits which move people over and then delete the redirects. Xaosflux as the protector, though those requests and/or discussion of them might be better for IANB. Izno (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Izno my protection was as an antispoof measure should someone register that old username, as a stop gap. The not-a-redirects probably should just be deleted; if Kaniivel wants to keep supporting these they could notify the people using the very out of date loads. It's possible for intadmins to go change everyone's imports, but I really don't love getting stuck with that sort of maintenance... — xaosflux ^Talk 20:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I deliberately didn't say why it was protected. ;)

Should be able to get a list of the users using something of his (search + some processing in Notepad) and send a mass message telling users to update and then delete it in Soon time. That leaves us not significantly stuck with the maintenance.

AWB run over them is also trivial, but whether users should know it has happened has some split in int admin corp.

Or we can just delete and post in a reasonably central place it's deleted, but then the page has to be reprotected, which is lowest effort. Izno (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

We can put an alert() on it saying HEY YOU - YOU HAVE A BROKEN SCRIPT, FIX IT BUDDY! :D — xaosflux ^Talk 22:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Izno: So long as other users are importing an orphaned script, it's probably best to keep it in exactly the format left over from a page move: /* #REDIRECT */mw.loader.load("//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=THE_TARGET_PAGE\u0026action=raw\u0026ctype=text/javascript");. If it's in that format, apparently it will be automatically protected by the software from editing by non-intadmins. For example, I just locked myself out of editing one of my own .js pages. But User:Cumbril/IPLabeller.js has an extra comment before the /* REDIRECT */, so the automatic protection won't apply. This also means that deleting the script is a bad idea: even with full create-protection, there's nothing to stop a compromised admin from removing the protection, registering the account, and then recreating the script. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Huh. Wonder when that was added. Let me go remove that comment. Izno (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

2019 it would seem. Also, the RefConsolidator scripts should have & changed to \u0026 for this trick to work. Yes, it really is that fussy. You'll know you've got it right if visiting User:Cumbril/RefConsolidate.js actually takes you to User:Kaniivel/RefConsolidate.js. Here's the "is this a redirect?" check for JS pages. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Neat change. I'll look into it. Izno (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Those two are fixed now. Izno (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

So long as other users are importing an orphaned script ... @Suffusion of Yellow @Xaosflux Note that it is not possible for anyone to import orphaned scripts. Try it - you get a 403. – SD0001 (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@SD0001 thanks, that used to work...hmmm. Still the possibility that someone gets that name in the future; so perhaps we should delete it and also try to help people that have the import. Importing other people's personal scripts is a buyer beware situation of course! — xaosflux ^Talk 09:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all. The report looks a lot more sane now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

1. 206.172.185.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

206.172.185.116 IP editor is blanking/removing any reference to Syria in article after article with rare explanations and no sources to back his edit. This editor is not here to build an encyclopedia. Here are the diffs:

(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 )

Over here the ip editor reverts 4 times after their initial edit, with one explanation, but with no source and questionable intent considering their previous edits: 7 I did not engage with the IP editor due to the clear bad faith displayed in their multiple and consistent edits. George Al-Shami (talk) 01:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The article on Vita Zaverukha has been repeatedly transformed into a redirect to Aidar Battalion.