Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard |
---|
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
|
Open tasks
V | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 23 | 113 | 0 | 136 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
RfD | 0 | 2 | 17 | 0 | 19 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 7 |
- 8 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 55 sockpuppet investigations
- 10 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 1 Fully-protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 0 requests for RD1 redaction
- 34 elapsed requested moves
- 10 requested closures
- 56 requests for unblock
- 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 9 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
JIP
I am very concerned about the terrible sourcing for articles being translated from fi.wiki by JIP, large numbers of articles causing large amounts of work for other editors cleaning up after them.
I first approached JIP about this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suomenlinna Brewery, pinging them to my comment. They didn’t respond to the ping.
I approached them on their talk at User_talk:JIP/Archive_38#poor_sourcing_on_new_articles_created_in_main_space. It archived with no response.
A couple of weeks later, working at NPP in the Food & Drink section, I came across multiple articles from JIP that had been translated from fi.wiki and that just had terrible sourcing. For instance Lordi's Rocktaurant, which had been AfD’d with a result of redirect to Lordi in 2009. The restaurant closed in 2011. JIP translated and created this article in May. Restaurants do not typically become notable after they close. When I got there.
Lordi’s Rocktaurant took me a half hour to check references, find out if the wayback machine had links that were dead (JIP left permanently dead links to self-sources in the references section), pull out the dreck (stuff was sourced to a bare mention in a Master's thesis), and decide that yeah, this isn’t notable. Nominated and discovered it was nominated 12 years ago and closed as redirect. JIP’s archives are littered with notifications of AfDs that did not end in Keep.
I am concerned not only that this is someone who is highly experienced and doesn’t seem to understand our sourcing requirements, not only that they are refusing to communicate, but that this is an admin doing these things. This is a huge timesink for other editors. It shouldn't be happening. valereee (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ugh. And then we have things like this which may or may not be notable but are nothing more than a product placement. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also could an admin who wasn't involved in recreating Hotel Korpilampi please evaluate the status of the G4 that JIP removed themselves? Also JIP that's an involved CSD removal if I ever saw one. This appears to be a long term problem, per Savoy (restaurant) their removal here too, which TheresNoTime attempted (ultimately futile) discuss with them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- The deleted version was five sentences long and reffed only [1] [2] [3] [4]; the first and third of those are in the recreation. I wouldn't have G4d it. Still shouldn't have been JIP to remove the tag. —Cryptic 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine - and what I was looking for but my original point still stands that they shouldn't have been the one to remove it, nor should they have done so on the other articles they've created. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- The deleted version was five sentences long and reffed only [1] [2] [3] [4]; the first and third of those are in the recreation. I wouldn't have G4d it. Still shouldn't have been JIP to remove the tag. —Cryptic 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also could an admin who wasn't involved in recreating Hotel Korpilampi please evaluate the status of the G4 that JIP removed themselves? Also JIP that's an involved CSD removal if I ever saw one. This appears to be a long term problem, per Savoy (restaurant) their removal here too, which TheresNoTime attempted (ultimately futile) discuss with them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll note that this editor started editing several hours ago and has edited as recently as an hour ago. I'd opened this here because I thought it might be a kinder place to handle what surely couldn't be intentional misbehavior, but now I'm wondering if I should move it to ANI. Would anyone object to that move? valereee (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think AN is probably more appropriate given it's about admin "powers" and the next step would be arbcom. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is not my intention to vandalise Wikipedia but to improve it. The articles come from the Finnish Wikipedia where they usually have been edited and reviewed for years so the Finnish Wikipedia seems to have accepted them. Apparently the English Wikipedia has stricter rules for article contents. Some of the Finnish articles do have quite little in the way of sources so I try to pick articles that are long enough and have enough sources. I admit I should not be removing deletion notices from articles I have created myself, but otherwise I don't see why this is such a huge issue. Also I don't see how this counts as an abuse of admin powers when I haven't even used my admin powers in creating these articles. JIP | Talk 16:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- No-one has mentioned vandalism. WP:ADMINCOND does not just cover admin actions but also policy knowledge, and it is concerning that you only now seem to be aware that
apparently the English Wikipedia has stricter rules for article contents.
Also, if you have not been responding to valereee's concerns, then that would raises issues of WP:ADMINACCT as well. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC) - You created an article which had been g4'd, recreated it and then declined the deletion tag. That is involved to the nth degree, among other issues. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not to mention it shouldn't take multiple editors and an AN thread discussing potentially taking this to arbcom to get you to comply with WP:ADMINACCT PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- It has already been established that the article I created about Hotel Korpilampi was not substantially identical to the deleted version, being over two and a half times as long as the deleted version. Still I must admit I acted wrongly in removing the speedy deletion notice straight away, I should have discussed it on your talk page first. Anyway, what happened with this one article should not have much negative impact on other translations from the Finnish Wikipedia, they should be viewed as articles on their own. JIP | Talk 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- The concerns raised here aren't just about one article... Levivich 23:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're still wildly missing the point and haven't begun to address the crux of the problem. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- It has already been established that the article I created about Hotel Korpilampi was not substantially identical to the deleted version, being over two and a half times as long as the deleted version. Still I must admit I acted wrongly in removing the speedy deletion notice straight away, I should have discussed it on your talk page first. Anyway, what happened with this one article should not have much negative impact on other translations from the Finnish Wikipedia, they should be viewed as articles on their own. JIP | Talk 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not to mention it shouldn't take multiple editors and an AN thread discussing potentially taking this to arbcom to get you to comply with WP:ADMINACCT PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- No-one has mentioned vandalism. WP:ADMINCOND does not just cover admin actions but also policy knowledge, and it is concerning that you only now seem to be aware that
- JIP, you've been an admin for 17 years, and you're essentially admitting to not understanding basic content policies, basic deletion policies, and a basic understanding of WP:INVOLVED. Is this really the path you want to go down? This is somewhat concerning. —ScottyWong— 01:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- JIP, I would have to echo Scottywong's concerns here. None of us admin are specialists in all areas, but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of our most basic content policies, as well as WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINCOND, as well as WP:ADMINACCT, even if the tools aren't being used. The community has been very aggressive in policing admin who are out of touch with basic conduct expectations, and a number of admin have found it in their best interest (and the best interest of enwp) to simply resign the bit and be a non-admin editor. Is this one of those cases, or are you saying you are going to devote all your time to get up to speed with expectations that are placed on EVERY admin here? There really isn't a third option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wish to remain an admin and to get up to speed with the expectations. I will continue my work here as normal but also take greater care of Wikipedia policies and admin accountability. JIP | Talk 23:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @JIP: There is a page for admins becoming more involved after a period of reduced activity or absence: Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- JIP, you literally created Harri Hylje yesterday with an edit summary of "this is now ready to be moved into article namespace". As far as I can tell not a single one of those sources is okay. valereee (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I almost posted this myself, thanks for doing it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @JIP, you can't go and just directly translate articles from the Finnish Wikipedia without checking their sources. Many of the sources used for this article are dead. Apparently your source for your articles is the Finnish Wikipedia, which is a wiki, hence not a reliable source. Sure, most of the time, wikis get it right, but to produce something truly reliable, we need to check what we are doing. (I know and remember from my own translations that things were different ten years ago, but we try to be much better and verifiably correct these days). —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wish to remain an admin and to get up to speed with the expectations. I will continue my work here as normal but also take greater care of Wikipedia policies and admin accountability. JIP | Talk 23:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- JIP, I would have to echo Scottywong's concerns here. None of us admin are specialists in all areas, but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of our most basic content policies, as well as WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINCOND, as well as WP:ADMINACCT, even if the tools aren't being used. The community has been very aggressive in policing admin who are out of touch with basic conduct expectations, and a number of admin have found it in their best interest (and the best interest of enwp) to simply resign the bit and be a non-admin editor. Is this one of those cases, or are you saying you are going to devote all your time to get up to speed with expectations that are placed on EVERY admin here? There really isn't a third option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not an admin however wondering about the Lordi article and it being mentioned here. Why is this tiny article even being mentioned? If JIP is editing many articles incorrectly naming only one makes very little sense.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we should be looking at revoking somebody's admin bit if they're not abusing the tools. Yes, WP:ADMINCOND does talk about
consistent or egregious poor judgment
even in the context of non-admin edits, but I don't think we're there yet. I'm going to WP:AGF that JIP has taken a wake-up call about how they have not kept up with our evolving policies over the years. They have already stated that they willget up to speed with the expectations
. I suggest we take them at their word on that, close this thread, and see how things go. If there's further problems, we can pick this up again.
- I will note that we've got an arbcom this year which has clearly demonstrated that they won't give a free ride to legacy admins who have failed to keep up. And if there's one key takeaway from the three cases early this year, it's that the "Failure to communicate" clause of WP:ADMINACCT is on everybody's hot button. You can get away with almost any mistake if you respond to questions when asked about it. Ignoring queries is a quick path to an arbcom case which ends badly. By the same token, asking questions when you're not sure is always a good plan, and WP:Noticeboards lists the appropriate places for various types of questions. If you prefer, I'm sure any of the admins who have participated in this thread would be happy to answer questions off-wiki if you email them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @RoySmith, did you see the fact that within minutes of saying they'd get up to speed, they added yet another terribly-sourced translation from fi.wiki? Like 10 minutes after saying that, up went Harri Hylje. So, no, I don't think we can take them at their word. And this person is not responding to pings from AN. They were pinged four days ago and still haven't responded. So... valereee (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- And now, following the last, we now have Main Guard Post, Helsinki. The first source is offline and I do not have immediate access to it (nor can I read Finnish), but the second source is a blog, and the third seems only (as best as I can tell from machine translation) to mention the building in brief passing. I don't see any reason to believe that it clears notability, nor that any reasonable editor, let alone an administrator, would have thought that it does. JJP has stated that he will undertake to bring himself up to speed on the English Wikipedia's policies, yet seems to have just carried on doing the exact same thing without any effort to do so. With any other editor, who carried on creating inappropriate articles despite assurances that they would stop that and familiarize themself with policy first, I would very likely block them until the matter could be satisfactorily resolved. JIP, can you offer any reason why that shouldn't happen here? Because if anything, we should hold admins to a higher standard, and I don't see you meeting that here at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry I haven't replied here for a while. I am still trying to both improve my conduct and improve Wikipedia. I am not acting on bad faith here, at least not intentionally. Not all of my translations from the Finnish Wikipedia have been problematic but some have. The Finnish Wikipedia has quite many articles that are poorly sourced. I would like to have translated fi:viinakortti (a card that used to be required in Finland to be able to buy alcohol) or fi:Vadelmavenepakolainen (a book about a Finnish boy who wants to be Swedish), but the former has only two sources, one of which seems to be only a passing mention, and the latter is not sourced at all. I myself put an "unreferenced" template in the article. I try to pick articles that are long enough and well enough sourced. The deletion discussion about Main Guard Post, Helsinki seems to have some "keep" votes as the building is notable, but that still does not make the article well enough sourced at this point. There are further sources listed at the deletion discussion, I can make use of them to improve on the article. JIP | Talk 18:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- No one is saying that none of the creations are notable. They're saying you aren't bothering to support that notability and seem to be struggling even with the concept here.
- @JIP, I have no doubt that you are well-intentioned. But you are not qualified to be working as an admin, and you should voluntarily set down tools. IMO that is a minimum for you getting back to editing. You don't need adminship to translate from fi.wiki or to learn policy.
- You also need to start using AfC to submit articles you translate until you have learned what does and doesn't represent adequate sourcing. With some work you should be able to get your AfCs up to snuff, and then maybe you can start creating in main space yourself again. You also need to commit to responding promptly to concerns expressed on your user talk and when pinged to other discussions of your work. This is a minimum for being an actual good editor rather than just a well-intentioned one. valereee (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry I haven't replied here for a while. I am still trying to both improve my conduct and improve Wikipedia. I am not acting on bad faith here, at least not intentionally. Not all of my translations from the Finnish Wikipedia have been problematic but some have. The Finnish Wikipedia has quite many articles that are poorly sourced. I would like to have translated fi:viinakortti (a card that used to be required in Finland to be able to buy alcohol) or fi:Vadelmavenepakolainen (a book about a Finnish boy who wants to be Swedish), but the former has only two sources, one of which seems to be only a passing mention, and the latter is not sourced at all. I myself put an "unreferenced" template in the article. I try to pick articles that are long enough and well enough sourced. The deletion discussion about Main Guard Post, Helsinki seems to have some "keep" votes as the building is notable, but that still does not make the article well enough sourced at this point. There are further sources listed at the deletion discussion, I can make use of them to improve on the article. JIP | Talk 18:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Partial block question
Recently, I issued an indefinite partial block for a user on a specific page for BLP violations. Another admin added a second page to the partial block. Then the user continued to spread the BLP violation on the first article's talk page and I issued a full sitewide block for one week. After the full block expired, the partial blocks were gone. Is there any way that indefinite partial blocks can remain after the expiration of a temporary sitewide block? I know the non-technical answer is to do what I did, reissue the partial blocks after the sitewide block expired, but I wish this was automatic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I too often issue partial blocks which I call pageblocks, and find quite useful. It would be very useful to have the automatic functionality that Mobushgu describes without the administrator having to remember to go back and reimpose the partial blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- You were that other admin I was referring to. You probably remember the user I'm alluding to. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Cullen328, FWIW, the User:SD0001/W-Ping script is great. You can set it to ping you to any page after any length of time. valereee (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is a way: Implementing phabricator task T202673 in MediaWiki. Or in other words, there is no way for us yet. For IP address blocks, you can create multiple blocks on overlapping ranges (such as a partial block on two IPv6 /65 ranges supplementing a sitewide block on the /64 that encompasses both). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would need to go back to college at age 70 to learn how to do that, which would require deep study of the meaning of what you just wrote, ToBeFree. That is not going to happen. If I went back to college, it would be to take a class in painting or writing poetry. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is currently not possible to place multiple blocks on the same Wikipedia account at the same time. For example, it is not possible to block an account from editing the page Earth for two weeks while also blocking them from editing Mars for three weeks.
- However, if we're dealing with someone who does not use an account, we see their IP address. It is possible to place multiple blocks on the same IP address at the same time. For example, it is possible to block all IP addresses starting with "123.456." from editing Earth for two weeks, while also blocking all IP addresses starting with "123." from editing Mars for three weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would need to go back to college at age 70 to learn how to do that, which would require deep study of the meaning of what you just wrote, ToBeFree. That is not going to happen. If I went back to college, it would be to take a class in painting or writing poetry. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Eyes on J. K. Rowling TFA
Everything worked out, soon to be off main page, further discussions about the article should take page at the talk page, further discussions on the fitness and running should be held at TFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
J. K. Rowling, a WP:MILLION BLP subject to some controversy and under double discretionary sanctions (BLP and Gender) recently passed a rigorous Featured article review and will be Today's featured article on the mainpage this Sunday, June 26. Extra eyes appreciated, and especially, help with delivering discretionary sanction alert notices.
The article content enjoys broad consensus, after the most widely attended FAR I've ever witnessed, including five pages of talk discussion archives conducted in a fine collaborative effort among a couple dozen editors of varied opinions and editing strengths. The article content, lead, gender section, and TFA blurb were worked without acrimony; a hopeful example of Wikipedia collaborative effort at its finest. Thanks for any extra eyes on TFA day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with someone adding extended-confirmed protection for a few days before it becomes necessary, contrary to the usual practice of not doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Watchlisted. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I'll call it now: this is absolutely, 100%, no-doubt-it going to blow up in our faces. Remind me not to log in tomorrow. – Joe (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Distruption is likely to spill out to talk pages, and sub articles like Political views of J. K. Rowling. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- If there's ever a case for IAR extended confirmed protection, this is it. I think we all know how this is going to end if we don't protect it ... Hog Farm Talk 15:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the need for semi, but why do we expect many autoconfirmed problem users? —Kusma (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because of the strength of feeling on all sides of the discussion, and our policies in the "controversial" area. I support the call for some protection btw. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- As long as I haven't seen any evidence that semi has been insufficient on previous TFAs, I oppose increasing the protection level. —Kusma (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- This also isn't a typical TFA - Battle of St. Charles (June 17) and Banksia canei (June 4) aren't exactly comparable in level of controversy. Although per Sandy I would like to hear the thoughts of the significant contributors to the article and the FAR. Hog Farm Talk 16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- As long as I haven't seen any evidence that semi has been insufficient on previous TFAs, I oppose increasing the protection level. —Kusma (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because of the strength of feeling on all sides of the discussion, and our policies in the "controversial" area. I support the call for some protection btw. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not anticipate a call for more protection when I made this post asking for more eyes. Because of the exemplary collaborative effort that got the article to this point, I'd be in favor of at least giving it a chance, and only increasing protection if the community is unable to deal with any issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, and Vanamonde93:, most significant contributors, for their ideas as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is already semi-ed and has over 1,300+ watchers. I don't think we should preemptively increase the protection level. That can be done when a clear need arises, which may well happen tomorrow UTC but isn't guaranteed to. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is already semi-ed and has over 1,300+ watchers. I don't think we should preemptively increase the protection level. That can be done when a clear need arises, which may well happen tomorrow UTC but isn't guaranteed to. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I understand the need for semi, but why do we expect many autoconfirmed problem users? —Kusma (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see a reason for increasing protection, unless the 'consensus'-in-question is changing. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I also don't see the need for any pre-emptive increase in the protection level, as long as people are watching this and admins are prepared to increase the protection level if (probably when) necessary. A pre-emptive increase would seem like admitting that the Wikipedia model cannot deal with trolls, which I do not believe to be true. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- No need for an increase in protection. All Sandy was calling for was an increase in watchers, which seems sensible. I will add it to my watchlist. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I believe the Main Page is highly protected anyway. Not even I, can edit it. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- The TFA blurb will be fully protected, yes, but the article itself is currently at the semi-protected level. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I know this couldn't have been foreseen, but the timing of this with the Roe decision and everything is pretty bad. Hilariously bad, even. One of the more tone-deaf options bad. SilverserenC 21:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's quite possibly one of the worst TFA decisions in the history of Wikipedia. WaltCip-(talk) 16:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The 25th anniversary of Harry Potter seems like the perfect day for this article to me. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- But poor timing for a person who has been consistently anti-feminist for the past several years. If the TFA was something that was actually Harry Potter for the anniversary, then things would be different. SilverserenC 17:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- When would be a good time? —Kusma (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- A week ago or any time since April. Like I said, this couldn't have been foreseen, but with events on Friday, that ended up putting this TFA in an incredibly tone-deaf front page time period. SilverserenC 18:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why should a US supreme court ruling that applies to 4% of the world's population affect the running of an article about a British author on the main page? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because it still affects the entire world in one way or another and affects movement of peoples internationally, along with potential rights implications elsewhere. And this British author is one who has been actively making herself the world representation for the anti-feminism groups through her actions (including all of the ones in the United States) and is thus one of the primary visual representations of them. SilverserenC 19:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Her article does not seem to mention either her position on abortion or any opposition to feminism – do you think these are missing so the article is not comprehensive? As far as I am aware, the Rowling controversy is about transgender rights, not about reproductive rights. If I am wrong, then perhaps her article needs to be updated. —Kusma (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do we really need to get into a discussion of how the anti-trans groups are also anti-feminist groups working alongside various far right conservative groups against women's rights? There's a reason why it's being noted that various of the women Rowling hangs out with and supports by name have been making statements of "abortion rights being an acceptable sacrifice" over this weekend. But, again, is this really a conversation we need to have, here especially? SilverserenC 19:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes: you said it is obvious that JKR is a bad choice as TFA (a completely unsupported claim), and I am telling you it is not obvious at all (it is different from, say, featuring Osama bin Laden on 9/11). "We can't have her on the Main Page because she hangs out with the wrong kind of people" isn't an argument I find acceptable in a neutral encyclopaedia. —Kusma (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do we really need to get into a discussion of how the anti-trans groups are also anti-feminist groups working alongside various far right conservative groups against women's rights? There's a reason why it's being noted that various of the women Rowling hangs out with and supports by name have been making statements of "abortion rights being an acceptable sacrifice" over this weekend. But, again, is this really a conversation we need to have, here especially? SilverserenC 19:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Her article does not seem to mention either her position on abortion or any opposition to feminism – do you think these are missing so the article is not comprehensive? As far as I am aware, the Rowling controversy is about transgender rights, not about reproductive rights. If I am wrong, then perhaps her article needs to be updated. —Kusma (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Because it still affects the entire world in one way or another and affects movement of peoples internationally, along with potential rights implications elsewhere. And this British author is one who has been actively making herself the world representation for the anti-feminism groups through her actions (including all of the ones in the United States) and is thus one of the primary visual representations of them. SilverserenC 19:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Why should a US supreme court ruling that applies to 4% of the world's population affect the running of an article about a British author on the main page? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- A week ago or any time since April. Like I said, this couldn't have been foreseen, but with events on Friday, that ended up putting this TFA in an incredibly tone-deaf front page time period. SilverserenC 18:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- When would be a good time? —Kusma (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I see it both ways. While the 25th anniversary of the release of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a natural time to have a TFA on that book's author per Kusma, I also agree with Silverseren that given the news that broke on Friday with respect to Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that given the controversy surrounding Rowling on feminist issues (particularly transgender people and transfeminism) it does seem rather tone deaf.
- I will say however that this TFA was drafted, discussed, and approved back in April, long before we could have anticipated the judgement of Dobbs being released. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that these sorts of arguments can effectively be used to prevent the TFA being ever run - effectively subjecting the front page to external censorship.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yep. "Tone deaf" is a less-than-useful complaint to bring up because virtually any date can have "bad optics", especially for an encyclopedia with a global purview. You could argue given the state of LGBT rights in the world there's never a good time to run Rowling's article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- All of this is hopefully good advertising for wider participation at WP:TFAR. TFAs are scheduled based on community consensus: get involved there if you disagree with the scheduling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yep. "Tone deaf" is a less-than-useful complaint to bring up because virtually any date can have "bad optics", especially for an encyclopedia with a global purview. You could argue given the state of LGBT rights in the world there's never a good time to run Rowling's article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The problem is that these sorts of arguments can effectively be used to prevent the TFA being ever run - effectively subjecting the front page to external censorship.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- But poor timing for a person who has been consistently anti-feminist for the past several years. If the TFA was something that was actually Harry Potter for the anniversary, then things would be different. SilverserenC 17:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The 25th anniversary of Harry Potter seems like the perfect day for this article to me. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's quite possibly one of the worst TFA decisions in the history of Wikipedia. WaltCip-(talk) 16:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Close it
Assuming that the bio-in-question is sufficiently being watched, more now then ever. Why is this AN report still open? GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- As the person who opened the thread, asking for more eyes, I would be fine should someone decide now to close it. TFA has served its purpose; some article improvements have occurred as a result of more eyes on the article, some issues have been raised that are being worked on, and contrary to some opinions expressed early on, Wikipedia did not break and in fact, did just fine. The JKR FAR experience has been the very example of how collaborative editing is intended to work. Thanks to all who lent a hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- It is fine to close this thread, but I would like to note that the article had only just above 50 edits today so far (many of them minor copyedits, or attempts at that) and has not required increased protection. —Kusma (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- We've had an interesting BLPN thread (ping JeffUK) and an AE block (ping Cordyceps-Zombie); the initially proposed extended-confirmed protection would indeed not have had an effect on edits by these experienced users. There has been less controversy than perhaps expected, but not none. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
ScottishFinnishRadish your close indicates "off main page";[5] it still has several hours to run. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Adjusted. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Firefly promoted to full clerk
The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Firefly (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.
The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who meets the expectations for appointment and would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Appealing the closure of an RfC
I was told: "I believe WP:AN is the default venue for appeals of miscellaneous closures that aren't covered by the RM and AFD processes mentioned above..." [6]
I'd therefore like to initiate an appeal regarding the closure of this RfC. It seems like the closing administrator did not actually review the extensive body of arguments. Israell (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Did you try talking to them instead of about them as a first step? BD2412 and Amakuru, why didn't you recommend this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment by closing admin: my RFC closure was directly related to the ANI closure. Review of the RFC should include the ANI. Also pinging Black Kite EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- IMO the closure of the RfC is fine. It's No Consensus anyway, even without the involvement of some highly suspect account behaviour (as listed in the ANI) which all !voted "Support". There is a certain irony to the OP's suggestion that there was an "extensive body of arguments" as many of the possibly-canvassed accounts are merely parroting - sometimes badly - the comments of others. Black Kite (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment by closing admin: my RFC closure was directly related to the ANI closure. Review of the RFC should include the ANI. Also pinging Black Kite EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse. One could see range of arguments from both sides so a 'no consensus' close could be recommendable. It needs to be noted that the RfC closure was reflecting the chain of events such as subsequent accusations of canvassing, ANI thread, accusation of racism, etc. and that's why it was a valid closure. Orientls (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Regarding accusations of canvassing, the same observations were made against some of those editors who voted “Oppose.” With all due respect, what makes this RfC particular is that admins generally do not understand how the sales are calculated. If we reword anything, it would have to include a mathematical equation that anyone can look at and agree to. The problem is, the equation that Harout72 uses for these pages ONLY exists on Wikipedia. It is also unsourced and his own original research, and it's been that way for 12 years. WP:NOR
Another problem is the fact that record sales of Michael Jackson are largely uncertified. According to ‘Guinness’, the ‘Thriller’ album sold 4 million units in Brazil, but it was not certified there, whereas Madonna is certified for almost 4 million records in that country. Michael has almost no certifications in Brazil but has still verifiably sold millions there.
ChartMasters is a great source for record sales figures, but it was proscribed on Wikipedia—unduly so, I believe. Taking digital certifications along with the physical certifications into consideration, tens of millions of new certifications of Michael Jackson are missing. Updating the sales of ‘Thriller’ to 100 million is much reasonable, esp. since it is a figure given by many reliable sources incl. USA RIAA, UK BPI, Rolling Stones, CNN, Broadway World, New York Times, Telegraph and MTV.
And just because some editors agree with one another doesn’t mean they are just “parroting” one another. Once again, such observations have been made regarding both sides. It was never determined for certain that such mass-canvassing had taken place; the closure should therefore not have been influenced by such allegations. Israell (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg
Hi, I’m here to fill a complaint against user:Xpërt3 for vandalizing File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg, I uploaded a file from someone’s work on Wikipedia and it really matched the once’s on the royal decree’s source on the summary, meanwhile that user is reverting the edits Because of his speculations and interpretations. Saying that the royal court’s ones doesn’t look like my version and the one he uploaded does which in fact doesn’t make sense at all since his version is from an unreliable source (Construction Sheet) while my is from government especially the constitution, I don’t want to dispute with him and going further and further with him, all I want is to give him some warning or Barring him from editing that file since my position is very clear and I don’t need to put myself into an endless disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz bm (talk • contribs) 04:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) @Aziz bm: You did not notify Xpërt3 (talk · contribs), as is required for ANI reports involving a specific user. Additionally, the file is hosted on Commons, so this issue is outside the scope of Wikipedia; the edit warring issue should be raised at c:COM:ANI instead, and I am doing so for you. I would also open an RfC at Talk:Flag of Saudi Arabia ver. As the version by Xpërt3 is identical to the status quo, I'll side with them as the naïve position, and since your version is identical to File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg, I have restored the status quo.For those who do not recognize the difference between the two contested versions, the one that Aziz bm asserts is wrong has a different calligraphy, which matches the 1938–1973 version:–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- FDRMRZUSA, 16:41, 14 June 2022 — last version before Aziz bm (talk · contribs)
- Aziz bm, 07:28, 15 June 2022 — first version by Azi bm
- Xpërt3, 04:19, 25 June 2022 — first version by Xpërt3; identical to #1
Please see c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Upload_war_over_the_flag_of_Saudi_Arabia for more details; there is still a heated dispute over which flag should be used, as both versions of the calligraphy seem to be in use. Captions above are now obsolete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Duplicate
Two duplicate articles of Pakistan Premier League
- 2021 Pakistan Premier League, created with wrong title on 15 October 2020
- 2021–22 Pakistan Premier League, created with correct title on 28 January 2022. 103.141.159.231 (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- 2021–22 Pakistan Premier League was copied from 2021 Pakistan Premier League; I've tagged it for speedy deletion, and then we can move the older article to the correct title. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Page creation and move confusion
Can someone with a brain working better than mine is today look at Special:Contributions/Wangbeotkkot 2022 and try to make sense of what's going on? There are page moves, pages created in the Wikipedia space, user pages... I'm not sure what the target for this user is, could someone else review please? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've moved the article from Wikipedia:Kim Ku Lim to Kim Ku Lim (which has now been moved to Kim Kulim) and tagged User:Kim Kulim for deletion (per WP:U2). There are a couple redirects at Wikipedia:Kim Kulim and Wikipedia:Kim Ku-lim that should be deleted as well (they are redirects to User:Kim Kulim). -Niceguyedc (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The article was moved to Draft:Kim Kulim without a redirect, but the user in question copy/pasted the article back at Kim Kulim. So now there is a copy in both draftspace and mainspace. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
About User:Eric multiple deleted entries about climate data.
User:Eric has repeatedly deliberately deleted parts of the article about climate without any valid reason, and its behavior involved inappropriate behavior under WP:POINT. After his disruptive editing behavior was discouraged by multiple users, he still went his own way. Hope the admins will consider topic ban on the climate topic as appropriate for this inappropriate behavior.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 迷斯拉10032号 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- From the instructions for posting in this forum: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. In this and the previous frivolous posting here regarding my clean-up efforts, the above user has failed to notify me of the posting. I would suggest that the user endeavor to become more familiar with procedures before calling out to admins. Eric talk 14:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have a question since you've provided no diffs. When you say "After his disruptive editing behavior was discouraged by multiple users", where are you referring to? I looked at your previous AN/I thread about this topic as well as the WikiProject Weather discussion and I don't see what you're describing. If anything, I see agreement with Eric that the content is problematic in their current state. I think it would be helpful to provide diffs to back up what you're saying, or at minimum provide links to these prior discussions you're referring to. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I went for a deeper look to maybe see if I could find what you're referring to, but I came up empty. You say that he deleted edits without any valid reason, yet reasons were given, both in edit summaries and in the discussion on WikiProject Weather. Just because you disagree with the reason doesn't mean it's not a valid reason. You say he's being WP:POINTy, but looking through his recent diffs I can't find any evidence of such, and would highly advise you to read WP:NOTPOINTy. Not a single thing you have said can be substantiated based on a review of his recent contributions, so I have to ask, can you provide proof for any of these claims? - Aoidh (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- But "reverting addition of unnecessary climate section that dwarfs the rest of the article" is not a valid reason for removal of properly sourced contents. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for weighing in, Ohana. Did you visit the WikiProject Weather discussion linked above? Eric talk 00:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I think there can be an argument that it's putting too much weight on a climate table when ~53% of an article's size is one table with a single source, especially when there's a smaller more concise template that can be used, and when there's some agreement on the WikiProject talk page that such content is too much for a smaller article. I'm not saying it's a perfect argument, but I do think it's one that does have some rationale behind it. - Aoidh (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I read about this type of article, because comparing the French original with the current English entry, there is a lot to be translated in the French version. All entries are never a final result, and the weight of a source within an article (provided it must be reliable) cannot be a reason for its removal.
- In addition, I also had a period of editing experience on Chinese Wikipedia. The behavior of User:Eric is actually in line with the Chinese Wikipedia's judgment on the behavior of WP:GAME, but the English Wikipedia seems to This definition is rather vague. Before this there was a case where User:離心力青蛙/w:zh:LTA:FROG was blocked indefinitely. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Again, where are the diffs showing that "multiple editors" discouraged his editing? Where is the evidence that his edits violated WP:POINT? - Aoidh (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- See edit history for page Ciboure, with User:Canterbury Tail's revocation, User:Eric stopped disrupting the page. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh he stopped? But above you said he ignored multiple other editors and continued? Which is it? That page's edit history doesn't even come close to supporting the claims you made in your comment above. This is so contrary to what you claimed about multiple editors commenting on his disruptive behavior to the point where I'd argue that you're bordering on personal attacks by making such baseless claims against another editor. I'm guessing your comment about WP:POINT is equally as baseless since you have not supplied any evidence for that claim either. - Aoidh (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- See edit history for page Ciboure, with User:Canterbury Tail's revocation, User:Eric stopped disrupting the page. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @迷斯拉10032号: each Wikipedia has their own policies and guidelines. While experience in editing other Wikipedia is often useful, you need to ensure you comply with the policies and guidelines on the Wikipedia you are on. And whatever you do in the Chinese Wikipedia, content being sourced does not mean it always belongs despite the unfortunate implication of OhanaUnited's comment above. Some content despite being covered in sources simple does not belong on the English Wikipedia because it's not the sort of thing we cover or because it's way too much information for any encyclopaedia article. To give an obvious related example, there's a good chance that large table of some random specific location's detailed historic climate data going back 100 years is not something that belongs in any English Wikipedia article.. I said below I'm not intending to comment on the content issue, at the time I hadn't looked at the content. Now that I have it's the sort of thing we do normally allow so I'm unconvinced about the removal, however I stick by my main comment which is that ultimately that's a decision for discussion and the mere presence of sources does not mean it belongs. Also if you're going to imply that a 16 year old account is somehow related to a sock, you need very good evidence or you should withdraw your suggestion or face a block for a personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just citing the case of a user on Chinese Wikipedia, not that he abused multiple accounts. At the same time, I exercise restraint and ensure that my actions are in line with the community's requirements for WP:CIV. While most of his editorial behavior seems fairly normal, the deliberate removal of climate data templates from articles without justification is inherently inappropriate. I hope that the party User:Eric will recognize the mistake and withdraw all controversial deletions. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Again, where are the diffs showing that "multiple editors" discouraged his editing? Where is the evidence that his edits violated WP:POINT? - Aoidh (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @OhanaUnited: can't say I agree. Sure the comment should have referred more to specific policies and guidelines but such a comment seems to obviously raise WP:UNDUE and maybe WP:NOT concerns. Content being sourced doesn't mean it belongs. To be clear, I have no opinion on whether the content belongs, that's a discussion for the article talk pages or something. Maybe a centralised discussion if it concerns multiple article. I'm simply pointing out that a comment like "reverting addition of unnecessary climate section that dwarfs the rest of the article" does raise even if not in a well explained way legitimate content concerns that should be discussed rather than simply dismissed because they were not perfectly explained. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- First of all Meteo-France is the official data platform of the French Meteorological Service, and France is a member of the World Meteorological Organization, and its data is also recognized by WMO, so it should be a reliable source. In addition, if you think that climate data accounts for too much of the article, you can consider other ways to optimize, such as setting the climate data template to be off by default. In addition, I can describe the climate of the place in three sentences at most. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: UNDUE what? Don't randomly cite policies without actually reading what the policy is about. UNDUE policy is in reference to viewpoints that are published in reliable sources and avoid giving minority views too much detail. And MeteoFrance is a French government department that participates in WMO (just like NOAA). Their data 100% meets the reliable source criteria. The climate box that 迷斯拉10032号 contained only facts that are properly sourced. The numbers are impartial and did not have any text that advocate certain views. It certainly is encyclopedic content. This discussion is about why Eric removed these contents while not having any policies to back it up. Revert wars are user conduct disputes. And 迷斯拉10032号 is right to bring it here because it is of interest to admins. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm confused why you assume Nil Einne didn't read WP:UNDUE, or why you suggest that content having reliable sources means that it must be included in an article, especially through the lens of other policies such as WP:VNOT. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject..." and the argument that historical weather data is a minor aspect that probably should not take up over half of the article is a valid argument under that policy. While you personally may not agree that the information is undue, and consensus may end up being against Eric, that doesn't mean that he removed the content "while not having any policies to back it up." - Aoidh (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: UNDUE what? Don't randomly cite policies without actually reading what the policy is about. UNDUE policy is in reference to viewpoints that are published in reliable sources and avoid giving minority views too much detail. And MeteoFrance is a French government department that participates in WMO (just like NOAA). Their data 100% meets the reliable source criteria. The climate box that 迷斯拉10032号 contained only facts that are properly sourced. The numbers are impartial and did not have any text that advocate certain views. It certainly is encyclopedic content. This discussion is about why Eric removed these contents while not having any policies to back it up. Revert wars are user conduct disputes. And 迷斯拉10032号 is right to bring it here because it is of interest to admins. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- First of all Meteo-France is the official data platform of the French Meteorological Service, and France is a member of the World Meteorological Organization, and its data is also recognized by WMO, so it should be a reliable source. In addition, if you think that climate data accounts for too much of the article, you can consider other ways to optimize, such as setting the climate data template to be off by default. In addition, I can describe the climate of the place in three sentences at most. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- But "reverting addition of unnecessary climate section that dwarfs the rest of the article" is not a valid reason for removal of properly sourced contents. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello all- Though I don't think this is the ideal place to discuss the content I reverted, as I attempted to address that elsewhere from the outset; In the interest of providing context, here is an example of what I see to be an unhelpful addition to a short article on a village of 362 people in France: Quintenic before, Quintenic after. While I do not see the utility of an extended climate narrative and large data table to any article on an individual municipality, I could see an argument for it in an article covering a country or a large region. Eric talk 11:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I reiterate that neither of your reasons for removing climate data from your article without reason is justified. You said that adding a climate template in the article affects the layout of the article, and you said that adding a template for climate data in a village with a few hundred people makes no sense. The reality is that these two reasons of yours are not tenable at all, because there are so many articles like Antipayuta, Deputatsky, Grise Fiord, Resolute] , King Salmon, and Makkovik, there are hundreds of such articles on the English Wikipedia. Why is there no problem with people writing climate data, but a problem with me? Also, I have withdrawn all of your actions to delete climate data. If you are determined to delete it, I will apply for a topic ban for you in accordance with the regulations, and finally know that your account has been blocked. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- All disruptive deletions made by User:Eric have been withdrawn, and if persistent, the person will be notified of a level 4 (most severe) warning. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- @迷斯拉10032号: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why your argument is basically irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm going to make the same point I made the last time this came up. I have no view on whether or not the template should be included, but when added it really must be added with "| width=auto" as a parameter to stop it from taking up its own full lines and taking over the articles. And preferably with "| collapsed = true" for small articles. This stops the takeover of articles (and I don't know why these aren't in the template by default.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure whether to report this user or simply ignore the edit-warring and tendentious statements: Special:Contributions/迷斯拉10032号. Rather than engaging in a collaborative manner in content discussion on the topic's project talkpage, the user makes frivolous reports here, issuing diatribes and dire warnings without substantiation. Advice, anyone? Eric talk 14:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- This is a content issue, which is outside this noticeboard's purview and 迷斯拉10032号 should learn to first start a new topic in a user's talk page to engage in discussion before running straight to AN(I). I'm not amused by 迷斯拉10032号's casting of aspersions in their edit summaries, see [7] and [8] for examples. Isabelle 🏳🌈 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure whether to report this user or simply ignore the edit-warring and tendentious statements: Special:Contributions/迷斯拉10032号. Rather than engaging in a collaborative manner in content discussion on the topic's project talkpage, the user makes frivolous reports here, issuing diatribes and dire warnings without substantiation. Advice, anyone? Eric talk 14:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
A somewhat puzzling topic
Similar post made at WP:ANI. Let's keep discussion in one place and over there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This editor / user along with two or more of their friends try to take over articles. On top of that they seek to draw other users into a debate, argument, conflict, or such and get them into a difficulty with 3RR or other reverting.
There is no recourse other than going to ANI or almost canvassing for admins to stop the problems. Said users ignore their talk pages, often pay no attention to efforts to get a consensus through talk pages on a page, etc.
These users evidently aren't going to go anywhere. Must we leave 2 or 3 dozen "pop culture" articles to their usurpation? No good options here.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Pictureperfect2 has now opened a similar thread on WP:ANI. It would probably be better dealt with there, assuming some actual evidence is provided... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Duonaut, you're hardly editing and now you're here on noticeboards? You said your editing interests have been clerical.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pointing out the existence of a related thread is the sort of thing I'd expect from an editor who's interest is clerical so I don't know where you're going with that. Whatever the case I'm certain it is no where good so I suggest you drop it and concentrate on the ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Duonaut, you're hardly editing and now you're here on noticeboards? You said your editing interests have been clerical.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Closure of Kashmir Files RfC
This is a request to review the close at Talk:The Kashmir Files#RfC about article lede to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer here. I believe the closure's assertion that arguments for option C being against NPOV were not refuted was incorrect, and an incorrect summary and reading of the discussion, as multiple editors argued for the neutrality of option C and it's adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I request that this RfC be reclosed. regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 16:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am loathe to challenge experienced closers but you do appear to be right... Perhaps its just an error in phrasing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Multiple editors gave detailed reasons as to why option C failed NPOV. Nobody refuted that in any way, simply asserted it. If option C fails NPOV it cannot be considered, and given the multiple editors demonstrating that it did fail NPOV and nobody offering any reason for why it does not I couldnt give preference to those arguing for strict adherence to FLIMLEAD over NPOV. That left A and B, and the objections to B were much stronger than A. Beyond that, while Option C did have numerous supports, it also had numerous explicit opposes. I also slightly discounted the handful of users with a trivial number of edits prior to that discussion. nableezy - 16:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are aware that "no consensus" is an option? The fact pattern you've laid out only makes sense if the closer is being forced to pick one of the options, but thats just not the case IRL. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware, but I also see consensus against option B, and see option A as having general support. nableezy - 16:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- So was "That left A and B" just a slip of the tongue and you meant "That left A, B, and no consensus"? You're also skipping past the point that option C appears to have significant support which you can't handwave away with "one guy said it didn't meet NPOV and nobody ever directly refuted them." I've never seen a closer do that and I'm pretty sure theres a good reason for that... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- It wasnt one guy, and sure no consensus was always an option. And yes, I addressed option C already. It is not handwaving to say that one of the options was convincingly shown to be a NPOV violation and that was not addressed, and per NPOV that rules it out, no matter how many people raise their hand for it. nableezy - 17:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- So was "That left A and B" just a slip of the tongue and you meant "That left A, B, and no consensus"? You're also skipping past the point that option C appears to have significant support which you can't handwave away with "one guy said it didn't meet NPOV and nobody ever directly refuted them." I've never seen a closer do that and I'm pretty sure theres a good reason for that... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- (Commenting as as an admin involved with the page) Note that a no-consensus close would leave the status quo wording in place per the page restricton I had imposed and that is a version that has so little (no?) support that it was not even nominated as one of the proposals in the pre-RFC discussion. Abecedare (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thats very interesting, but it doesn't appear that the closer was aware of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I am aware, but I also see consensus against option B, and see option A as having general support. nableezy - 16:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- the "detailed arguments" were assertions by Fowler et al that the film was controversial and the lead must call it "fictional" to have a "countervailing effect". this was refuted by many others who pointed out that controversy, political or not, is no reason to stuff criticism into the first paragraph as shown by hundreds of popular film articles, such as Cuties, other propagandist political films, and whole film section of Wikipedia:Featured articles. I don't see how that claim is tenable in any sense.
- The claims of other editors pulling out FRINGE etc were already discussed and refuted in the pre-RfC discussions with Fowler. Perhaps the closer missed that background. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 17:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I did not read anything besides the RFC no. I think you are understating the NPOV arguments. nableezy - 17:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are aware that "no consensus" is an option? The fact pattern you've laid out only makes sense if the closer is being forced to pick one of the options, but thats just not the case IRL. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Involved !voter - The closer appears to have missed my rejoinder to V93 where I emphasized that there is no policy or practice which imposes upon us to ensure NPOV in every single line of content, divorced from its succeeding content. Policies request of us to write a NPOV lead; not "NPOV first line", "NPOV second line", and so on. I have nothing significant against A but this closure is ridiculous. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, I did see that, but I also saw you say C >~ A and that you I can see the grounds for a possible exception given the constant efforts of the film-maker to market it as a documentary that unearths the TRUTH of Kashmir. I actually found your comment to be very well put and substantive and was one of the reasons I found consensus for A. nableezy - 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, I will not oppose but you needed to write a better and more detailed closing statement. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is clearly no way to close this as anything other than "Strong opposition to B; almost equal well-argued support for A and C". The closer cannot cast a supervote to decide whether my or V93's arguments win. That Abecedare's restriction necessitates a winner: do a headcount between A and C. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I dont know what supervote I cast here. The only viewpoint I presented is that NPOV trumps FILMLEAD, and that if NPOV is violated it doesnt matter if FILMLEAD is met. nableezy - 17:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed! NPOV is a "non-negotiable policy" and FILMLEAD is just a style guide. People don't seem to understand the difference! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I was about to write the same, that NPOV must be achieved while FILMLEAD (MOS) ought to be achieved — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Kautilya3, The question isn't whether FILMLEAD triumphs NPOV. of course it doesn't. it's about the correct reading of the discussion and whether or not it's even true that option C violated NPOV. the closer's assertion are not supported by the discussion—I believe all arguments against the neutrality of option C were adequately answered, by multiple editors, multiple times. other than that we only have brute assertions and "perceptions" that it isn't neutral, which flies in the face of all logic and Wikipedia precedent on the interpretation of policy. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 18:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- The issue is mainly that the discussion found no consensus that option C violated NPOV. There were assertions, arguments and counterarguments. The closer's decision to ignore all that and imply the supporters of option C are ignoring NPOV without presenting any counterarguments is a misreading of the discussion and constitutes a supervote. As such, the RfC needs a reclose. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 18:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed! NPOV is a "non-negotiable policy" and FILMLEAD is just a style guide. People don't seem to understand the difference! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I dont know what supervote I cast here. The only viewpoint I presented is that NPOV trumps FILMLEAD, and that if NPOV is violated it doesnt matter if FILMLEAD is met. nableezy - 17:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- No, I did see that, but I also saw you say C >~ A and that you I can see the grounds for a possible exception given the constant efforts of the film-maker to market it as a documentary that unearths the TRUTH of Kashmir. I actually found your comment to be very well put and substantive and was one of the reasons I found consensus for A. nableezy - 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strong support for the closure. As the initiator of proposal B, and as the author of every phrase, every clause, and every sentence of proposal A, except for felicitous moderation by Mathsci's fine ear for the language, and some minor reshuffling by others, I support this decision. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Agnihotri has other fish to fry. Good job Nableezy! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Without pointing to anyone in particular, the pussyfooters who appeared on this page to dicker with the lead after the film's director's temper tantrum on Twitter about Wikipedia's unfair coverage, or the drivebys-of-the-moment who have appeared at the RfC, treating this glorified and dangerous propaganda film—to be on par with Pather Panchali, Rashomon, or the masterpieces of Lang, Eisenstein, De Sica, or Goddard, when in fact as a propaganda film it does not rise to Riefenstahl's 1933 effort let alone Triumph of Will or Olympia—to be deserving of the ministrations of FILMLEAD and proposing that this is only a film article, are in my view, interfering with Wikipedia's primary purpose of telling the reliable truth, and of bearing witness without let or hindrance. This is all I have to say on this matter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1. Your repeated attempts, throughout the pre-RfC discussions and now here, to cast aspersions at the motives of editors in good standing borders on assuming bad faith. 2. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. Our goal is to present a neutral summary of the subject. Whether or not the various proposals achieve that has already been discussed in the RfC and before, the contention here is whether the close assessed the consensus of the discussions correctly. The question never was of deciding between FILMLEAD and NPOV—but whether there even is a conflict between the two in this case. I believe the consensus emerges in the discussion that there isn't—option C fulfills both. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't recall seeing a more cringe-evoking comment on Wikipedia. User:Fowler&fowler, thanks for gracing us with your "I am very smart" wall of text. Best wishes, NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- I do the hard work and you get to facilely Wikilawyer? How is that uncringeworthy? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- You = the lot of you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse the close I don't see anything wrong with the close maybe it could have been worded better for some, but undoing the close for that is unnecessary. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- B definitely fails, based on that discussion, so the closer's got to choose between A, C, and the status quo ("no consensus"). Status quo in the case of that article is a moving target, because it changed rapidly during the discussion, and it's also basically a bad close because editors went to RFC looking for a way on, and no consensus doesn't do that. This case called for a decision rather than a compromise. I believe that I too would have preferred A over C, had I been the closer.—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse B fails, A is better than C in summarizing the article as 'dramatization' is pretty close to a weasel word looking to obscure the reality of the article. Slywriter (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
1Lib1RefNG junk-references
I don't know who is running this edit-a-thon, but they seem to be going for quantity and have no idea about WP:RS. Common cites being added include Google books that are copy-paste of enwiki content (that do not cite us!), various wikipedia mirror or aggregation sites, and other collected-search-results links. If anyone can trace the origin, might want to alert them how poorly it seems to be going. DMacks (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, this again... Wikimedia User Group Nigeria is responsible, you can find them at Meta[9]. Fram (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Olaniyan Olushola is their chairman, their secretary is banned from enwiki. Fram (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- And User:Atibrarian seems to be responsible for the 1Lib1RefNG campaign. Fram (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have started handing out short-term WP:DE blocks for hashtag-campaign offenders after a single warning, because contacting the coordinators has (so far) been unsuccessful in getting things changed. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hi User:Fram,
- Thanks for the TAG, however, insinuating I am responsible for the campaign is a kind of tool bold statement to make when you have already ascertained that [Wikimedia User Group Nigeria] "is responsible" for the program.
- I am only a participant interested in improving Wikipedia with reliable and verifiable references.
- Going forward, i will notify the organisers to look into the concerns raised by User:DMacks.
- Warm regards. Fatimah (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's a good start. DMacks (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not really a good start, when they don't want to take responsability for their own actions: this makes it pretty clear that you are responsible for the campaign, and your comment above about me "insinuating" the same looks really poor. You are the contact person, you are asking for a grant, you should take the responsability, not act as if you have little or nothing to do with it and are "only a participant" who will "notify the organisers". Fram (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I note that in response to the question in the grant application "How have you let relevant Wikimedia communities know about this proposal? You are required to provide links to on-wiki pages to inform these communities about your proposed work. Examples of places where this can be done include community discussion pages, affiliate discussion pages, or relevant project talk pages." the organiser provided a link to Meta. Is the English Wikipedia not a relevant community? Where did the organiser notify us? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- It seems that you have not meticulously gone through this [proposal] to see it's not an approved grant. The proposed date of execution has elapsed without approval and yet you are referring to it as evidence. Fatimah (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So you made a grant proposal for this, with you as the contact person: but because the grant isn't approved, you no longer are responsible and your project spontaneously started, after you posted on the user group that it started. Sure... Fram (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Fram, Is it possible to kick off a program that wasn't discussed let alone being funded?
- I honestly don't know or understand the point you are trying to prove with your continued claims that I am responsible for the edit-a-thon.
- Here is a link to the project meta page and here dashboard link in which the organisers and coordinator/facilitator is obvious, you rather have me to accept your unsubstantiated claims than reach out to the organizers yourself. Quite unfortunate.
- Regards. Fatimah (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So you made a grant proposal for this, with you as the contact person: but because the grant isn't approved, you no longer are responsible and your project spontaneously started, after you posted on the user group that it started. Sure... Fram (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words. You can also reach out to the organizer here. Warm Regards. Fatimah (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Not really a good start, when they don't want to take responsability for their own actions: this makes it pretty clear that you are responsible for the campaign, and your comment above about me "insinuating" the same looks really poor. You are the contact person, you are asking for a grant, you should take the responsability, not act as if you have little or nothing to do with it and are "only a participant" who will "notify the organisers". Fram (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's a good start. DMacks (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- And User:Atibrarian seems to be responsible for the 1Lib1RefNG campaign. Fram (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Olaniyan Olushola is their chairman, their secretary is banned from enwiki. Fram (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095#Gombe editors for a previous similar issue with low-quality edits from an initiative by the same people (before that it was a photography contest from WPNigeria where pictures were added left and right indiscriminately, and before that probably others I don't remember now). Fram (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Another thread from March 2022 at the AN archives. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hashtag search in case it helps anyone else. —Kusma (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
RFC shutdown request due to sockpuppets Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling
(non-admin closure) The discussion is getting too fractured, and I see nothing more to do in this section. Please follow up at WP:ANI#Belittling behaviour and bad faith on several currency related articles (WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry - developing story & WP:ANI#Oppa gangnam psy's continuing bad behaviour). —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can you check the sockpuppet issue here and shut down RFC? Sockpuppets are voting the same way as initiator.
Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling#Requested_move_28_June_2022
ANI ongoing here - hopefully you can coordinate. Thanks. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_-_developing_story Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I've shut down the RM (not sure if I've done it correctly) & as far as I know, nobody's opened up an SPI on anyone. GoodDay (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GoodDay: unfortunately closing down an RM is a little more complex than just removing the tag at the top of the section. In general a closure needs a formal rationale, even if it's a procedural one. There are some instructions at WP:RMCI if you're interested! For now I have closed it myself, with a rationale of "withdrawn by nominator" with a note about the confusion that the apparent socking had caused. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh crumbs, I've made yet another misteak
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clavius Base should be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clavius Base Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(2nd nomination) Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Shirt58, I think you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clavius Base (2nd nomination), but you never made any addition or contributed any text to an AFD (anywhere) that I can see, so I can't copy anything over. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see where it entered the log or did anything except put the template on the page. I would just revert the template and try again. Odd that it was deleted on Jan 31 2006, and recreated in Feb of the same year and has hung on since then. I don't think we can G4 it, given the time since recreation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Vandalism from 176*
There is vandalism coming from this IP range; the vandal replaces reliable sources with their own fantasies (for example, they remove the origins of the names of Russian rivers which are sourced to the Fasmer dictionary and writes their Sanscrit names instead, which of course have no relation to the names which are not of Indo-European origin), or sometimes adds gibberish to the articles. So far I have identified and blocked three IPs (176.65.112.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 176.65.112.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 176.65.112.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Could somebody please help me to identify the relevant range (so that I can revert the edits) and see whether a range block, possibly a long-term one, would be in order? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Blocked the /25 for a couple of weeks, Ymblanter, on the principle of minimum force; happy to widen or extend that if needed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/176.65.112.0/25. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
admin accounts offered for sale in an online forum
Spam is spam. I checked one of the older accounts and no activity. This website post is also from March. No need to waste time on it any more. Primefac (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Slavuta33 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- RegentsPark (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- Pschaeffer (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- Jorrojorro (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- Elli (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
- RHB100 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Hi, I found this post, where some accounts from the en.wiki are listed for selling: https://www.playerup.com/threads/selling-old-wikipedia-admins-accounts-6-years-to-20-years.5416388/
this includes @Slavuta33 @RegentsPark @Pschaeffer @Jorrojorro @Elli and @RHB100 ඞඞඞHatsuneMilku(=^ ◡ ^=) (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dunno what playerup.com is, but I'm sure not clicking on that link. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's a forum showing a post where someone has, likely doctored, screenshots showing them logged in with admin accounts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- PlayerUp is a site where people can sell accounts to various sites. It's shady as all get out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's a forum showing a post where someone has, likely doctored, screenshots showing them logged in with admin accounts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Only RegentsPark is an admin... they and Elli are the only active accounts, so if the others start editing again I'd say a block is appropriate for being compromised, but otherwise I don't think there's anything going here. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't believe you're selling your account for $1,000, RegentsPark. That's outrageous! What are you thinking? As we all know, admin accounts cost $500, not a penny more. If you want $1,000, you're gonna need to run for crat first. Levivich[block] 13:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do they do any discount for bulk purchase? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Hold on, so there's an option for me to A) make money and B) break my Wikipedia addiction? Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- And with inflation like it is, really how can you afford to not sell your account? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Jorrojorro has been blocked for almost 4 years for disruption as well. Also I looked at the link and it's a bad PS job on those screen shots. Also, I'll settle for no less than $2,500. Not one penny less. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't believe someone would open photoshop for that, when they could just edit the HTML to change the name displayed. Inefficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Jorrojorro has been blocked for almost 4 years for disruption as well. Also I looked at the link and it's a bad PS job on those screen shots. Also, I'll settle for no less than $2,500. Not one penny less. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- And with inflation like it is, really how can you afford to not sell your account? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- User talk:Elli/Archive 8#Your account is getting sold?:
Nardog (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)my account isn't hacked and I have WP:2FA enabled so this person is likely lying about at least some of these accounts. This is certainly concerning though. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
This is where people too slow and uncool for the main discussion have to talk. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Who cares about admin accounts for sale? The far more interesting question is: how much is the indef-blocked account going for? This is like the underpants gnomes business plan, except instead of "?", step 2 is apparently "find someone who will pay money for an indef-blocked account". --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- aw, man. too slow again. feel free to delete or archive if you feel the need. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Heh, I figured the silliness would continue past it, I just wanted an obvious indicator that this wasn't a five-alarm fire. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Do you think anybody would support me? -Roxy the bad tempered dog 14:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Heh, I figured the silliness would continue past it, I just wanted an obvious indicator that this wasn't a five-alarm fire. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- aw, man. too slow again. feel free to delete or archive if you feel the need. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Review admin block and subsequent admin action of UTRS appeal by Swarm
There's no administrative action required or needed here. I believe all the OP's questions have been addressed.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC) |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would just like to get a general feeler for this because I felt it was an incorrect usage of the tools and then violation of policy to action the same admin action. I will try to list out the bullets, but the full timeline and comments are on my talk page here: User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_11#Interaction_ban
- I was blocked for a tban violation.
- I was having a conversation regarding the block on my own talk page
- I complained about it and vented a bit.
- The person who initiated it gave their reasoning.
- I responded I am OK with a block and I am OK with taking time off, I just didn't like how it went down, and then told them to stay off my talk page.
- Swarm then came in and said I was being disruptive, reset the block and revoked talk page access.
- I filed an UTRS appeal
- Swarm posted that the UTRS appeal is denied
I don't want to relitigate anything or discuss anything but posting on your own talk page, and posting about an immediate block isn't disruptive and is usually not seen as such in past history, especially when you are not forced to be there. Acting on an appeal of a block you initiated is also not something that I think is within policy.
Thank you. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, are you asking for a review of a block from October 2019? Because I'm pretty sure that isn't going to be happening. The time to do this would have been, well, then. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wanted the block removed from my log because in my experience it's used against me. I followed procedure and asked ARBCOM. ARBCOM said they need to hear from the community because the policy says ARBCOM or community can decide. I am asking now because I don't think it's fair to have this (or others) in my log. I am also not asking for a full review, just if it's usual policy to block on talk pages and action on a UTRS for your own block. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- You've got at least seven (or is it eight?) non-overturned blocks in your block log (it's a bit difficult to read), and we don't generally edit block logs. I don't think the last one is particularly an issue, especially as it wasn't a block in itself (that was set by Yunshui), but merely a reset of four days by Swarm for misusing a talk page. But even without that ... Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- So you're asking for log deletion? Or log suppression? Because you didn't mention that above. – Joe (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't mean to wikilawyer (but I will anyway), and Sir Joseph, I do understand the impetus for the request, but I have to believe this is one where something like the doctrine of laches applies. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would like the bad blocks to be removed from my block log so it's not seen. If that can be done by suppression, then fine. I do agree with Dumuzid that it's been a while, but I don't think that should stop a discussion on this. Plus, I did appeal to ARBCOM right away, I just took a wikibreak and I don't usually edit certain areas anymore, but there are times when people have used my log in a conversation and I feel if I can remove even a couple, then that is worthwhile.
- I don't want to relitigate, but just wanted to get feelers out to see if the actions were appropriate. (This is why I posted on AN and not ANI.) Sir Joseph (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to understand what procedure/policy you were referring to above, because as far as I'm aware logs are only removed in extraordinary circumstances and usually by ArbCom or the oversight team. What exactly did ArbCom ask you to ask the community for here? – Joe (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- They told me they couldn't do it without input from the community quoting the policy that community or ARBCOM can decide to suppress. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to understand what procedure/policy you were referring to above, because as far as I'm aware logs are only removed in extraordinary circumstances and usually by ArbCom or the oversight team. What exactly did ArbCom ask you to ask the community for here? – Joe (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I wanted the block removed from my log because in my experience it's used against me. I followed procedure and asked ARBCOM. ARBCOM said they need to hear from the community because the policy says ARBCOM or community can decide. I am asking now because I don't think it's fair to have this (or others) in my log. I am also not asking for a full review, just if it's usual policy to block on talk pages and action on a UTRS for your own block. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I make no comment on what, if anything, should or is likely to happen now. But as a general principle, it is clearly wrong for an admin to revoke talk page access and then reject the UTRS appeal against that revocation - it should be left to another admin to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- But is that what happened? The only UTRS appeal on that talk page archive is UTRS appeal #27110, which was handled solely by 331dot. Sir Joseph's timeline above doesn't seem to match what's on the talk page or UTRS. – Joe (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've no idea what happened as I can't see UTRS, and I haven't commented on that. I merely stated a general principle which should apply in such cases. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well in that case, yes, it's settled policy that you don't decline appeals of your own blocks. – Joe (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- From the above it appears that Swarm simply posted the result of 331dot reviewing the appeal. I don't see anything exceptional in this case that would justify removing a log entry. If I get wrongly blocked there will be a log entry for it, and I will expain the circumstances if necessary. A log is simply a record of what happened, whether right or wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've no idea what happened as I can't see UTRS, and I haven't commented on that. I merely stated a general principle which should apply in such cases. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- But is that what happened? The only UTRS appeal on that talk page archive is UTRS appeal #27110, which was handled solely by 331dot. Sir Joseph's timeline above doesn't seem to match what's on the talk page or UTRS. – Joe (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the UTRS log #27110 timed 2019-10-12 21:56:59 and can confirm that it was 331dot who declined Sir Joseph's request for talk page access to be restored. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. I don't think it's hard to presume why I thought otherwise. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- It appears to have been a misunderstanding. Can we close this now? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still curious about the revocation of talk page access, especially after I said I was done with the conversation. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Typically, talk page access is provided so the blocked user can post a block appeal. If they use it otherwise then talk page access may be removed. As this was reviewed by 331dot at the time and the block is long expired, I don’t propose to look into it further. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still curious about the revocation of talk page access, especially after I said I was done with the conversation. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- It appears to have been a misunderstanding. Can we close this now? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for that. I don't think it's hard to presume why I thought otherwise. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Close as stale The only other outstanding issue, of who denied the unblock, has been answered and there isn't a basis for action here. This isn't saying Swarm was right/wrong/harsh/gentle, just that it's a bit late to appeal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Keep the log; no convincing reason for log deletion was presented so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph, the advice that I would give to you is to conduct yourself going forward in a way that no credible editor and no competent administrator would ever think about recommending a block or actually blocking you. In other words, do not push any envelopes. That has been my editing philosophy for 13 years, and it has worked out very well for me. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- While I think that is good advice, I also think there is a difference in subjects we edit. Editing in certain areas, and then editing as a minority and then getting frustrated, etc. is not always a piece of cake. My block log has a few blocks that I feel were possibly warranted and then a few that weren't, but because of the power dynamics, there's basically nothing to be done about it. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Sir Joseph, the advice that I would give to you is to conduct yourself going forward in a way that no credible editor and no competent administrator would ever think about recommending a block or actually blocking you. In other words, do not push any envelopes. That has been my editing philosophy for 13 years, and it has worked out very well for me. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Reverting war on File:Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg
User @Xpërt3 has started a reversion war on this file without being warned or blocked and therefore I’m complaining against him
- Hello,
- I have been working on the Arabian and Islamic side of Wikipedia for a little over a year now, and I have noticed a few problems. I recently got into a confict with Aziz bm User talk:Aziz bm over his constant reverting of the File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. Although his reverts are backed up with a governmental document, it is partially outdated. There are signs of age of that document, such as the design of the Coat of Arms for the Crown Prince (2nd flag on page 10), which does not even match what is use today. Additionally, the colors of the flag on that document have also changed (Page 10). There is definitely another document or royal decree that released for the updating of this flag. Additionally, on Page 12, it shows the calligraphic difference, proving part of my point!!!
- To make it clear, the current version of the Saudi Arabian flag on File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg is used by civilians mainly, but not used in the governmental settings. The current version of the File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg is used in governmental settings, as evidenced by this:
- Aziz bm User talk:Aziz bm showed me instances of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg on User talk:Xpërt3 and then starts to threaten me about how my edits will "cost me suspension", etc. He is still reverting other files such as Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg, which is not even backed by his evidence. Here is an example of that file in use with the flag version I have been reverting back to:
- On Admins Noticeboard page, I referenced another users response from around a year ago about the same issue, and here is what the user said:
- Zyido states, "I've tried to gather examples of the flag in official use: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10. As you can see, the VM version appears inside the royal court, when receiving dignitaries, and on flagpoles in the country. In addition, here, you can see a video shot inside the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization (SASO), the body responsible for maintaining the flag specifications, with the VM version flag in the office. On the other hand, there are, at least, some examples of the FOTW version being used in an official capacity, but they are fewer in comparison: Example A, Example B. In both instances I could find, the flags have been hoisted on the wrong side, indicating they've been set up by the non-Saudi counterpart. Given all this evidence, I am led to believe that the VM version is at least an official, if not the official, current version of the flag. The FOTW version does have an official origin though: It appears to be based on one of several diagrams in the appendix of the 1973 decree (Page 10, Page 11, Page 12) which established the basis of the current flag law. I've been looking through documents all day trying to find a definitive answer on where the VM version came from. It is my understanding that an official flag construction sheet was created in 1984 and attached to a SASO document numbered م ق س 403-1984. I'm still trying to hunt down this document. I am curious to know everyone's thoughts and how we can proceed with this information, and what the relevant Commons/Wikipedia rules are. My proposal is for both flags to appear on the Wikipedia page as alternatives/variants in some way once we decide which one is the "main" one."
- This is not incorrect calligraphy, as proven by the sources I have provided above. The admin, User:LaundryPizza03 was convinced by Aziz bm's reverts but in my view he didn't look far enough and made a poor decision. I tried contacting the admin to look at the noticeboard and the information I put there but he didn't respond, hence I came here to express my view of the issue. Both flags are correct, but the flag I'm arguing for is used in governmental settings. If one flag had to be used on the Wikipedia page, it should be File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg as the government uses this flag. Xpërt3 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- From this point on, I will stop this edit war as it is unconstructive, but I request a decision to be made on this issue as soon as possible. Thank you. Xpërt3 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- Could you maybe give a tl;dr summary of the problem here? I read this and have absolutely no idea what action you're looking for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- From this point on, I will stop this edit war as it is unconstructive, but I request a decision to be made on this issue as soon as possible. Thank you. Xpërt3 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Edit war on several articles
Pakistan's Lahore High Court directs recount of votes for Punjab Assembly, Chief Minister elections and says until Assembly election current CM will continue the post (source[1]) but this user:Ultraprime12345 is continuously removing current CM and adding former CM as present CM of Punjab this user is continuously engaging in edit war on these Chief Minister of Punjab (Pakistan), Hamza Shahbaz, Usman Buzdar articles with users . 103.141.159.228 (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)