Addition of new alphabet for be-tarask wikipedia
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1) What's the proposal? Adding Belarusian Latin alphabet to be-tarask wikipedia, like it's already present for Kazakh, Uzbek, Serbian, Tajik and other. 2) Why? Łacinka is the original, or "co-original", Belarusian alphabet[1], that moreover still has some usage today. In addition, Taraškievič's orthography is preferred by the diaspora, for whom Cyrillic is not the primary script. Plus why then Tajik has Latin script in Wikipedia, if it's neither official nor used anywhere? 3) How do I suggest doing it? this Python written function can translate Belarusian Cyrillics into Łacinka (+ transliterate extra Russian symbols like ъ, щ, и, that aren't present in Belarusian)
'''def translate(text):''' lat=tuple(i for i in "a b v h g d ž z i j k ł m n o p r s t u ŭ f ch c č š y e i A B V H G D Ž Z I J K Ł M N O P R S T U Ŭ F Ch C Č Š Y E I".split()) for count,karacter in enumerate((i for i in "абвгґджзійклмнопрстуўфхцчшыэиАБВГҐДЖЗІЙКЛМНОПРСТУЎФХЦЧШЫЭИ")): text=text.replace(karacter, lat[count]) jed=tuple(i for i in "ć ń ś ź le lo lu la l li Ć Ń Ś Ź Le Lo Lu La L Li Ć Ń Ś Ź LE LO LU LA L LI šč Šč".split()) for count,karacter in enumerate((i for i in "cь nь sь zь łе łё łю łя łь łi Cь Nь Sь Zь Łе Łё Łю Łя Łь Łi CЬ NЬ SЬ ZЬ ŁЕ ŁЁ ŁЮ ŁЯ ŁЬ ŁI щ Щ".split())): text=text.replace(karacter,jed[count]) for j,vowel in enumerate(("е", "ё", "ю", "я", "Е", "Ё", "Ю", "Я")): while text.count(vowel)>0: co0=text.find(vowel) if co0==0 or text[co0-1] not in 'bcfghkmnpsvzBCFGHKMNPSVZ': tr=("je", "jo", "ju", "ja", "Je", "Jo", "Ju", "Ja") else: tr=("ie", "io", "iu", "ia", "IE", "IO", "IU", "IA") text=text.replace(text[:co0+1], text[:co0]+tr[j]) text=text.replace("'", '') text=text.replace("ъ", '') text=text.replace('ь', 'i') return text
The method used to choose between the scripts can be the same as in Uzbek, Serbian, etc. Wikipedias, meaning this fragment of HTML code:
<nav id="p-variants" class="mw-portlet mw-portlet-variants vector-menu-dropdown-noicon vector-menu vector-menu-dropdown" aria-labelledby="p-variants-label" role="navigation" > <input type="checkbox" id="p-variants-checkbox" role="button" aria-haspopup="true" data-event-name="ui.dropdown-p-variants" class="vector-menu-checkbox" aria-labelledby="p-variants-label" /> <label id="p-variants-label" aria-label="Til variantini oʻzgartirish" class="vector-menu-heading " > <span class="vector-menu-heading-label">łacinka/кірыліца</span> </label> <div class="vector-menu-content"> <ul class="vector-menu-content-list"><li id="ca-varlang-0" class="selected ca-variants-be-tarask mw-list-item"><a href="/w/index.php?title=Джэксан_Полак&variant=be-tarask" lang="be-tarask" hreflang="be-tarask"><span>łacinka/кірыліца</span></a></li><li id="ca-varlang-1" class="ca-variants-be-tarask-Latn mw-list-item"><a href="/w/index.php?title=Джэксан_Полак&variant=be-tarask-latn" lang="be-tarask-Latn" hreflang="be-tarask-Latn"><span>łacinka</span></a></li><li id="ca-varlang-2" class="ca-variants-be-tarask-Cyrl mw-list-item"><a href="/w/index.php?title=Джэксан_Полак&variant=be-tarask-cyrl" lang="be-tarask-Cyrl" hreflang="be-tarask-Cyrl"><span>кірыліца</span></a></li></ul> </div> </nav>
This is an example for Jackson Pollock's wiki page, that I've copied from another wiki page in Uzbek.
4) In case I'm writing this to a wrong place, please redirect me. Thank you very much in advance PS) I'm sorry for not putting codes in there properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreativnaabenuceyrnameyr (talk • contribs) 11:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Kreativnaabenuceyrnameyr If I read this right, your request involves another language version of Wikipedia- as each version is a separate, independent project with their own editors and policies, please ask on whatever forum that version of Wikipedia has for such requests. 331dot (talk) 11:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Kreativnaabenuceyrnameyr, you should discuss this proposal first at the be-tarask project, and if there is support for it, you will need to ask the software developers (either directly via Phabricator or by going through meta wiki first) for help. This page here is only for admin issues on the English Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Kobi Arad
Hello, this name seems to be blocked, I assume to prior issues he has had with prior editors that didnt disclose paid editing, as he has explained to me. I have been hired to retry the page and would like to submit to AFC. I have already disclosed on my user page that he has hired me. He now qualifies due to recent win of HMMA Awards and Global Music Awards, which means he meets qualifications for artists. Please unlock his name. Thanks. Dwnloda (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Dwnloda: Draft:Kobi Arad is not protected. You may create it via WP:AfC. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The first attempt to create an article on Kobi Arad was in 2010. At that time the reviewing editors complained about sources of low quality, advertising, copyvio, socking and paid editing. See the discussions at:
- These problems should not prevent User:Dwnloda from attempting a new draft. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am getting error message when I try to create it. It says:
- "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: Creation of this page (Draft:Kobi Arad) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists."Dwnloda (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Strange, the article Kobi Arad is protected. Draft:Kobi Arad says not.
- That protection expired is 2018.
- I set it to no protection manually, so it should work. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, it's blacklisted. Beyond my ability to fix. Can someone who does the blacklists have a look. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm reluctant. See the hits at quarry:query/65355; there was, it appears, a lot of title gaming, though some of those deleted titles may have existed before the afds and mfd - I haven't looked at most of them. The usual advice is to create in a user sandbox, then ask an admin to move it to the proper draft title if it truly isn't more of the same. Courtesy ping MER-C, who first blacklisted it. —Cryptic 13:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, it's blacklisted. Beyond my ability to fix. Can someone who does the blacklists have a look. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Also advise anyone against taking any action here without thoroughly familiarizing themselves with the history. WP:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad (2nd nomination), from 2020, is an ok start. —Cryptic 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Dwnloda "I have been hired to retry the page" Here's my standard response to paid editors - you wouldn't pay someone to fix your bathroom without knowledge of plumbing. So why would somebody pay you - who joined Wikipedia less than 24 hours ago and have less than 20 edits to your name - to write a Wikipedia article that has already been deleted multiple times and whose last iteration (available to admins) looks like a really awful lop-sided non-neutral over-promotional piece of writing (and that's putting it politely)? I strongly oppose recreation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- To Richie333: I admit that I may not be familiar with all the rules, but I have an IT and web design background. I have worked on Kobi's Website and am aware of his past declines. I have learned many things ever since he last tried to have a page. He has made some mistakes and hired people that did not comply with the rules of disclosing paid editing. I have done a fair amount of research before trying this and along with Kobi, we interviewed some Wikipedia freelancers, but decided that I would do it. Several experts have reviewed the draft and told us that he would qualify and the only reason for his past declines is because of undisclosed paid editing issues. In addition, we were told that he meets the qualifications of Artists due to his Hollywood Music In Media (HMMA) Award, which is a recent achievement and not on prior versions of his page. And he also has other awards like the IMA award. If it is OK, I can take MER-C's advice and post the draft in the Userpage and then ask it to be moved. I also have made sure to make the page non-promotional. If you see promotional issues, then I would be glad to revise. I will appreciate your kind advise and guidance on how to make it legit this time. Dwnloda (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember telling you that. My advice to you is to forget about this commission, tell your client "no", log out, and scramble your password. MER-C 01:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies, @MER-C it was @Cryptic's advise. he said "The usual advice is to create in a user sandbox, then ask an admin to move it to the proper draft title if it truly isn't more of the same." However I did think it was a good one since the way I was brought up was to give people opportunity, and not block & judge people for past mistakes / being new users. As a new user I would want to feel welcomed by Wikipedia's staff, and not be told to "Scramble my password". I would appreciate that you, like Cryptic consider and give this new article (and myself) a fair chance, and share your expertise in legitimizing this article. Dwnloda (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- In case you haven't realised yet, this is a volunteer run encyclopedia. You're not a volunteer and you're representing a serial abuser of Wikipedia for self-promotion. MER-C 02:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just spoke to Kobe, and on his behalf I apologize. He says that he got ripped off by various freelancers in the past and that no one ever told him it was against policy not to disclosure paid editing. I feel it is not fair to blame him and call him "a serial abuser." In fact he says previous year he hired another person again but this person disclosed that he was a paid editor, but the page unfairly got declined because all admins seem to be against paid editors. There seems to be an unfair prejudice against paid editors. I am trying to do it fairly based on the rules and it is not fair to me or Kobi to decline us based on other's abuse of the system. And in addition, he has now won an HMMA award, this is one of the biggest awards for those that make music for films in Hollywood, so just based on that he meets the qualification guidelines.
- If u wish to discourage / uproot hired editing, the way to do that is through appealing for new rules in Wikipedia, and not by bullying editors who follow the allowed rules. There is civil way to do everything. Dwnloda (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think it may be possible to write an article on Arad, but it should be done by somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the biographies of living persons policy and understands what are suitable sources of material, and which will avoid the article getting deleted as before. On that note, I see we have over 1,750 unreferenced biographies, any of all of which could contain libel. That is what paid editors should be doing - cleaning up the bits of the encyclopedia that nobody else wants to do, but which somebody needs to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's pointless, Arad is not notable. Not in Hebrew and not in English.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- None of the arguments, blacklists, etc would prevent the OP Dwnloda from creating a draft at User:Dwnloda/sandbox that would allow the OP to argue for removing the blocks and/or blacklists with a completed article to move into main space. While the history has created a difficult challenge, rather then arguing the potential of an article to meet criteria, write the article in your sandbox. Jeepday (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @חוקרת As a beginner editor myself, and seeing you've been around only 4 months: I suggest we trust admins with decisions such as that. However, upon reading, I've learned that winning two notable awards, as my client did, establishes notability. Please check the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Dwnloda (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's pointless, Arad is not notable. Not in Hebrew and not in English.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think it may be possible to write an article on Arad, but it should be done by somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the biographies of living persons policy and understands what are suitable sources of material, and which will avoid the article getting deleted as before. On that note, I see we have over 1,750 unreferenced biographies, any of all of which could contain libel. That is what paid editors should be doing - cleaning up the bits of the encyclopedia that nobody else wants to do, but which somebody needs to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- In case you haven't realised yet, this is a volunteer run encyclopedia. You're not a volunteer and you're representing a serial abuser of Wikipedia for self-promotion. MER-C 02:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- My apologies, @MER-C it was @Cryptic's advise. he said "The usual advice is to create in a user sandbox, then ask an admin to move it to the proper draft title if it truly isn't more of the same." However I did think it was a good one since the way I was brought up was to give people opportunity, and not block & judge people for past mistakes / being new users. As a new user I would want to feel welcomed by Wikipedia's staff, and not be told to "Scramble my password". I would appreciate that you, like Cryptic consider and give this new article (and myself) a fair chance, and share your expertise in legitimizing this article. Dwnloda (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Dwnloda: to be blunt here, the experience you describe is useless when it comes to creating an article suitable for Wikipedia. In fact, I'd go further than that and say it's actively harmful. Knowing how to create a personal website for someone does not help you make a suitable encyclopaedic article. Personal websites are not intended to be neutral or balanced, and don't generally require reliable sources or anything like that, and heck even when there are similarities they're still likely to be quite different (for example primary sources or links to places that sell albums may be preferred on a personal website but they are not here). Instead they're expected to be puffy and promotional. So if your experience is in that area, you probably even more likely to do that than the average inexperienced paid editor who may do it because they think it's what the client wants but at least may not be experienced in doing it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne @Ritchie333 @Jeepday @Cryptic @Deepfriedokra @EdJohnston The issue here is not whether my writing will be fit or not. That can be fixed if it is an issue. I have also been a Wikipedia reader since 2000s and I have familiarized myself to the style of writing on Wikipedia before I took on this task. I have been studying all the guidelines for several weeks now. I was going to do an AFC, so if the writing is bad it can be declined, but just to decline even the chance to make this draft is not fair to Kobi Arad who is an award winning musician. The issue is that Kobi is not being given any chance to try it. I don't appreciate that I am getting attacked for being a new user. I am trying to learn. I have also been looking at many AFC submissions, and 90% look crap and trust me I can write much better, so please do not insult my intelligence. I am college educated with a degree from a respectable US university. So are you basically saying no new user should attempt to make pages? Let's get to the bottom of this. I already made the draft here in my userpage User:Dwnloda/sandbox, so I would appreciate any feedback . Again if there are any issues with the writing or if it sounds promotional, just let me know and I will fix it. But if we were going to base the decision on WP:MUSICBIO then Kobi Arad is notable to have a page. Dwnloda (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Dwnloda: I did not say that. You wrote, "not fair to Kobi Arad." That implies your purpose is to help your client, not to build Wikipedia. It is not an attack to say you lack the needed experience. We all start new, we all need to learn. Article creation is hard. You might want to gain more experience before trying to start a new article. And you might want to not write your first article about a subject that seems desperate to an an encyclopedia article about them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra When I said "not fair" I meant it in a global way - just being humanly sensitive. Arad, if qualifies (and according to WP... he does), deserves a page. Due to sock puppetry, promo issues and prior lack of evidence his attempts were not given a go. But as you said - those past mistakes should not affect the approval of a new article. I already agreed, as hired editor to do this. And prepared an article, which seems in my eyes as legit according to what I read. Please give it a fair chance and review it. All we want is to have his name unblocked so we can submit to AFC. Whether I personally am experienced or not, should not have any bearing on this and should not be the reason the request gets pushed away. Being an experienced editor or not is not a reason to push away someone from trying to have a page. At least you should give them the chance to submit an AFC. You can check the draft now and tell me what you think. If you think it does not have a good quality, we can hire an experienced Wikipedia editor to improve it, someone that is known to comply with the disclosure policies and has a history of pages getting accepted. Dwnloda (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you'd find much agreement that someone who, at most, barely passes our notability requirements "deserves a page" or at least that it's a good way to think of things. And I'd emphasise the 'at most' bit a lot. The interaction between WP:GNG and subject notability guidelines has recently received a lot of attention in the are of WP:NSPORTS, although at least in that case the vast majority of these came from volunteers. Even before then, many of us are naturally suspicious when a subject is allegedly notable under some WP:SNG, but there's no ability to demonstrate WP:GNG despite extensive efforts as we can assume you've done here, especially in the case where the specific area of the subject is one where we'd expected decent coverage (a musician involved in mainstream generally popular Western and often specifically American music). The SNG do make it clear "
conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion.
"Anyway back to my earlier point when you say stuff like that "deserve" bit, you're heading in the direction of editors who are creating problems for the subject you represent. You need to cut out any sense of entitlement if you want to engage productively with editors here. I'm going to AGF that this entitlement is only coming from you and not the subject despite the strong evidence to the contrary from the history, however if I'm AGFing too far, you need to convey the same message to them.
If someone passes our notability requirements, then we will generally keep an article if someone creates one that demonstrates that it meets the requirements; and it's of acceptable quality that it can appear in main space. Speaking of them "deserving" a page is at best unhelpful and at worse misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia and our notability guidelines. The quality part is a big issue here since articles created by paid editors are rarely suitable for main space being too promotional, lacking of sources etc.
There are plenty of subjects, including people, with significantly clearer notability, many of these in areas which we have poor coverage of who are far more "deserving" of an article, who volunteer editors are likely to be far more interested in spending their time on, than helping out a paid editor create an article on a subject we've already wasted way too much volunteer time on. Especially a paid editor who thinks we owe something to their client. Our lack of coverage in these areas, as far more unfair from the PoV of I expect nearly everyone here.
Further, as others have already said, there are plenty of existing articles which are a big mess, including many on living persons, which volunteers would much rather spend their time on. This includes unsourced controversies and other major problems which are far more unfair, in many cases where the subject never wanted an article. (Which is not to say it's fair to punish a subject by keeping a mess just because they helped create it.)
Another key point arises from this. As a WP:BLP/N regular I have ample experience on how articles on people who barely meet our notability guidelines are a maintenance mess especially when no volunteer is interested in creating one. (As that suggest no one volunteer is likely to maintain it, which is not to say articles created by volunteers have no problems just that the percentages are probably better.) In the case where these came from paid editors, either they stick around often unfairly removing content they shouldn't while continually adding promotional stuff, or they don't.
The later may seem great and it can be fine if nothing major happens and some troll doesn't come across the article. But every so often the subject gets into some mess/controversy. If we're lucky no decent sources cover it, then we just have to keep out editors trying to add this, which can be a problem if no one is paying attention. If we're unlucky decent sources do. And we then have to decide how to handle the situation where we have almost no coverage of the subject in decent sources other than whatever mess they got themselves in to. One common result of this is we end up deleting the article, which the subject if they're still around tends to now be very happy about.
Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne I thank you for your response. Although, you have neither agreed or disagreed if Kobi's name can be unblocked, which is the main issue. Again, my inexperience should have nothing to do with whether his name gets unblocked or not. All I am asking is to unblock his name so I can submit the page to AFC and someone can decide if its good. Rather than spending 10 minutes writing this long response, you could have simply just viewed the draft that I already posted in my Sandbox User:Dwnloda/sandbox and then tell us what you think about it. So would you mind to take 5 minutes and review it and then tell me if you can vote to unblock his name so we can submit an AFC? Dwnloda (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne Also, Check this list of paid editors who have many pages approved:
- User:BC1278, User:SBCornelius. User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Work), User:16912 Rhiannon, User:CorporateM
- So obviously they did quality work, so it is not right to attack paid editors or claim they do poor work. If it turns out my work is poor, we can hire one of these guys, so again Kobi should not be pushed away just because a paid editor is involved, which seems to be most of the opposing arguments above. It appears that everyone here hates paid editors so there is prejudice going on. I am automatically considered a low quality editor, without anyone even checking the draft that I made and posting any issues with it. Dwnloda (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors rightfully have a low tolerance for undisclosed paid editing, and an even lower one for sockpuppeting and attempts to ignore or bypass policy. If you're not coming here with the purpose of building an encyclopedia - even as a paid editor - you're doing it wrong. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) I am not an undisclosed paid editor. Just like you I have disclosed my paid editing. As a new editor I am willing to put in further time to edit more of the wikipedia and I promise that. However, again I feel like am personally being attacked. This decision of unblocking Kobi's name should not be because I am inexperienced. If I am the issue, then we can hire someone like you. I would appreciate if you can review the draft I posted in my user space User:Dwnloda/sandbox and tell me what you think. Do you think there are any issues with it? Dwnloda (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia editors rightfully have a low tolerance for undisclosed paid editing, and an even lower one for sockpuppeting and attempts to ignore or bypass policy. If you're not coming here with the purpose of building an encyclopedia - even as a paid editor - you're doing it wrong. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne I thank you for your response. Although, you have neither agreed or disagreed if Kobi's name can be unblocked, which is the main issue. Again, my inexperience should have nothing to do with whether his name gets unblocked or not. All I am asking is to unblock his name so I can submit the page to AFC and someone can decide if its good. Rather than spending 10 minutes writing this long response, you could have simply just viewed the draft that I already posted in my Sandbox User:Dwnloda/sandbox and then tell us what you think about it. So would you mind to take 5 minutes and review it and then tell me if you can vote to unblock his name so we can submit an AFC? Dwnloda (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Deepfriedokra When I said "not fair" I meant it in a global way - just being humanly sensitive. Arad, if qualifies (and according to WP... he does), deserves a page. Due to sock puppetry, promo issues and prior lack of evidence his attempts were not given a go. But as you said - those past mistakes should not affect the approval of a new article. I already agreed, as hired editor to do this. And prepared an article, which seems in my eyes as legit according to what I read. Please give it a fair chance and review it. All we want is to have his name unblocked so we can submit to AFC. Whether I personally am experienced or not, should not have any bearing on this and should not be the reason the request gets pushed away. Being an experienced editor or not is not a reason to push away someone from trying to have a page. At least you should give them the chance to submit an AFC. You can check the draft now and tell me what you think. If you think it does not have a good quality, we can hire an experienced Wikipedia editor to improve it, someone that is known to comply with the disclosure policies and has a history of pages getting accepted. Dwnloda (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Dwnloda: I did not say that. You wrote, "not fair to Kobi Arad." That implies your purpose is to help your client, not to build Wikipedia. It is not an attack to say you lack the needed experience. We all start new, we all need to learn. Article creation is hard. You might want to gain more experience before trying to start a new article. And you might want to not write your first article about a subject that seems desperate to an an encyclopedia article about them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne @Ritchie333 @Jeepday @Cryptic @Deepfriedokra @EdJohnston The issue here is not whether my writing will be fit or not. That can be fixed if it is an issue. I have also been a Wikipedia reader since 2000s and I have familiarized myself to the style of writing on Wikipedia before I took on this task. I have been studying all the guidelines for several weeks now. I was going to do an AFC, so if the writing is bad it can be declined, but just to decline even the chance to make this draft is not fair to Kobi Arad who is an award winning musician. The issue is that Kobi is not being given any chance to try it. I don't appreciate that I am getting attacked for being a new user. I am trying to learn. I have also been looking at many AFC submissions, and 90% look crap and trust me I can write much better, so please do not insult my intelligence. I am college educated with a degree from a respectable US university. So are you basically saying no new user should attempt to make pages? Let's get to the bottom of this. I already made the draft here in my userpage User:Dwnloda/sandbox, so I would appreciate any feedback . Again if there are any issues with the writing or if it sounds promotional, just let me know and I will fix it. But if we were going to base the decision on WP:MUSICBIO then Kobi Arad is notable to have a page. Dwnloda (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember telling you that. My advice to you is to forget about this commission, tell your client "no", log out, and scramble your password. MER-C 01:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- To Richie333: I admit that I may not be familiar with all the rules, but I have an IT and web design background. I have worked on Kobi's Website and am aware of his past declines. I have learned many things ever since he last tried to have a page. He has made some mistakes and hired people that did not comply with the rules of disclosing paid editing. I have done a fair amount of research before trying this and along with Kobi, we interviewed some Wikipedia freelancers, but decided that I would do it. Several experts have reviewed the draft and told us that he would qualify and the only reason for his past declines is because of undisclosed paid editing issues. In addition, we were told that he meets the qualifications of Artists due to his Hollywood Music In Media (HMMA) Award, which is a recent achievement and not on prior versions of his page. And he also has other awards like the IMA award. If it is OK, I can take MER-C's advice and post the draft in the Userpage and then ask it to be moved. I also have made sure to make the page non-promotional. If you see promotional issues, then I would be glad to revise. I will appreciate your kind advise and guidance on how to make it legit this time. Dwnloda (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Everybody's Got Somebody but Me
I was trying to move Everybody's Got Somebody but Me to the correct title, as "but" is a conjunction and should be lowercase. However, I fatfingered and accidentally put a symbol in the title. Could someone please clean this up for me? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Done, although not as cleanly as a more competent admin would have done. i think everything is now in the right place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Page blanking that is impossible to revert due to proxy links
Hi, I'm not sure where to post this, but Confederate States of America was recently blanked in this edit here, creating a cyclic redirect to Confederate States and back. If I try and revert that edit, I get an error message about proxy links, and it won't let me publish my edit. Does anyone know how to solve this issue? Endwise (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Endwise: - done. There was a proxy link at the end of the sub-section titled "Horses and mules" (4.3.1). I removed it and replaced it with a CN tag. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Only the link had to be removed, not the reference. It's also on the publisher's site at https://www.historynet.com/southern-horse/. 82.132.185.134 (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts what is a proxy link? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: - I only found out what this was today! OK, if you go to this version of that page, click edit and then publish you should get a big pink box at the top of the page with more info. That's the version of the page before it was blanked BTW. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- The info in the pink box for those who don't want to take the trouble:
Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes a link or reference running through a local proxy – typically, the links include '.proxy.', '.gate.', 'ebsco', 'oclc' or similar in the domain. Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy (sometimes even only in your current login session). The link is (often completely) useless for anyone who does not have access to the proxy of the institution that you are in.
- @RoySmith: - I only found out what this was today! OK, if you go to this version of that page, click edit and then publish you should get a big pink box at the top of the page with more info. That's the version of the page before it was blanked BTW. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
NOTE: you will NOT be able to save this edit if you do not resolve the issue with the proxy link that you added in your edit.
- Thanks Lugnuts for fixing this. I can’t help but imagine this is problematic in general though — couldn’t any vandal target a page with proxy links, remove them in their edit along with their vandalism, and make it really hard for anyone to revert them? Endwise (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Short answer - yes. Although this is the first time (that I can recall) ever seeing this in all the years I've been here, so hopefully not a big problem (famous last words)... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- You can often revert stuff like this with the rollback button, even if a standard edit or undo won't allow it. Unless they have gotten around to fixing that undocumented feature. MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I've encountered it once, and looking at the search results for the various proxy addresses it seems that the use of these links is quite common - which is a problem beyond the issues it causes when a vandal removes them. However, it seems that some of these links can be converted to functional links through a replicable process; perhaps a task for a bot? BilledMammal (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Short answer - yes. Although this is the first time (that I can recall) ever seeing this in all the years I've been here, so hopefully not a big problem (famous last words)... Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I blocked the editor who made the change. The sum total of their edits so far are to break DAB pages by turning them into redirects and other nonsenese. All have been reverted. Whether it is perpetual innocent mistakes (WP:CIR) or intentional, I have no idea, but their editing is disrupting the rest of the encyclopedia, thus an indef block is warranted until they convince another admin they can edit without doing so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2. It's probably a LTA with at least one confirmed sock. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Good find. I've tagged as such. No need for a SPI case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2. It's probably a LTA with at least one confirmed sock. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Request for assistance to revert the article name
Hello admins, if in case my concerns were not intended in this section please consider addressing it to the correct section. Thank you. Recently, i created an article regarding the members of the Filipino boy group BGYO, but my concerns are the edits or the contributions made by Kwikilover88 on the following pages:
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelo_(singer) = originally, the name of this article was Angelo Troy Rivera 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JL_(singer) = originally, the name of this article was John Lloyd Toreliza
I believe the changes in the article names were unnecessary and not constructive. Please help me to revert it to the original article names. Thank you admins.Troy26Castillo (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Troy26Castillo: You can move the pages back to their original title yourself by following the steps at Help:How to move a page. If you need any further assistance, please let me know. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom Thank you for the help. Much appreciation. Troy26Castillo (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- CX Zoom I thought the last edit I made in the articles will return the original state of the page but as I can see now it's the article's original name only. I reviewed it again and it says like this: The edit appears to have already been undone. You may have attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action; these cannot be undone this way. Any autoconfirmed user can move the page back to its previous location, and any administrator can modify or remove protection. I believe I have a wrong question last time but what I truly meant is to revert the unnecessary changes made by Kwikilover88 in the articles. I am sorry for the confusion I caused regarding this matter. But for the last time, Is it possible to retrieve the original state of the articles? not as the redirected version. Thank you. Troy26Castillo (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Troy26Castillo: No you're alright, the page history shows only one activity from Kwikilover88. They moved "Angelo Troy Rivera" to "Gelo (singer)". Then you moved it back to "Angelo Troy Rivera". So, in a sense, you already undid it. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I did not get the notification. In the original edit you forgot to add the ping template. So you added it in a later edit. Pings work only when your signature is added in the same edit. If you ever forget pinging in original edit, just add a new line, with the ping and your signature. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Troy26Castillo: No you're alright, the page history shows only one activity from Kwikilover88. They moved "Angelo Troy Rivera" to "Gelo (singer)". Then you moved it back to "Angelo Troy Rivera". So, in a sense, you already undid it. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- CX Zoom I thought the last edit I made in the articles will return the original state of the page but as I can see now it's the article's original name only. I reviewed it again and it says like this: The edit appears to have already been undone. You may have attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action; these cannot be undone this way. Any autoconfirmed user can move the page back to its previous location, and any administrator can modify or remove protection. I believe I have a wrong question last time but what I truly meant is to revert the unnecessary changes made by Kwikilover88 in the articles. I am sorry for the confusion I caused regarding this matter. But for the last time, Is it possible to retrieve the original state of the articles? not as the redirected version. Thank you. Troy26Castillo (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- @CX Zoom okey then. I thought I made a mistake. Thanks again.Troy26Castillo (talk) 08:32, 25 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)
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)
Eyes on J. K. Rowling TFA
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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";[2] 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)
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..." [3]
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)
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)
A somewhat puzzling topic
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)
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)
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)
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)
RFC shutdown request due to sockpuppets Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)
admin accounts offered for sale in an online forum
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)
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 [4] and [5] 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)
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[6]. 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)
Review admin block and subsequent admin action of UTRS appeal by Swarm
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 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)
Sockpuppet advice pls
Concern is expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keffals about the nominator (and I see at least one other contributor) who have no other edits outside this AfD, giving rise to the suspicion that they may be sockpuppets using WD as single purpose accounts (SPAs) - in this case, for what appears to be TERFy purposes.
Presuming these are SPAs, do we just have to accept that shit happens, or is it in order to checkuser the accounts to dig a little deeper? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- That sock farm in full:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PurpleTurdle
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stircla
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AustralianFarmer
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MerlinsSister
- Again: please advise on how much seeming manipulation of an AfD is required to trigger further action. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- First, you MUST notify these users that you've reported them here. You've been around long enough to know that. I'm not going to do it for you.
Second, your report was enough for me to take a look, but these four accounts areUnrelated technically. It could be a case of off-wiki coordination, but they are not the same person. Katietalk 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
do we just have to accept that shit happens
I mean... kinda? At least now that a check's been run. When outright sockpuppetry has been ruled out and the disruption is limited to just the one discussion, I think usually the best approach is to just deploy {{subst:spa}} as needed (which others have done), slap {{notavote}} at the top (which I've just done), and trust that the closer is smart enough to know which comments to weight downward. I've seen heavily-canvassed AfDs that were closed in favor of a position that, by a pure head count, less than 10% supported. If a closer does do a head-count close when there's obvious canvassing involved, that's probably getting overturned. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories
User attempting to add a Fox News conspiracy theory about Israel to the page. Andrevan@ 08:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I reverted the edits from the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 6 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— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz bm (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Okay User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights, so Aziz bm was reverting the previous versions of the Saudi Arabian Flag (which is File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg now). I told him to upload the alternate calligraphy to another file but he did not insist on doing so. In addition, he has been reverting Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg to a much older version of a flag that is inaccurate and is not officially used today by the Saudi Gov. The reverting war is the problem. Xpërt3 (talk) 18:49, 6 July 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)
- This appears to be a dispute over which of two images that represent the flag of Saudi Arabia should be used in Wikipedia articles. If so, this is a content dispute that should be resolved by discussion by the community and consensus, and not by administrators. WP:Dispute resolution is useful here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. It appears most of the conduct issues, such as warring over uploads of images, is occurring on Commons thus will be for Commons administrators to handle. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Unban request of Shoot for the Stars
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is the request of Shoot for the Stars to have their community ban removed. I am bringing this as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. The discussion establishing the ban is here. 331dot (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It has been nearly a year since I was banned from Wikipedia. Starting in August 2021, I continued to upload rapper mugshots without stopping. I received numerous warnings from people to stop, but ignored them and continued to do it. Another instance that resulted in my ban involved events that occurred when I was 16 years old in 2019. I posted countless fake Beatles covers to articles despite editors' warnings not to do so. I didn't listen to them and continued my reckless behavior. I was only recently diagnosed with Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), which I now realize was a huge factor that contributed to my disruptive and repetitive behavior that lead to my ban. Subsequently, rather than making an effort to avoid using Wikipedia while I was suspended, I repeatedly engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry, first by using the accounts user:TheCleanestBestPleasure and user:Beatlesfan210, and then by using a variety of different IP addresses. I really missed editing Wikipedia so much that I lost all self-control. During my time on Wikipedia, I have also lied to a number of editors. Back then, I was a terrible person. To get around the system, I would pretend to be at school even if I wasn't. During my time of Wiki, I completed my freshman year of college and began my sophomore year last month. I completed a variety of classes that helped me broaden my vocabulary and improve my conversational abilities. I made a lot of mistakes on Wikipedia, but I also did a lot of good. I have improved and created over fifty articles to Good Article status. I would be in support of a TBAN to not upload any images of any kind for a year. If my account was unblock, I would finish updating Pop Smoke's remaining Wikipedia music articles to Good Article Status, start editing video game articles like Five Nights at Freddy's, and seek mentorship from experienced editors who I have contacted or worked with in the past. I am very sorry for what caused my ban. If I could have controlled my serious urgencies and tendencies back then, I would still be editing and not banned. I am now going to start attending therapy so I could get help with my problems that have led me to get me banned from what I loved doing for many years.
- Oppose for the sake of this user's own personal health. Get the therapy first; only come back once your doctor gives you the green light. There are so many more things out there for you better than Wikipedia. Wikipedia will still be here when you're older. Best rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wait -- I also suffer from OCD so I'm sympathetic to this type of thing. The editor should absolutely go through therapy first and get the go ahead from his doctor before being allowed back on, for his sake. Like Bison says, Wikipedia will be here when he's older. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 04:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose I read the ban here, I think multiple years need to pass before considering a unblock. Jeepday (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose at least right now. There is a whole lot more in this world than just Wikipedia. Take time, get yourself better, and once you've gotten a handle on that and yourself I would request again, and I believe you would be welcomed back much more openly. But first, take care of yourself and get the help you need. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Request to discuss Article
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would kindly like to request that Draft:Uncle Waffles be discussed if it meets inclusion or not. The article creation has been met with challenges from other editors. I was first accused of sock puppet. But no evidence was presented. Now I'm having challenges to expand the subject since other users before me previously contemimated the history of the article Please make time and check the article before its resubmitted for AFC. Thanks Skhofeni (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The place to discuss this is on the draft talk page, not WP:AN. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
What is the correct spelling of a name?
I had created the article Cătălin Tecuceanu as it is written in its original language. The article has been moved with the justification that it must be written as is in the language of the new citizenship. How are things? --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The correct answer depends on how English-language sources handle the situation since this person changed his name. 93.172.251.109 (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I never have & never will be in favour of using diacritics in article titles. I'd rather we used the english alphabet, rather then another languages' alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Redirects are cheap. I think that arguments over what should be the primary title of an article are silly if we have redirects from all of the plausible versions of the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- ...so we should just deliberately misspell the names of thousands of people? (Including some English names.) – Joe (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Noel Coward. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- However this goes I do not believe that the person's citizenship should be the deciding factor. What would we then do about the many subjects with dual citizenship? Otherwise I agree with Robert, and believe that we should concentrate on more important things. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Off-WP discussion
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[9] Qhnbgjt (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Qhnbgjt, is there a point to this? Slywriter (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand the point either. Discussing Wikipedia articles outside Wikipedia is entirely allowed. JIP | Talk 13:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Sockpuppet rollback?
RE:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Betteruser, This sock tree is insanely huge. The issue currently is a lot of the edits made by the socks that were most recently blocked on 27 June were never reverted; per WP:BE, these should be reverted, right? Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- This sock in particular made a lot of edits. Am I correct in assuming that you can use your super-special-mass-rollback-tool-thingy for this? Sorry if these questions are stupid or obvious, this isn't a field I foray into very often. Curbon7 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm no expert on the "super-special-mass-rollback-tool-thingy" but I do know these type of reverts are easier to do if they are the last edit to the article in question. I believe once other edits have been made to pages, I think the reverts have to be done manually which, when you are talking about a lot of edits, can be very time-consuming. However, these type of reverts don't need to be done by an admin so any editor can proceed once an editor is confirmed as a sockpuppet of a block evading editor. Liz Read! Talk! 18:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
WPWP query
I was looking into some edits that somehow led me to this AN discussion on WPWP from last summer about editing activity caused a lot of disruption and initiated discussion around filters and throttle messages. Since WPWP 2021 was a summer project last year, I looked to see if it was happening again this year and, yes, there will be a WPWP 2022. However, this year, there is no cash prize for the winners, just a plaque award and some WPWP swag so it might be less of a circus. But I thought since the contest started on July 1st and runs for two months, I'd bring it up here now because in the AN 2021 thread there were suggestions about how to handle this contest in the future and, well, the future is here! Liz Read! Talk! 01:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- One of the other recent contests (possibly something relating to 1LIB1REF) also had no cash prize but still got into a lot of controversy. (I'm fairly sure whatever it was had no crash prize since there was a lot of fuss about the cash prize at one of the thread which confused me since I didn't see any mention of it although to be fair details seemed sparse. I eventually worked out it was confusion from the grant request amount which was to be used for various thing but not a cash prize. While I didn't pay much attention to the thread after that, I'm sure one of the organisers confirmed there was no cash prize.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also noted that this year they've put in a few more good rules, including an age minimum of a year for all participating accounts, clear instructions to leave edit summaries, don't add the hashtag to pages, etc so hopefully this year will be less disruptive. In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335#Remedies (poll) there was consensus to implement a throttling filter and warning messages, which live in 1158 (hist · log) and should still be life. Failing that and if it gets out of control again this year the above AN discussion also found consensus to in a worst case scenario ban the event entirely. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 06:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Still needs the hashtag Secretlondon (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Don't think so? Last years is still in the filter, and I don't think they've changed it from what I can see (the filter is checking for
#WPWP
). However, I just noted that the filter has been disabled after last years contest ended. If a passing EFM sees this could they please reenable the filter? Given that the contest has started again its needed again, and consencus hasn't been revoked in the meantime as far as I'm aware. Thanks in advance. -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 20:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)- I've re-enabled 1158 given that there was no mention of limiting the throttling to the 2021 contest in the discussion and poll that led to the filter being created, and (to my knowledge) no complaints about its operation or effects. I've also tweaked the message shown to users when they're throttled accordingly. If any admin/EFM disagrees with my interpretation they are of course free to revert this. :) firefly ( t · c ) 11:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Don't think so? Last years is still in the filter, and I don't think they've changed it from what I can see (the filter is checking for
- Still needs the hashtag Secretlondon (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also noting to everybody who might not have seen it yet that 1073 (hist · log) is also still active, and tracks every edit made as part of this contest (and other similar contest, although I think WPWP is the only one of the tracked set running right now). -- Asartea Talk | Contribs 18:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Another question about a moving
For the World Athletics is Diego Aldo Pettorossi, for the FIDAL is Diego Aldo Pettorossi. I created the article as Diego Aldo Pettorossi but the article has been moved to Diego Pettorossi. I would like to point out that at the first request for arbitration I had already obtained the moving of the article Cătălin Tecuceanu, but the article has been moved again. Here I warned in his talk the admin that I had made the moving. I would also like to point out that the user is a friend of mine and it is not absolutely necessary to open an ANI, perhaps and only a little distracted, however I had informed him of the facts (his moving of the articles a little "bold") on his talk page. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- So... what are you looking for? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would pray that an admin would make the moving of the two artcles for me. Kasper2006 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Kasper2006, I think you're saying the page is at Diego Pettorossi but belongs at Diego Aldo Pettorossi because according to both WA and FIDAL that is his formal name? W/re: Catalin Tecuceanu...you are arguing the diacritics need to be put back?
- To me this looks like a content dispute, unless you are saying that the other editor has moved these for nationalistic reasons?
- You are required to notify the other editor. I have done that for you. valereee (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would pray that an admin would make the moving of the two artcles for me. Kasper2006 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I do confirm that @Kasper2006: doesn't understand well my moves that are correct (COMMON NAME, from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography). Nobody gives the 2 first names to Diego Pettorossi in the sources (even if Diego Aldo is the correct full name). It is not an Admin issue but an editorial one, by the way.--Arorae (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have looked a bit at this, and I agree with User:Valereee that this is a content issue and does not require administrator attention. This should be taken up at WP:RM. JIP | Talk 20:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
CSD backlog
There are 24 pending CSD nominations at CAT:CSD. I'm not sure how many is typical, but Draft:New York Arm Wrestling Association has had the {{db-g11}} tag for over 44 hours. Normally, these are handled within a day. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll work on them EvergreenFir (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Done EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Back in the day when new accounts could create articles, 200 was fairly common. —Kusma (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. These days 10-20 (total) at any given time is pretty typical, as opposed to refreshing each CSD subcat to find 10-20 new pages each time (I don't miss those days). Primefac (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can attest it wasn't any fun deleting or tagging that volume. Glad to see it's not as frantic as it used to be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's important to note that all CSD categories are not treated equally. There are some criteria (like G3, G7 and G8) that are handled almost immediately upon page tagging while other criteria (most notably G4 and G12) where pages can sit for a while before being reviewed. 24 pages doesn't seem like a serious backlog, I remember being shocked months ago when I saw that there were 0 tagged pages to be reviewed! It's since happened again but it was a shock the first time to see no pages that had been tagged needed to be reviewed. Liz Read! Talk! 18:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think G4 and G12 take more time/effort to determine if they are valid than things like G3, G7, and G8. So they would sit there longer, both because they take longer to handle and because speedy deletion is supposed to be for pretty obvious, quick, no-brainer decisions. So admins check the speedy queue if they are looking for something to do quickly, so they ignore those that just inherently take a little longer. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I got chewed out at a Deletion review for a G4 deletion I made months ago that I thought was appropriate but where the consensus was instead to restore the page and move it to Draft space. How closely do an old and new version of an article need to be to be considered basically "identical"? So, yes, G4s take more time to evaluate than when a page creator tags their pages for CSD G7 deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The thing that really gets me about G4 is that the non-admin tagging it has no way of seeing the deleted version, so they just end up tagging anything at the same title as a previously deleted article, because they don't know. I think we should add a time limit to G4 - 12-24 months or so. Because something that is truly G4-qualified is likely to be reposted relatively soon after the original deletion. Whereas if the article was AFD'd 5+ years ago, it's unlikely to be identical - probably by a different creator and even if it isn't, if the (person, band, company, whatever) was not notable 5 years ago they may be now. At any rate they've likely done something different in that time. I probably turn down 80% or more of the G4s I review, and 100% of the ones where the original deletion was 5 or more years ago. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I got chewed out at a Deletion review for a G4 deletion I made months ago that I thought was appropriate but where the consensus was instead to restore the page and move it to Draft space. How closely do an old and new version of an article need to be to be considered basically "identical"? So, yes, G4s take more time to evaluate than when a page creator tags their pages for CSD G7 deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think G4 and G12 take more time/effort to determine if they are valid than things like G3, G7, and G8. So they would sit there longer, both because they take longer to handle and because speedy deletion is supposed to be for pretty obvious, quick, no-brainer decisions. So admins check the speedy queue if they are looking for something to do quickly, so they ignore those that just inherently take a little longer. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's important to note that all CSD categories are not treated equally. There are some criteria (like G3, G7 and G8) that are handled almost immediately upon page tagging while other criteria (most notably G4 and G12) where pages can sit for a while before being reviewed. 24 pages doesn't seem like a serious backlog, I remember being shocked months ago when I saw that there were 0 tagged pages to be reviewed! It's since happened again but it was a shock the first time to see no pages that had been tagged needed to be reviewed. Liz Read! Talk! 18:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Can attest it wasn't any fun deleting or tagging that volume. Glad to see it's not as frantic as it used to be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed. These days 10-20 (total) at any given time is pretty typical, as opposed to refreshing each CSD subcat to find 10-20 new pages each time (I don't miss those days). Primefac (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Unblock request by Sucker for All
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Sucker for All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sucker for All is requesting an unblock:
Today, May 3, I am requesting the standard offer to any admin willing to unblock me. I am looking to help clean up and better source articles that already exist such as WABC (AM) this month I hope. The 2 admins below seemed to see my likelihood of getting unblocked as "promising", and I just want to be a productive wikipedien again. Sucker for All (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Update: It's now July 1. I believe that I was blocked in large part because I belittled the opinions of users when I disagreed with them and was rude in certain chat pages about which sources were deemed most reliable. In the time since my block, I have not sockpuppeted, I have discussed issues with various users, and my primary occupation would be to fix up pages that have refimprove tags in order to make the community better such as with WABC (AM). I believe in the format and style of wikipedia and that articles should all have appropriate inline citations in a way that leads to more articles being considered up to the standard for an untagged article. In summation, I believe I am now ready to contribute in a positive way to the wiki community by cleaning up articles. @NinjaRobotPirate:, I would appreciate if you posted a request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Thank you Sucker for All (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
See User talk:Sucker for All for more details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like I'm the blocking admin (what do you know?), but I don't really have a firm recollection of the block to provide much input, though their talk page does speak to chronic disruption. El_C 18:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I also was a blocking admin, actually the first. The major problem here was SfA refusing to accept advice from other editors on their misinterpretation of policy. I do not have an objection to an unblock to allow this editor to try to show us that they have learned policy and will accept advice from more experienced editors. valereee (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've interacted with SfA a few different times, and while I'm not wholly against an unblock, I think this statement is insufficient at the moment. The issues that led to a block are not solely "belittling the opinions of others" or being "rude"; there was also an issue with the understanding and implementation of the policies on original research, synthesis, and primary sources (especially as it pertains to press releases). See this thread on their talk page and the "approximately 15000 of its residents following this religion" thread on this article talk page. If their express desire is to add references to articles, I feel that we need something more about adherence to our policies and standards on sourcing first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse unblock You kinda hafta read the talk page to get the full gist. What they wrote to be carried over lacks the full substance. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- is there a way to prevent the archive bot from arching open unblock requests? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- They waited patiently, they asked nicely, what more can we ask? Deserves a second chance. Support per SO and ROPE. Levivich[block] 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it would be good if they showed a bit more awareness of why they were blocked (not so much rudeness as a refusal to accept that their interpretations of policy were not automatically correct, and a WP:IDHT behaviour that wasted a lot of editor time); this is a little concerning since it looks like they don't realise that their discussion style was a substantial part of the problem. I also agree with Writ Keeper, and wonder what kind of sources SfA would be using and which specific edits they are thinking about making. --bonadea contributions talk 19:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Requesting transfer of user rights
Hello, I created this account a few days ago. I am not a new editor. I am just returning to edit Wikipedia from what I thought would be my indefinite departure. My original account was User:Jerm, but I lost my password and had no email assigned via made this account to edit again. I can't really prove that I'm the same editor, so I ask that a checkuser could do it for me, to prove that I'm using the exact same private network/IP, thanks. Judekkan (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- If I recall correctly, access logs are kept for 3 months so you might have been just outside that range by a few days. OhanaUnitedTalk page 00:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The more important issue is that performing such a check would be contrary to CU policy, per WP:CHECKME. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Eh, I ran it anyway, I'll wait for the nastygram from arbcom. Jerm is indeed
Stale. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- So I’m going to work without my user permissions. That’s fine. I just need rollback and page move rights really. Extended confirm and Autopatrolled I’ll get again naturally. I’m also trying to get twinkle activated, but I don’t see it in my preferences. Judekkan (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Eh, I ran it anyway, I'll wait for the nastygram from arbcom. Jerm is indeed
- The more important issue is that performing such a check would be contrary to CU policy, per WP:CHECKME. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I took this pic with my iPhone XR: File:Moth IMG 01926345.jpg. Is it possible if I take a new photo with the same phone that it can be identified as the exact unique individual device? Anyone know if that’s possible in WikiCommons? Judekkan (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The pic doesn't contain any unique device ID, which could probably be spoofed anyway, so no. Apparently 77.4 million other people have this device. I've granted you rollback. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Zzuuzz I’m convinced, same person. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The pic doesn't contain any unique device ID, which could probably be spoofed anyway, so no. Apparently 77.4 million other people have this device. I've granted you rollback. -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
zzuuzz Thanks for getting me rollback. As for page move rights, I'll get that naturally as with the other user rights I had. Judekkan (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would also like to have User:Jerm page deleted then recreated as a redirect to my new user page. I don't want the page history there, just want to start anew (somewhat). If there is some satisfactory that I can provide that I'm indeed the same person Jerm, I've already created a new barnstar via the Deaf Barnstar. I'vs also been bold in moving my talk page archives from Jerm to my new account and had User talk:Jerm redirected. Judekkan (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Zzuuzz, GeneralNotability. I think I now how to prove who I say I am. File:WikiFilterLogo.png for Edit filter helper, I still have the filter just by itself when I was putting the icon together. Judekkan (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The filter "by itself" is just from File:Filter.svg; it looks like someone already took care of the deletion as well - is everything needed in the short-term done now? — xaosflux Talk 22:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Xaosflux I've gone ahead and uploaded my filter that I used to create the EFH icon via File:EFH filter.png. That is the exact one. Judekkan (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- The filter "by itself" is just from File:Filter.svg; it looks like someone already took care of the deletion as well - is everything needed in the short-term done now? — xaosflux Talk 22:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Zzuuzz, GeneralNotability. I think I now how to prove who I say I am. File:WikiFilterLogo.png for Edit filter helper, I still have the filter just by itself when I was putting the icon together. Judekkan (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
COI
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello all, I am back after a long absence and several articles that I have started have been tagged with COI for the past 8 months. The about a COI did not reach any conclusions. I am asking to remove the tags from the articles - editors have had eight months to deal with any issues with the articles and no coi was proven. I removed the tags o two of the articles today, but an IP 192.76.8.85 (I will notify them) puts them back and will not discuss. Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 01:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am currently in the middle of writing a response at talk:Greg Koch (musician), give me some time to finish writing it. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I prefer to hear what administrators say. Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your framing of this as me being unwilling to discuss this is not accurate. You made a bold edit and removed the COI tags. I reverted stating that as the person suspected of having a COI it was inappropriate for you to be removing those tags. You reverted my reverts quoting WP:BRD, despite you being the one who made the bold edit and who should have been attempting to gain consensus for your edits. I reverted again, restoring the article to the status quo and started writing a response to your comment on the talk page, at which point you left me a warning for edit warring and brought me to ANI. 192.76.8.85 (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I prefer to hear what administrators say. Lightburst (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- We can restart the COIN, now that LB is back, if he's seriously going to deny his relationship with, e.g. Greg Koch (musician) and others. Levivich[block] 02:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich: How many times? 2 3 4? Until you get the answer you want? You are a long time antagonist and your efforts in this area do not improve the project. We don't tag articles in perpetuity. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Do you want to just concede the COI and just edit other stuff that you don't have a COI with and we can forget about this, or shall I email the off-wiki evidence you know I have to arbcom? Levivich[block] 04:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Levivich: How many times? 2 3 4? Until you get the answer you want? You are a long time antagonist and your efforts in this area do not improve the project. We don't tag articles in perpetuity. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the tags-in-question & I've no COI in the matter. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, there are more. Apparently every article I wrote where I met the person constitutes a coi. What rot. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).
|
|
user_global_editcount
is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)
- An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.
- The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
long running dispute
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been a dispute that has been going on for quite some time now on the 2022 Laguna Woods shooting article and the talks to resolve it have been going nowhere. Some admin help to break the deadlock would be great Thundercloss (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Deletion of talk page comments
Hi, hoping you can help. A couple of editors are repeatedly deleting an IP user's comments on Talk:Graham Linehan, namely User:Newimpartial and User:Sideswipe9th. The comment is plainly and explicitly about the article's treatment of its subject, which WP:TPG seems to suggest should not be deleted. When I told them that I would post on an adminstrators' noticeboard to try to get outside input and find a resolution, they took that as a prompt to race me to it and post a complaint about me edit-warring - especially baffling since they were the ones attempting to make the same deletions and edits *to someone else's talk page comment* again and again with minor differences. I don't know if they're hoping to side-step suggestions that they're edit-warring themselves by splitting the deletions between two editors so that I reach three reversions first, but it's very plain that they're effectively working in tandem, and not at all clear that they're allowed to delete that comment in the first place. Surely this isn't acceptable? Grateful for your advice, whoever picks this up. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- You appear to be using that talkpage as a soapbox, rather than providing specific, sourced suggestions for article improvement. You also appear to be forum-shopping. The correct response to a complaint at AN3 is to constructively address it there, not at yet another noticeboard. I advise you to self-revert as requested at AN3. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Clicriffhard, you can hardly expect the admin community to address the situation appropriately if you do not describe it accurately. Apart from all the aspersions, you are leaving out the fact that you have reverted four times in four hours on the same page, without any claim to 3RRNO that I can see (documented here). You also claim that
editors are repeatedly deleting an IP user's comments
, but in reality no editor has done that more than once; the version that prompted your fourth revert contained all the content of the original IP edit, but hatted according to the WP:TPG. - If you have the idea that it was inappropriate for another editor to post your edit warring to WP:3RRN just because you had expressed the intention of consulting an administrator (!?), I can't see the logic in that. Intending to post something to a noticeboard isn't a license for edit-warring beyond the scope of WP:3RRNO. Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- The IP post in question is a textbook WP:NOTAFORUM post, thinly-veiled concern trolling. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 02:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've reverted it; that comment isn't needed in any serious forum about the subject and does violate NOTAFORUM, and reversion is justified. Stop restoring it. Nate • (chatter) 02:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- And do not revert again. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note, Clicriffhard is now making accusations of
hypocrisy, the game-playing, and the bullying
over at the related AN3 discussion. Which seems a bold choice given this is about talk page content on a page subject to two discretionary sanctions (BLP and GENSEX). Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)- Note, Clicriffhard is continuing to make personal attacks while blocked. Saying that an editor is
actual poison
[10], and claiming them to be exhibitingmanipulative behaviour
while questioning their integrity [11]. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)- And now it's progressed from questioning an editor's integrity to saying
you do not know what integrity is.
[12] @Acroterion: I'm sorry for pinging, but as the blocking admin could you step in here please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- And now it's progressed from questioning an editor's integrity to saying
- The most evocative line has been, "you don't know what integrity is". Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note, Clicriffhard is continuing to make personal attacks while blocked. Saying that an editor is
Usually in these situations. The 'discussion' is hatted & collapsed with a title 'NOTFORUM', rather then outright deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- WP:TALKOFFTOPIC gives three options for dealing with off-topic posts. Hatting is one such option, but in my experience with this sort of comment deletion is the more frequently used option. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. But the 'deletion' method tends create the most irritation from the editor, who post was deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Eh, The content of the post justified full removal to me. No need to keep 'this site lies' and a polemic IP drive-by on that page (they haven't edited eight hours since), and it's in the history. I doubt they'll be back on that one. Nate • (chatter) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, Clicriffhard hasn't claimed to be the IP in question; to the contrary. And the third and fourth reverts were to the 'hatting' method, not the 'deletion' method. Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps, though this seems moot in this case as the irritation as you put it is from another editor and I would not want to speculate on whether Clicriffhard is or is not the IP editor who made the off-topic comment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps so. But the 'deletion' method tends create the most irritation from the editor, who post was deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- GoodDay, "hatting" was the nature of my last two edits that Clicriffhard reverted (the third and fourth reverts). Newimpartial (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Removing such comments with a "WP:NOTAFORUM" edit summary is entirely appropriate in such cases and I do that all the time. This is not true deletion because that NOTAFORUM content is still visible in the page history. Only far more objectionable content would be revision deleted, or in the very worst cases, suppressed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- And I've blocked Clicriffhard for 24 hours for continuing to make personal attacks and general IDHT behavior in the primary AN3 thread. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm doing my best to calm the lad down, now that he's on a 24-hr 'break'. My task would be made easier, if anyone he's steamed at, doesn't contact him any further during his 24-hr break, ok? GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Had Clicriffhard not continued to make personal attacks while escalating their nature after the block, I'd have said this was worth a try. However given that your first attempt was rebuffed as
bad advice
, and the nature of the attacks has deepened I'm afraid that this will both fall upon deaf ears and be ultimately unnecessary as it seems to me as though that block will be extended. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)- For the lad's sake, it may be best that his talkpage rights be revoked for the duration of his block. That will hold off any more possible anger and/or taunting issues. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- The second attempt has also been rebuffed in a less than civil manner. And based on that message, I do not think they want to be unblocked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I’ve removed talkpage access to keep them from digging the hole yet deeper. I endorse GoodDay’s advice to leave them alone. Acroterion (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- The second attempt has also been rebuffed in a less than civil manner. And based on that message, I do not think they want to be unblocked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- For the lad's sake, it may be best that his talkpage rights be revoked for the duration of his block. That will hold off any more possible anger and/or taunting issues. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I would have reverted the post under discussion on sight had I been the first one there. It's inflammatory (as has been proven) but provides no actionable content or specific direction in which to discuss improvement of the article.Comments like
you are trying to game the system by splitting your edit-warring between the two of you and then claiming it's a simple numbers game
(diff) are hard to square with the understanding that if your change is contested, you should engage in discussion; reinstating a change known to be disputed is edit warring, which Clicriffhard is obviously aware of.The accusation thatthe same group of editors enforce the same possessive strictures on the article in question over a long period
(diff) is, well, a description of the consensus-based mechanism of Wikipedia, unless the allegation is that these editors are violating the more broader community's rules and norms, in which case breaking 3RR over reinstating a vague complaint of bias is not the way to solve things. Instead you should raise the issue at a broader forum (NPOVN or Arbcom or wherever).We should expect mature volunteers to moderate their emotions, keep things in proportion and take accountability for their actions. This short block will do no good if Clicriffhard admits no wrongdoing and see no issue with their edits here. — Bilorv (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@Acroterion:, I believe you may have to step in & separate a couple of editors. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Liam wigley
The behaviour of Liam wigley has started be a concern. They have repeatedly tried to start an article about Princess Mirror-Belle, a TV show on the BBC, but the best they have managed is to copy-paste content from So Awkward and leave it at that. Now first things first, Princess Mirror-Belle exists, so it's not something Liam wigley made up. For my part, I have never seen the show and know nothing more about it than it is a real existing show.
Liam wigley has repeatedly been contacted on their talk page about the article Princess Mirror-Belle but they have so far failed to respond to any of the comments. Because of repeated misconduct, the article Princess Mirror-Belle was deleted and salted, and Liam wigley was temporarily blocked.
I am inclined to think Liam wigley is still acting in good faith here, but they are misguided. This is made even worse by their lack of communication. I am inclined to give Liam wigley the benefit of the doubt and remove the salt from Princess Mirror-Belle, if someone won't do it for me before it. But I fear Liam wigley will recreate it with copy-pasted content. JIP | Talk 00:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- The protection can stay, although the user tried to create it at a different title Princess Mirror-Belle (TV series) because of the protection. And it's the same with Lagging (TV series) which I speedy deleted twice, however it has not been protected. Jay (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I became aware of that editor when they created Lagging (TV series), which was not about that TV series, and, like Princess Mirror-Belle, was mostly copied from So Awkward. I nominated it for deletion, and it was then speedied. The editor will come off a 31-hour block in a few hours. If they don't provide an explanation soon, I would suggest an indefinite block as playing silly games or otherwise not here to edit constructively. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The programme exists at the very least, so I think a redirect to List of BBC children's television programmes#Current programming (while remaining protected) is at the very least proper. But a much better article needs to be drafted before it hits article space, because Liam's versions have all been poor. Nate • (chatter) 20:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Princess Mirror-Belle (TV series) also needs to be protected as the user tried to create it again, and was speedy deleted. Jay (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Both Princess Mirror-Belle and Princess Mirror-Belle (TV series) have been changed into redirects to List of BBC children's television programmes#Current programming and protected. JIP | Talk 13:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I became aware of that editor when they created Lagging (TV series), which was not about that TV series, and, like Princess Mirror-Belle, was mostly copied from So Awkward. I nominated it for deletion, and it was then speedied. The editor will come off a 31-hour block in a few hours. If they don't provide an explanation soon, I would suggest an indefinite block as playing silly games or otherwise not here to edit constructively. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Liam wigley has now been indefinitely blocked by User:Bbb23. Perhaps this means the pages protected during this process can be unprotected, in case someone wants to expand them into real articles. JIP | Talk 00:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- The pages have been unprotected as protection is no longer needed. They can be protected again if further vandalism arises. JIP | Talk 08:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Rock balancing
Rock balancing is an "art" or "sport" that reliable sources mostly cover as a behavior that's generally considered obnoxious and bad for the environment [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], But there are communities of stone stackers out there on the internet, so of course there's controversy on WP's low traffic Rock balancing article by users that don't seem to understand Neutral Point of View. Apparently, according to Etamni, stone balancers who are offended by the article are circulating memes about it [22]. There's a defective RfC (courtesy of Lord Belbury) with multiple editors arguing about their sense of fairness instead of policy. Also I'm apparently a fascist for deleting unsourced rants by SPAs. [23], restored by Lord Belbury [24].
The talk page would benefit from being moderated by uninvolved admins, the ongoing RfC should be reviewed as to whether or not it's useful enough to be allowed to be continued, and if so, it needs participation from experienced users that understand policy, preferably who aren't being influenced off-wiki. Geogene (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here's a direct link to that RfC, which has been open for a couple of weeks: Talk:Rock_balancing#RfC_on_first_sentence_and_scope. I entirely agree that it may be time to close it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Kobi_Arad
i wish to add a wikiproject header for this article, but can't because the creation is restricted to admins.
the code would be {{WikiProject Musicians |class=start |importance=low |living=yes}}
. thank you in advance! lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Done The name is blacklisted. A relevant thread is just above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unlocking page for Kobi Arad. Probably it should come off the blacklist? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- thanks, @Malcolmxl5!
(also, your edit summary made me look like i reported it on the dramaboard, lol.)lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)- Ah, yes. I forgot where I was (never mind!). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- thanks, @Malcolmxl5!
Ghazaalch
- WP:CRP: Ghazaalch has been edit-warring their preferred version into this article non-stop: Content 1: ([25]-[26]-[27]-[28]-[29]) and Content 2: ([30]-[31]-[32]-[33])
- WP:NPOV. Ghazaalch does this while removing other content (from the same sources) without proper explanation: ([34]-[35]-[36]-[37]-[38]-[39])
- Many warnings (at first they appear to have self-reverted, but now they seem to have lost any regard for policy): ([40]-[41]-[42]-[43])
- Ghazaalch's other disruption: tampering RFCs ([44]-[45]-[46]), not giving explanations in the talk page when asked to explain reverts ([47]-[48]), making false narratives ([49]), stonewalling ([50]-[51]), and other forms of WP:GAMING (such as WP:BADFAITHNEG [52]). There is also WP:Tag-teaming, all of which can be discussed if anybody wants, but the above may be the worst of it since at this point Ghazaalch seems to have lost any regard for policy (particularly WP:CRP). ~~~~
Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Iraniangal777 This probably belongs at WP:ANI. I would encourage you to move the discussion. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did not look at the diffs, nor am I planning to take any position on this, but I just wanted to note that since this is WP:ARBIRP-related (see also here a month ago) the proper venue for this would rather be WP:AE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you Apaugasma and Ad Orientem. I will try at WP:AE to see if anyone is willing to look at the diffs there. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I did not look at the diffs, nor am I planning to take any position on this, but I just wanted to note that since this is WP:ARBIRP-related (see also here a month ago) the proper venue for this would rather be WP:AE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Editing Restrictions
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[53] My topic ban was lifted some 8 years ago, I volunteered a restriction to stick to 1RR, which I have stuck with. After 8 years of trouble free editing I would like to request this is removed. As this was a voluntary restriction on my part I'm not sure whether this has to be formally lifted but I would like to ask for community input. I don't intend to change my behaviour, however, on a couple of occasions I've seen multiple examples of vandalism on my watch list but refrained from action if I'd already reverted that day. I would like to be able to deal with vandalism when I see it. WCMemail 19:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support I have never seen WCM (whose username I have always admired) do anything problematic in my time here, if there have been no issues in eight years (certainly there have been no blocks, and I'm not aware of any complaints) then the restriction is no longer required. Girth Summit (blether) 10:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I commend WCM for abiding by their voluntary restriction for so long. As they don’t intend to change their behaviour, the restriction is no longer needed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support - You didn't sock during all that time. That's good enough for me. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support. As a side note, reverting obvious is vandalism is an exception to edit warring restrictions of any kind. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Support per all the above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Nicholas Alahverdian
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! I wanted to get some admin attention for the Nicholas Alahverdian description in the first sentence of the article. I edited the first sentence from "convicted American sex offender" to "American convicted sex offender". I was reverted by @Aoidh, who opened a talk page discussion, which I appreciated since we did not agree. From my reading of the talk page discussion, there is a (weak) consensus of three editors who believe the wording should be "American sex offender", dropping the "convicted". When I updated the talk page with the consensus three editors had agreed to this, with only one editor (Aoidh) opposing, I implemented the change. Aoidh immediately reverted my change twice, stating there was "no consensus". In my view, there is a consensus and some OWN issues going on, along with ONUS. Any thoughts or suggestions appreciated. Cheers! Kbabej (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- It should be "American sex offender" now - it's well established he's convicted so in that sense it is redundant. Overall I agree with Kbabej on this matter and think this silly edit war needs to stop. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I explained in the talk page, this is how multiple reliable sources describe it. Saying "three editors had agreed to this" is completely inaccurate, and I would invite you to provide diffs supporting that claim. One editor made a comment that it should use American English, to which I supplied numerous sources showing that the current wording was American English. That editor did not comment further and did not support any removal of the wording. One editor did suggest removing it, to which you agreed and removed it. However this is the wording reliable sources used, and it is the WP:STATUSQUO version. You have refused to address why you think it should be removed and when asked for evidence of a prior consensus you alluded to, ignored it and decided there was a consensus for your version. I have reverted it per WP:STATUSQUO because two editors saying a word should be removed when reliable sources very clearly use that exact phrasing is not a consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoidh, respectfully, that editor (@Praxidicae) just commented above your reply they support the removal of the wording definitively. I believe the consensus is clear. --Kbabej (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- That editor had not commented when you made your edits, so my point stands on that matter. You cited a consensus that did not exist, three editors had not agreed with you when you made your edits to the article. You bringing this here is inappropriate as it requires no administrative intervention, and your accusations of WP:OWN are a personal attack for which you have no evidence. If you believe I have exhibited WP:OWN I welcome you to provide diffs of that, but acting in good faith to restore a wording consistent with reliable sources because the other editor says they don't like the way it sounds is not WP:OWN, when (at the time you made the edit) only one other editor had suggested it be removed. I suggest you retract that personal attack or provide diffs to support it. Which part of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR have I exhibited? A disagreement over content is not WP:OWN. - Aoidh (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoidh, my goal is not to attack you in any way. In my reading, there was consensus on this point, and with the clarity of Praxidicae's further comments, that was confirmed. I do not think bringing issues to the attention of admins is inappropriate either. Perhaps there was another noticeboard that would have been better utilized, which would be a (welcome) learning opportunity for me. I did believe there were OWN issues going on with the content based on the vehemency in which you guarded the description, but in checking the top editors of the article you're listed at 23 with me actually appearing before you at 22, both of us with 0%. So I apologize on that front.
- As for the noticeboard, I do not think an apology is necessary. After consensus had been reached, you reverted the change, posted on my talk page about edit warring, and stated there was no consensus on the talk page. I believed it needed to be addressed at that point, as that was clearly overkill.
- I would like to step back from the conversation, as I think that "personal attack" aspersions are pretty escalated given the simple issue at hand: whether a word should be included in a lead's short description. As an aside, thank you for reverting back to the consensus. I'm going to unfollow this page, so if any other editors have a concern (ie: posting at a better noticeboard) please ping me. Be well, all! --Kbabej (talk) 17:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- You said "after consensus had been reached" but one editor suggested something, you agreed and quickly made the change knowing it was disputed. That is not a consensus. You accusing me of WP:OWN without evidence is a personal attack, per WP:NPA#WHATIS. Both of the things that you ran here to accuse me of are meritless. - Aoidh (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: I struck my OWN comment in the opening paragraph of this discussion after an apology to @Aoidh. --Kbabej (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- That editor had not commented when you made your edits, so my point stands on that matter. You cited a consensus that did not exist, three editors had not agreed with you when you made your edits to the article. You bringing this here is inappropriate as it requires no administrative intervention, and your accusations of WP:OWN are a personal attack for which you have no evidence. If you believe I have exhibited WP:OWN I welcome you to provide diffs of that, but acting in good faith to restore a wording consistent with reliable sources because the other editor says they don't like the way it sounds is not WP:OWN, when (at the time you made the edit) only one other editor had suggested it be removed. I suggest you retract that personal attack or provide diffs to support it. Which part of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR have I exhibited? A disagreement over content is not WP:OWN. - Aoidh (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Aoidh, respectfully, that editor (@Praxidicae) just commented above your reply they support the removal of the wording definitively. I believe the consensus is clear. --Kbabej (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Dennis Brown's t-ban of GoodDay
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GoodDay, link to WP:AE report-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I've just been indef topic-banned from anything to do with WP:GENSEX, broadly construed. IMHO, this is a harsh/punitive ruling by @Dennis Brown:. I've not broken any DS rules on GENSEX-related pages. If I was to be t-banned? It should've been from only GENSEX-related talkpages & any discussions of GENSEX on any user's talkpages. If I had (for example) edited in "Her" or "She" into Eliot Page's BLP, then 'broadly construed' would've been proper. Same thing at Jordan Peterson's article, concerning Eliot Page. But I haven't done those things. T-bans are suppose to be preventative? Then why am I being t-banned from hundreds of bios? of which I've not made any (to my memory) disruptive edits to? Keep me away from the discussions? Yes. But main space? No. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Black Kite and MastCell who were administrators who participated in the discussion.
- "Broadly construed" is vanilla language that is included in all topic bans. Adding "broadly construed" is ubiquitous with topic bans, and is neither punitive nor harsh, but is designed to clarify the ban and prevent wikilawyering with edge edits. I'm happy to let others opine and share their own experiences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- GoodDay, pleases consider whether you really think it's possible to be an effective editor on any article page without participating on the associated talk page. SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm a gnome editor. 78% of my edits are on main space. Only 7.5% is on talkpages. Indeed, in the last decade alone, my main space percentage must be around 90%. Under this 'current restriction', I could make a grammar correction or a birthdate/death correction on a bio article & 'not' notice it has a connection to LGBTQ issues & end up getting blocked. This 'broadly construed' restriction is gonna require me to read entirely 'any' page I'm about to edit, for fear there might be something there related to the LGBTQ topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Heck, if I so much as 'revert' vandalism on an article. I run the risk of being blocked, if the article has even the slimmest connection to LGBTQ issues & I didn't notice it. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you edited an article on a gay actor, adding their newest movie, you would not be blocked. If you started editing who they were dating, you would. Some articles must be avoided altogether, others, you just need to stay away from anything gender/sex related. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would you give me a bio as an example? That way, I could demonstrate to you 'how' I would edit it. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- About to eat dinner here, but you can always ask ANY admin about an edit before you make it, to be sure, and you aren't going to get blocked for making it with their blessing. This will only be needed a few times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Janetta Johnson might be entirely off-limits, though if you are making gnoming edits that dont relate to the GENSEX topic at all it may also be fine. Just dont touch anything gender related, it shouldnt be that hard to get. nableezy - 22:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I just made a minor edit to that BLP, to show what I'm going on about. Don't know how to link it 'here', but it's an example. PS - In that bios case, the LGBTQ info was in the intro, so that help me to know what I could & couldn't do, under the current restriction. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Any BLP that is for a person who is primarily known for gender issues should be completely avoided. Any BLP where their gender or sexual orientation (or activism re: gender) has nothing to do with their notability can be edited as long as you stay away from anything gender related. In other words, 90% of the BLPs are fair game, 5% you need to avoid the gender related issues, and 5% you need to avoid altogether. Keep in mind, it only takes ONE admin to think you are veering too close to the subject matter to get sanctioned. DS sanctions do not require discussion or consensus, they are unilateral. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt anybody would have a problem of you happening across an article through the random article link and making that edit. Somebody may have a problem with you purposely making it a test case to see in practice what the limits of your ban are however, and IMO it was a silly thing for you to do right now. But you were sanctioned because of your actions, and the result of that sanction is that you do need to pay a bit more attention to what articles you are editing. And you should not use the article space to purposely test the limits of your ban. nableezy - 23:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I just made a minor edit to that BLP, to show what I'm going on about. Don't know how to link it 'here', but it's an example. PS - In that bios case, the LGBTQ info was in the intro, so that help me to know what I could & couldn't do, under the current restriction. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would you give me a bio as an example? That way, I could demonstrate to you 'how' I would edit it. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you edited an article on a gay actor, adding their newest movie, you would not be blocked. If you started editing who they were dating, you would. Some articles must be avoided altogether, others, you just need to stay away from anything gender/sex related. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just want to note that SPECIFICO repeatedly referred to an editor as “it” and received another one of their 14+ warnings. It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Heck, if I so much as 'revert' vandalism on an article. I run the risk of being blocked, if the article has even the slimmest connection to LGBTQ issues & I didn't notice it. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- The reason why you feel that you've been "over-punished" - as you put it on your user talk page - is because you haven't really taken on board how seriously objectionable it is to misgender someone, and then to double down and call them an "it". You're lucky that Dennis Brown closed the discussion first; as Black Kite and MastCell noted at AE your hurtful and childish behavior was certainly blockworthy.
- And now you're playing games with trying to make test-case edits that push at the boundaries of your topic ban, which does not speak well of your judgement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Forgive me. But it's best that I not get into this with you. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you appeal an admin action on an admin board, you're going to get admin commenting. You don't really have a choice. Best to just accept the comment and not reply at all then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Forgive me. But it's best that I not get into this with you. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- GoodDay, why have you not linked to the discussion wherein the TBan was implemented/decided? Not doing that makes this thread feel like a one-sided rant, and in bad faith. Softlavender (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm also quite shocked at how un-remorseful this appeal is. It's more focused on the fact you feel direly wronged and punished when a better angle would have been to explain that you know where you went wrong, but the sanction was procedurally incorrect. This sanction really has been a long time coming. At Talk:Demi Lovato, you sided morally with an editor who did not believe in NB people. You continued this on the editor's talk page. When I expressed that your comments were off-topic and unhelpful, you struck your comments out but were not apologetic at all. Your stance is obvious, but there was nothing blockable or sanctionable about that whole thing. It does, however, make it way more shocking when you tripled down on misgendering Newimpartial. It's the most disgusting thing you could do online to a trans person, and you really meant what you said. Your apology was really only a pact to not say that again, because the unfortunate fact here which we all know is that, in your head, what you said was reality and you really really meant that. And there's nothing you could do to change that fact, but you could at least pretend to give a fuck about your fellow editor. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Took the words right out of my mouth Versace. The fact that GoodDay took the easy way out of TenOfAllTrades' message speaks volumes. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Now he's implying that it's the gender and identity arbcom ruling that is dividing editors, and not...I'm sure you get what I'm saying. He clearly does not understand why he was sanctioned to begin with and because of that I strongly endorse the TBAN. —VersaceSpace 🌃 02:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Took the words right out of my mouth Versace. The fact that GoodDay took the easy way out of TenOfAllTrades' message speaks volumes. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 01:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Procedural note: as I understand it, AN appeals are eventually decided by consensus of uninvolved editors. I haven't seen enough of them to be confident enough to make this move myself, but shouldn't we create subsections for comments from uninvolved vs. involved editors? It will be challenging, I think, for a closer to determine the relevant consensus if everything is mixed together, and so far no one has disclosed their involvement status. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would I be involved? To be honest I'm not really sure, since I responded to him at talk:Demi Lovato. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Great question! I also am unsure if I'm involved, having commented at the AE request. Trying to take it one question at a time. (If you want my opinion, no, you're not involved) Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- If we had used Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal, we'd have gotten this guidance:
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Note that this seems mainly geared toward AE appeals (as opposed to AN), but I think most of the advice works. By this measure, I'm involved, and VersaceSpace, you might be depending on how "current" the Lovato dispute is. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would I be involved? To be honest I'm not really sure, since I responded to him at talk:Demi Lovato. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse TBAN (uninvolved editor). It was decided by three admins, two of whom would have preferred a block. Editor can always wait six months to a year or so and appeal the TBAN, assuming they acknowledge their problematic behavior that led to the TBAN (which hasn't even been done here), and with the understanding that their editing in the meantime will be scrutinized. Softlavender (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
As I have done at WP:AE (repeatedly), I now do so here. Two or so days ago (maybe more), I lost my 'cool', when something happened to a post of mine at a BLP discussion (for more details on the situation? read the WP:AE report) & mentioned this situation, on another editor's talkpage & used a word, that wasn't acceptable. To @Newimpartial:. I humbly, apologise for the word-in-question, that I used to describe you & hope that you'll accept. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have done my best to AGF (and be a good restorative justice person) in these edits. While they mention a 1-way IBAN, I recognized in a later edit that a TBAN would also work, and explained how I propose (not) to interact going forward. I am unaware of anything that has happened since then that would change the perspective I set out in those (fairly considered) comments. Newimpartial (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Please note, an appeal of a AE sanction is to find if there was an error in judgement or an error in procedure. It is NOT a second bite at the apple. You can either endorse the existing close, or you can overturn (revert my close, which no single admin can do, only the community can do) it and it can be reopened and another admin can take action, but AE actions are not decided by the community, but by uninvolved admin at AE itself. Two other admin have already participated, leaning towards blocks, so likely one of those would close it. Again, this is an Arbitration Enforcement case, not an ANI case or random admin action. All we can do here is leave it as is, or reopen it there. This is why I'm a bit surprised it was appealed, since the sanction given was the mildest of all suggestions there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse, a moderate and thoroughly defensible sanction. After calling an editor "it" you were damn lucky not to get indeffed.—S Marshall T/C 02:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Question If I read this correctly, GoodDay referred to a trans editor as "it", was given a topic ban on all things gender/sex related, and then in the course of this discussion edited the page of a trans rights activist? Why were they not blocked in the first instance and how have they not been blocked for a flagrant violation of their topic ban? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Because it was explained to me that such edits wouldn't be a breach, if they weren't related to the LGBTQ topic. Changing an 'endash', is (as I've been given to understand) not a breach. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here's the order of events: It was certainly some dangerous water-testing. It was not "explained to you the such edits wouldn't be a breach", and you missed DB's clear advice about how to proceed if unsure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:01, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown:
Some articles must be avoided altogether, others, you just need to stay away from anything gender/sex related.
- GoodDay:
Would you give me a bio as an example? That way, I could demonstrate to you 'how' I would edit it.
- Dennis Brown told you to ask an admin if you're unsure about an edit.
- nableezy (not an admin) mentioned Janetta Johnson as an example of an article that
might be entirely off-limits
, also saying that gnomish edits theremay also be fine
- GoodDay made a gnomish edit to Johnson's article.
- I thought @Nableezy: was an administrator. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- So, after receiving the advice from a non-admin that Janetta Johnson might be off-limits, you went and scanned her article for any errors and made a selective MOS edit, in direct violation of your topic ban (broadly construed, as we both recall). Again, not the best reflection of your judgment. This is the demeanor expected of a teenager, not a grown and aging man. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown:
- Here's the order of events:
- Because it was explained to me that such edits wouldn't be a breach, if they weren't related to the LGBTQ topic. Changing an 'endash', is (as I've been given to understand) not a breach. GoodDay (talk) 03:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: if you're an administrator. Would you close this thread as appeal withdrawn? Dennis, has been off the 'pedia for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin, GoodDay. I'm not confident enough in this process to know if I could close the discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Firefangledfeathers: if you're an administrator. Would you close this thread as appeal withdrawn? Dennis, has been off the 'pedia for awhile. GoodDay (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @GoodDay You were just topic banned from gender/sex pages because of an offensive somment yu made towards a trans editor and you chose to edit a page about a trans rights activist? Why would you do that? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- At this point. No matter what I do or don't do, I'm wrong. I'm a piece of garbage, a disgusting figure, a individual who doesn't deserve to live, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Those are your words, not mine. No one has said anything like that. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- At this point. No matter what I do or don't do, I'm wrong. I'm a piece of garbage, a disgusting figure, a individual who doesn't deserve to live, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Appeal withdrawn
After 3 'edit conflicts'. I wish the appeal to be withdrawn & I request that administrator Dennis Brown perform the task. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Request for block of GoodDay
I just did a search and found out that GoodDay was a subject of an Arbitration Committee case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay. He was given a topic ban as the result of that case. He was also blocked more than once for violating that topic ban. GoodDay should therefore be aware of what a topic ban means. His edit to the page of a trans rights activist was deliberately provocative and a clear violation of his recently imposed topic ban on gender/sex topics. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
IP editor continuing to add spam links despite warnings
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The IP editor 66.249.253.246 has been given three warnings to stop adding Sweetwater Sound spam links to articles but has not stopped. Please could an administrator take a look. SailingInABathTub (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- My instincts tells me, the IP is likely a ban evading editor. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- The IP is registered to the company they are spamming a link to, I've reported them to WP:AIV PHANTOMTECH (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Unlocking page for Kobi Arad
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I had posted about this before, but the thread just timed out and got archived. The issue that I am facing is that Kobi Arad's name was blocked due to prior issues with sock poppets and UPE. Some admins posted reluctance to unlock the page citing the reason as me being a new editor and inexperienced. I went ahead and posted the draft in my userpage here User:Dwnloda/sandbox, so I could get comments on its quality, but no one bothered to review it. So I went ahead an posted a request in 3 other forums and have gotten favorable reviews of the draft. Some provided advice to fix a few things, which I have done now. Overall they said it was fine to be submitted to AFC. For details, please check these links: Help Desk, Tea House and Wiki Project Muscians. Could you let me know if you agree with my request now and unlock the page? Dwnloda (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Dwnloda. I have moved your sandbox draft to the encyclopedia. Well done. Please add categories. Cullen328 (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:RPP
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fairly large backlog, also if some one could review this request. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The Storch request has been removed, seems to be true. Backlog remains. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just noting, the RFPP backlog is at 53 pending requests as of this writing. Musashi1600 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- The RFPP backlog is all the way down to 13 pending requests. Thanks to Praxidicae, ToBeFree, Favonian, Bbb23, Malcolmxl5, Mifter, and Tamzin, among other admins, for their work in bringing that number down over the past couple days. Mahalo, Musashi1600 (talk) 14:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not an admin but you're welcome :P PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Challenging closure of Political legacies thread
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. "This is a request to review the close of the Political legacies thread in the Donald Trump page, performed by User:SPECIFICO (henceforward "the closer"), on 14:11, 25 June 2022, in order to determine whether
- the closer,
- was an editor who should have closed,
- used a proper reason to close,
- interpreted the consensus incorrectly.
- and if the thread should be reopened
I discussed the closure with the closer in their talk page—following the guidance in WP:Close and Challenging other closures—in a thread titled Request to reopen discussion."
I did investigate policies and guidelines for hours before doing so. Unfortunately, a couple more editors joined and the discussion devolved in some uncivil and baseless accusations against me, for example telling me that I was "pestering", something I attribute to they, consciously or subconsciously, not agreeing with my opinion or trying to shut off discussion. After doing a lot of work in preparation for a discussion, such accusations can be very disappointing. I did tell the closer that I did not want further processes with administrators, not as a warning or threat, but rather because it involves effort and time that I wanted to spend elsewhere and in my view my argument was pretty evident. But here I am, having taken 3 or more hours to write this presentation.
Following are my points regarding the closure and the respective support by Wikipedia guidance.
1.The closer
- was not an editor who should have closed the discussion, because the closer was an involved editor in the thread dispute.
- per WP:Involved, "In general, editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved." Although this is an administrator policy, the mentioned text applies to all editors.
- Per WP:Close, "Most discussions don't need closure at all, but when they do, any uninvolved editor may close most of them – not just admins."
- I have to point out that this was a contentious circumstance where the editor who started the thread didn't agree with other editors and at least one editor apparently supported or understood support for inclusion of some of the text in dispute.
- Per WP:Talk, "Any uninvolved editor may write a closing statement for most discussions, not just admins."
- Per Template:Hidden archive top (the template the closer used), "This template should only be used by uninvolved editors in conjunction with the talk page guidelines and relevant advice at refactoring. It should not be used by involved parties to end a discussion over the objections of other editors."
- Per WP:Refactor, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to any refactoring that was performed, those changes should be reverted."
- didn't use a proper reason to close. The stated summary of the closing was, "@SandRand97: actually, we won't "be here all day", because the WP:BURDEN is entirely on you to show that your proposed content comports with our Policies and Guidelines regarding Verification, Neutral Point of View, and article Lead sections. If you have well-reasoned policy-based arguments and sources, please present them here. Nobody is obligated to respond to you."
- Per WP:Talk, "A rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this."
- The closer stated in their talk page challenge discussion, "OP said they would not further contest the consenus [sic]", but in the closure summary, the closer wrote, "If you have well-reasoned policy-based arguments and sources, please present them here." While telling SandRand97 (henceforward, "the OP") to present the arguments, the closer closed discussion, which is contradictory to the invitation to "present them here", discouraging a new thread and it is pointless starting a new thread about the same issue. Furthermore, although the OP wrote, "It’s a fact that the original imposition of Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional, not an opinion. I’m not going to argue about it because there’s nothing to argue about", the OP didn't want to argue about the constitutionality, not necessarily about the removal of their post, which was the topic of the thread. In addition, the OP did reply after writing this.
The closer stated in the OP thread, "Again I don’t want to get into an argument about this because we’ll be here all day and I’m sure we all have better things to do." The closer urge was apparently to keep with their affairs elsewhere, not seemingly caring about trying to reach consensus in the regular alloted time.
- Per WP:Consensus, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
- The closer in the stated closure summary did not make a legitimate effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. The discussion was closed in less than five hours without reaching consensus and without resolving the issue properly, because the closer or other editors didn't want to or wasn't going to "be here all day".
- Per WP:Talk, "A rule of thumb is that discussions should be kept open at least a week before closing, although there are some exceptions to this."
- interpreted the consensus incorrectly. As mentioned before, the discussion was closed prematurely as to be able to reach consensus, the closer failed to properly take into account or interpret the comments by the OP and JLo-Watson, and didn't follow the spirit of the purpose of discussion to try to reach consensus.
Per the aforementioned reasons,
2.It is my opinion that the Political legacies thread should be reopened. Thinker78 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thinker, in your point 1.2.2 above you have reversed OP and Closer in the attribution of the quotation from the talk page. You may wish to reconsider your interpretation of the quoted text. SPECIFICO talk 19:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- It was just a whinge by a drive-by new user, upset at being reverted, and said user never even returned to the topic to contribute after the initial post. The Donald Trump archives are littered with these one-and-done topics that are just complaints, not serious or worthwhile editing concerns. This was also almost a week ago, and you (Thinker78) didn't even participate in it to begin with. Surely there's better things to do with your time rather than officious rules-lawyering? ValarianB (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Endorse close (uninvolved) and trout the OP for this time-wasting exercise. For the record, the proposed text under consideration was for the lead of Donald Trump to say:
Editors were right to object to the proposal on NPOV or V grounds, and SPECIFICO did us all a favor in closing an infeasibly fruitful discussion. I had previously counseled Thinker78 to start a new discussion if there were a part of the proposal they liked rather than waste time on process discussions. I am sorry to see this posting, which they spent three hours on, instead of a talk page post. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Trump’s most notable political legacies are his two impeachments, his alleged provocation of the January 6th attack and being singlehandedly procedurally responsible for giving abortion law-making in the U.S. back to state legislatures. The latter due to all three of his conservative Supreme Court judge appointees voting to overturn Roe v. Wade in June 2022, which was unconstitutionally imposed at the federal level in January 1973.
I won't challenge this non-admin close, even though the nonadmin closer User:Objective3000 is an involved editor ([54], but it does irk me, since I had already spent an hour compiling diffs to request DS- US politics- boomerang block against User:Thinker78 to prevent future harassment. I reserve option of using this history if I make such a filing in the future. @Thinker78, The goal is prevention not punishment. Please review WP:CIR as you contemplate "prevention not punishment" being the goal of our block policy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that per WP:CLOSE, SPECIFICO should not have closed a discussion they were participating in. Or if they thought the discussion violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they should not have posted to it, but just closed it.
- Personally, I believe that closing was correct because of the tone of the original editor. When judges err in law, we do not say they acted unconstitutionally, unless they knowingly did so. And labelling mainstream opinion "left-wing" gives a false equivalency to fringe right-wing views, which is not how weight is determined. The article on Trump should be mostly negative, because that is how he is covered in reliable sources. But many of these types of articles are more negative than the source material and should be corrected.
- I have never seen objections to closings brought to ANI and suggest it be dealt with on the talk page. If no progress is made there, then it could be taken to a content noticeboard. But make sure that the objection is based on policy or guidelines and is phrased in a neutral, non-combative tone.
- TFD (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'd just like to note that Thinker78 did follow the advice of an info page when they posted to this forum. However, Thinker78 may not be aware that "information pages" are comparable to essays, and just reflect the opinions of someone-or-other, but they're not formal WP:Policies and guidelines. Personally, I don't care what forum in indicated. But whatever forum that may be, the info page should be verified or modified to say so clearly, to help the next person who wants to challenge a closure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am not understanding why some editors are saying this is an improper forum or to take it to the talk page. I followed literally what Close says. It states, in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, "Depending on the type of discussion, a review will take place at one of several review boards, and distinct criteria are used for each board. In general, deletions are discussed at WP:Deletion review, moves are discussed at WP:Move review, and other closures (including requests for comment[1]) are discussed at WP:AN." Later on, it states, under "Challenging other closures", "For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard." I did my due diligence researching the proper policies and guidelines and User:Objective3000 and other editors could at the very least cite ONE guideline or policy from where they base their actions or opinions telling me that this is not the proper venue, because it is starting to look very arbitrary if they just cite their opinions out of the blue, and all the implied threats against me going on. Thinker78 (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think you ask a valuable procedural question, viz-a-viz, what is the "proper" way to challenge a closure? And though we have often butted heads, I applaud your research and following the available info and posting here, just as the info page instructs. HOWEVER... FYI, "information" pages have the same wikilawyer "validity" as essays which is to say..... not a hell of a lot, unless the community has been thundering about them for a long time, which in this case they have not. So in short, I am also confused as to the correct forum for such conversations, and I'm hopeful that one constructive result of this debate is a clarification in our much more heavy-hitting WP:P&G NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- A few editors are telling me to bring this closure discussion to the article talk page, but Per WP:TALK#TOPIC, under "How to use article talk pages", "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article" and "No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace." Thinker78 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy, WP:Close may be an information page but it provides guidance that I didn't find contradicted elsewhere. In addition, it is cited by the consensus policy WP:DETCON.--Thinker78 (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- This wasn't a closure of an WP:RfC, WP:AfD or the like. A discussion was hatted. You could have then made a suggestion to improve the article on the TP; instead of attempting to bring in an administrator. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- O3000, Ret. That's your interpretation, but my interpretation is that WP:CLOSE (Wikipedia:Closing discussions), is precisely that, a guide to close discussions. A discussion was closed, then I based my challenge to the closure on the guidance provided by Wikipedia:Closing discussions. In addition, I cited Wikipedia guidance, whereas you just closed the above without citing any single Wikipedia guidance, just your subjective, arbitrary, threatening opinion. Although Im not sure if you intended to threaten/warn me or you were trying, in your view, to prevent me getting in trouble by other editors. Btw, what is TP? Thinker78 (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, who freaking cares, you are picking the most ridiculously-small molehill and building Mt. Everest out of it. In all this rules-citing and such, have you by chance come across WP:NOTBURO yet? It is kinda applicable here. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- Zaathras, per WP:NOTBURO, "Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles." I did consider the principles of the guidance I cited in my challenge. An editor, SandRand97, may have worked a couple of hours in an edit, was mercilessly reverted, and the discussion where they wanted to discuss the issue was even closed in a matter of hours. I don't think that is an adequate practice to follow. If their long work was reverted, at least properly discuss it to try to reach consensus in a reasonable length of time, not in a few hours. Granted, now I see that SandRand97 bailed out, but we need to see that they were probably frustrated their edit was reverted. So in my opinion it was time for the community to keep discussing whether the reverted text, part of it or a form of it could be included in the article. Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- "mercilessly reverted". Good lord, the hyperbole... Zaathras (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Thinker78: if an editor works 2 hours on something that is fundamentally against our content policies that's on them not us. But also, 2 hours or not, allowing them to waste even more of their time, and our time, discussing something that has no chance in hell of being implemented isn't helping anyone in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne Well, you think that, evidently that other editor didn't think that. The issue is that there are quite a few editors who are too prone to try to quash as soon as possible those who don't think like them. That's one reason why it's a good idea to respect the regular time to determine consensus of at least 7 days. Not thinking about anyone in particular, but in general many times some editors even resort to phony accusations to try to shut down debate, like tendentious editing, disruptive editing, not getting the point, and the like. Not saying that these kind of edits don't happen, but the point is that such accusations are used sometimes in an illegitimate and dishonest way to silence others, specially editors who are not in the mainstream line of narrative. For some reason, some don't like the idea of free flow of information and debate to determine consensus in a reasonable manner. And this is actually a reflection of life outside of Wikipedia and attitudes of people with one another. Thinker78 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Thinker78: You wrote
Well, you think that, evidently that other editor didn't think that.
- Could you clarify what you mean by "that" and who you mean by "that other editor" about whom you claim there's evidence of their view? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)- @SPECIFICO "Well, you think that", referring to the opinion of Nil Einne; "evidently that other editor didn't think that", referring to SandRand97, who in my opinion didn't think according to Nil Einne's aforementioned opinion. Why work knowingly for 2 hours against policies and guidelines? Evidently the editor didn't share the opinion they was working "fundamentally against our content policies". Thinker78 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Thinker78: You wrote
- @Nil Einne Well, you think that, evidently that other editor didn't think that. The issue is that there are quite a few editors who are too prone to try to quash as soon as possible those who don't think like them. That's one reason why it's a good idea to respect the regular time to determine consensus of at least 7 days. Not thinking about anyone in particular, but in general many times some editors even resort to phony accusations to try to shut down debate, like tendentious editing, disruptive editing, not getting the point, and the like. Not saying that these kind of edits don't happen, but the point is that such accusations are used sometimes in an illegitimate and dishonest way to silence others, specially editors who are not in the mainstream line of narrative. For some reason, some don't like the idea of free flow of information and debate to determine consensus in a reasonable manner. And this is actually a reflection of life outside of Wikipedia and attitudes of people with one another. Thinker78 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Zaathras, per WP:NOTBURO, "Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles." I did consider the principles of the guidance I cited in my challenge. An editor, SandRand97, may have worked a couple of hours in an edit, was mercilessly reverted, and the discussion where they wanted to discuss the issue was even closed in a matter of hours. I don't think that is an adequate practice to follow. If their long work was reverted, at least properly discuss it to try to reach consensus in a reasonable length of time, not in a few hours. Granted, now I see that SandRand97 bailed out, but we need to see that they were probably frustrated their edit was reverted. So in my opinion it was time for the community to keep discussing whether the reverted text, part of it or a form of it could be included in the article. Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)DS-Alerted editor[55] on a mission, e.g.
..I do want to see more accommodation according to Wikipedia's guidance to seemingly conservative posts and critiques..
[56]. Well that's fine, but to my knowledge in this specific dispute they have not discussed any sources much less suggested any of their own, much less shown any unreasonable bias against such sources.... even though several of us have invited their input at article talk, and pointed out they can start a new thread for this constructive purpose at any time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- At the end of the day, who freaking cares, you are picking the most ridiculously-small molehill and building Mt. Everest out of it. In all this rules-citing and such, have you by chance come across WP:NOTBURO yet? It is kinda applicable here. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- O3000, Ret. That's your interpretation, but my interpretation is that WP:CLOSE (Wikipedia:Closing discussions), is precisely that, a guide to close discussions. A discussion was closed, then I based my challenge to the closure on the guidance provided by Wikipedia:Closing discussions. In addition, I cited Wikipedia guidance, whereas you just closed the above without citing any single Wikipedia guidance, just your subjective, arbitrary, threatening opinion. Although Im not sure if you intended to threaten/warn me or you were trying, in your view, to prevent me getting in trouble by other editors. Btw, what is TP? Thinker78 (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- This wasn't a closure of an WP:RfC, WP:AfD or the like. A discussion was hatted. You could have then made a suggestion to improve the article on the TP; instead of attempting to bring in an administrator. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ See this discussion
Final words
- Can some administrators provide some final words to this discussion before it gets archived? I know most editors think this discussion is focusing too much on process, but I believe that sometimes focusing on the details provides higher quality and better guidance. Evidently the consensus seems to point out that editors agree with the close, but it is my opinion that most of their basis are erroneous. For example, an editor may have said that WP:CLOSE, which I used as a basis to file in this noticeboard, is only an information page, but there is no other guidance I found on this matter that would contradict WP:CLOSE or that would supersede it. Other editors, including the editor who closed the initial discussion, indicated I should have posted this challenge in the article talk page, but per WP:TALK#TOPIC, no meta should be discussed there and I didn't find myself welcome in the talk page of the editor I challenged. ValarianB stated, "It was just a whinge by a drive-by new user", but actually the user (User talk:SandRand97) was not a new user and was not a drive-by, it was seemingly anywhere from 20 minutes to a couple hours worth of work, even taking the time to write in the talk page to challenge the revert. Finally, NewsAndEvent said I was on a mission and that may be true. I am against undue bias and undue censorship. I'd like to see more openness, proper reception of criticism by editors, even fans of Trump, and answers without hostility and trying to respond in an adequate and welcoming manner to concerns, to try to dispel the notion that Wikipedia is a biased project with a political agenda. Thinker78 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The original post was 100% WP:OR and contained zero RS citations. Thus it was not "proper criticism" but SOAP and closed per the TPG. Worse, despite multiple invites to make "proper criticism" with RS and suggested text about Trump's legacy........ which you could do at any time...........we're all still waiting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- When you edit this page, you receive the following admonition: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." As no admin has added to this thread, it would seem it is not an issue affecting administrators generally. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- O3000, Ret. I would appreciate at least guidance to an alternative procedure to challenge talk page discussion closures after no consensus is reached when contacting a closer (keep in mind that WP:TALK#TOPIC says no meta discussions in article talk page). I followed the steps found in WP:CLOSE, because it says "closing discussions". I'm surprised administrators wouldn't even step in to guide me. I am disappointed. Thinker78 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- NewsAndEventsGuy I was focused on this challenge and if the discussion was reopened I was planning on checking it out. But I will gladly open a new thread in the article talk page to discuss. Thinker78 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that you are trying to use WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as a guide. But, this wasn’t a "close" in that sense. Close generally refers to page deletions, moves, merges, splits, RfCs, and other major forms of discussion which normally have suggested minimum time periods. What you are challenging is a simple hatting. As has been suggested by multiple folk, you can handle this at the article talk page by asking why it was hatted or by suggesting a resolution – like alternative text. In any case, this is something the community handles, not administrators (in their admin role); unless the hatting is part of disruptive behavior, which could be handled at WP:ANI or some other drama board. (This is not a suggestion to visit ANI.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- As others have said, you're encouraged to begin a fresh thread on the article talk page, addressing the problems that several editors pointed out before the thread was hatted. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not like Bitcoin mining, where you get rewarded for "work". Here, we create value by sticking to the Policies and Guidelines, again as several editors have explained. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- O3000, Ret., I guess I will open a new thread in a talk page to look for clarification about WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, because when I read "closing discussions" I interpret it to mean every discussion according to the categories listed therein. When I type wp:hatting in the Wikipedia search box, I am redirected to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Marking a closed discussion, where it states, "Closing a discussion means putting a box around it for the purpose of discouraging further contributions to that discussion". Regarding your advise to challenge the closure of the discussion—or the hatting—in the article talk page, I think WP:TALK#TOPIC advises not to, unless I am not understanding the guideline properly. It states, "No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace." Can you tell me your opinion about this latter guideline and its relevancy to the closure of the hatting discussion in the article talk page? Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, I will not answer that question because this is boring everyone. Just do what everyone advises. And do so with fewer words. Unlike what some are taught in schools at various levels; 'Brevity is the soul of wit' O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- O3000, Ret., I guess I will open a new thread in a talk page to look for clarification about WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, because when I read "closing discussions" I interpret it to mean every discussion according to the categories listed therein. When I type wp:hatting in the Wikipedia search box, I am redirected to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Marking a closed discussion, where it states, "Closing a discussion means putting a box around it for the purpose of discouraging further contributions to that discussion". Regarding your advise to challenge the closure of the discussion—or the hatting—in the article talk page, I think WP:TALK#TOPIC advises not to, unless I am not understanding the guideline properly. It states, "No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace." Can you tell me your opinion about this latter guideline and its relevancy to the closure of the hatting discussion in the article talk page? Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- ADMIN GUY COMMENT - We generally do not review closures of informal discussion. It isn't a function of administrators nor the community on the whole. Hatted comments can be reverted for cause, or you can start a new conversation. However, it often does good to read why they hatted it, as they may be right. Administrative review of closures is generally reserved only for formal discussions, like AFD, RFC or (rarely) when there is some kind of abuse or conduct issue at stake in someone archiving/hatting/closing an informal discussion. This doesn't seem to be the case. This IS an admin board, which means we try to stay uninvolved with content disputes and focus only on procedure and behavior. There isn't any hard and fast rules for closing or not closing an informal discussion. This is particularly true in this case, as all SPECIFICO did was hat a discussion he felt was straying into a WP:FORUM violation. It could be argued that it really wasn't, but that alone isn't a reason for an admin to get involved. Closing the discussion above was correct, in my view, and SPECIFICO hatting was questionable, but your options for dealing with it don't include admin intervention at this stage. ie: it isn't a big deal, revert, or don't, and move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Repeated interference and conflict of interest
There is an unconfirmed editor (with no page) with a self-admitted conflict of interest, continually removing valid information and vandalizing a controversial Wikipedia page, Sexy Vegan. The editor is Kristin carlicci. I am not sure how to stop this, as reasonable talks with them and attempts to refer them to Wikipedia standards (also from another member, Hey man im josh, who had to revert several of their edits) has not deterred them. PetSematary182 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182
- Wow, that article is a dumpster fire, there are BLPvios all over the place, horrible sourcing and it's just generally bad. There's currently edit warring over if they're an amatuer musician and "informal political candidate," whatever that is. Kristin carlicci's behavior is bad, but no one is covered in glory here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here's my question: Are they even notable enough for an article? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, but no one wants to deal with the
fanpeoplefootwork of an AFD PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- Just watch me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was about to start looking and removing, so I guess we'll see? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, but no one wants to deal with the
- I'll openly admit to being covered in not-glory. I try to avoid BLP altogether, but like you said, I saw a lot of room for improvement, mostly through deletion. I tempered my approach and tried to only axe what I was sure was problematic but I'm still inexperienced in BLP. I apologize
dif I caused any issues. If I made any big mistakes, please let me know. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)- In the future, if you see something that looks like a problem, feel free to reach out at WP:BLPN for assistance. There's normally a pretty quick turn-around for getting assistance with BLP issues there from editors who are familiar with the sourcing requirements around BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here's my question: Are they even notable enough for an article? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, you didn't notify them of this thread, which is required. I have left them the required notice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've just reverted 3 of Kristin carlicci's edits. They are continuing to ignore the warnings on their talk page (including two of my own) and inserting unsourced material into the Sexy Vegan article. For the mean time I've requested EC page protection for the article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just as a note, User:Kristin carlicci is a likely sockpuppet of User:Dantebish. Both are SPA's dedicated to promoting the same individual (Sexy Vegan) across multiple different pages, and continuously edit warring to get their preferred revisions of pages restored. I have filed a report at SPI here because of this. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- "Dantebish" is most likely Sexy Vegan himself. Sexy Vegan as "Hanz DeBartolo" wrote a book called After Death through an Amazon vanity press (CreateSpace); the main character's name is, I kid you not, "Dante Bish". I don't want to say for certain (it could just be a fan of Vegan's), but if you see this editor or any sockpuppets, it is probably Vegan himself, or a fan/supporter of his. PetSematary182 (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just as a note, User:Kristin carlicci is a likely sockpuppet of User:Dantebish. Both are SPA's dedicated to promoting the same individual (Sexy Vegan) across multiple different pages, and continuously edit warring to get their preferred revisions of pages restored. I have filed a report at SPI here because of this. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- This may or may not shed light on events. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lovely. He's paying people off to delete Wikipedia articles. Somehow though, after all this nonsense today with that Kristin carlicci person (BTW as far as I know that name is of another fictional character from one of Vegan's self-published books), I'm really not at all surprised. 🙄 PetSematary182 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Does he really think an administrator will jeopardize his position for $10? Donald Albury 22:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's not an admin who badgered the article into deletion. Kristin carlicci is an unconfirmed user whose only editing history is of the one Sexy Vegan page now slated for deletion. I can't imagine any seasoned Wikipedia editor/administrator who would have stooped to that level themselves. PetSematary182 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lovely indeed. If such a job were to take place, it would mean severe consequences for both the poster of the job and the admin who took it. JIP | Talk 23:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- In full disclosure I'm the person who nominated the article for deletion. Had this never come to AN, I'd likely never come across the article. However, since it was visible it is to be blunt, an absolute mess of an article about someone that isn't really notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Calling it an absolute mess might be putting it lightly. I'm glad it's looking like WP:SNOW even if I'm unhappy they're going to succeed at paying to get their way. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- In full disclosure I'm the person who nominated the article for deletion. Had this never come to AN, I'd likely never come across the article. However, since it was visible it is to be blunt, an absolute mess of an article about someone that isn't really notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Request for wikipedia page creation for "MVDM: The Magical Volumes Vol.1: The Magick Volume of Dark Madder"
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello!! I want to create a page for "MVDM: The Magical Volumes Vol.1: The Magick Volume of Dark Madder", a EP/21 minute long song by Gospel (hardcore punk band). There is plenty of sources that I can work with. Unfortunately, It apparently has a "non breaking space" which I have tried removing, to no avail. I still want to create this page so can I have this page created? Many thanks. Chchcheckit (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Chchcheckit Try MVDM: The Magical Volumes Vol.1: The Magick Volume of Dark Madder. PHANTOMTECH (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, that's great, thank you! Chchcheckit (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
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 [57] [58] [59] [60]; 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 [57] [58] [59] [60]; 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)
- Apart from issues understanding notability, has there been any issues with JIP's use of the tools? If not, then I don't think there is any real disruption here that warrants relinquishing them; they shouldn't be closing deletion discussions, and they should be sending articles through AfC, but there are plenty of unrelated admin tasks that need to be completed, and looking at their logs they do perform those tasks. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- considering they used their tools to recreate/restore deleted content against consensus and also decline speedies as an admin, yeah I'd say it involves their tool use. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- In that case, see the following proposal; given the issues are restricted to article creation and deletion, I believe a topic ban is a suitable remedy - I also note that them resigning the tools won't address most of the issues, as it won't prevent them from creating problematic articles. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- considering they used their tools to recreate/restore deleted content against consensus and also decline speedies as an admin, yeah I'd say it involves their tool use. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Topic Ban Proposal
To address the issues raised in the previous discussion: JIP is topic-banned by the community from closing or relisting deletion discussions, from declining speedy deletes, from restoring deleted articles, and from creating new articles in mainspace or moving articles to mainspace; they are permitted to submit articles to Articles for Creation for review by an independent editor. This restriction can be appealed in six months.
- Support as proposer. This editor has some mild competence issues with regards to their understanding of notability which is causing disruption in the narrow area of article creation and deletion. This topic ban will address that disruption without requiring that we lose another otherwise-productive admin. In regards to appealing, I would recommend that they do not do so until they can demonstrate that AfC is consistently approving the articles they create. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- And do we think they have the policy knowledge to make other judgement calls w/re tool use? Also this proposal isn't addressing communication issues.
- We might as well just admit it: this community is simply unwilling to consider the idea of whether an admin simply shouldn't be an admin. valereee (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- The community might be unwilling, but whether they are willing or not isn't relevant; only ArbCom can remove an admins tools, and I don't think they would do so in this case - I think this is more similar to the recent Timwi case than the Geschichte or Jonathunder cases.
- As for general policy knowledge, we don't know if JIP has enough to make other judgement calls; if it is discovered that they don't, and they are still unwilling to relinquish the tools, then that can be presented as evidence in an ArbCom case, but for now I believe the most we should do is use the tools we have available to prevent further disruption of the type currently seen. BilledMammal (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and you'll notice my suggestion was for a voluntary desysop. valereee (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you believe the solution isn't suitable, I'm happy to withdraw it; I was looking for a way that we could resolve the situation without them needing to give up the tools, but if this isn't it then it's just a distraction from the broader conversation. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, and you'll notice my suggestion was for a voluntary desysop. valereee (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is basically a community desysop in all but name. There is no way that an admin the community doesn't trust to close AfDs, respond to CSDs, or create articles, will be an admin for much longer. Having said that, my reading of the discussion above is that JIP has readily admitted to making mistakes and is trying to get back up to speed with enwiki policies, and that appetite for sanctioning him is at best mixed, so I don't see how this is a productive proposal at this point. – Joe (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Joe Roe, how are you reading this as 'at best mixed'? I am not seeing anyone saying no action is needed; the closest I'm seeing is a couple people changing their minds once they've actually been made aware of the entire discussion. What are you seeing as 'at best mixed' in anyone's comments here?
- And what are you seeing as sincerely and competently trying to get up to speed? JIP, after having promised to do so and then creating another poorly sourced article ten minutes later, continues to explain they try to pick articles that are 'long enough and well-sourced' but their understanding of that seems to be 'has multiple sources listed' with no recognition that 10 bad sources are not a reason to choose an article to create here. And once again they're editing without responding to a ping here. They shouldn't have to be pinged here, it should be their responsibility to keep up with this discussion and respond when someone addresses them directly. This is IMO evidence of ignoring something in hopes it will go away. That is not operating in good faith. This is an admin doing these things. By which I mean "if this were not an admin someone would have blocked them days ago." valereee (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes but, conversely, only you and Prax have explicitly called for immediate action. Hence 'mixed'.
- Clearly there is a difference of opinion here in terms of what counts as a good enough article to translate. That JIP has not immediately swung round to your point of view does not mean that he's not listening. Nor does not responding to every single comment here and on his talk page make him unresponsive. Kusma has already pointed out that these articles would have been fine 10 years ago. In my RfA five years ago, I got a bit of flak for doing exactly the same thing as JIP with Novoarkhanhelsk, but nobody opposed because of it. So while yes, our standards evolve and JIP should try to get up to speed, I don't think it's changed so much that translating imperfect articles is grounds for a desysop. The argument that a poorly-sourced translation is a better starting point for a good article than a red link is still within the wiki-Overton window, I think. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am really not enjoying being the loud one here, but just to clarify, you seem to be saying that when multiple people are expressing a valid concern about your competence to edit, either at your talk or at a noticeboard, it's fine if you keep making the same kinds of incompetent edits (ten minutes after promising not to) and it's also fine if you just don't respond to those concerns, over and over and over again, by either archiving the posts unanswered or by ignoring noticeboard discussions for days at a time? Because I am finding this very surprising. I would have thought that most admins would be saying the opposite. valereee (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm saying that JIP probably doesn't see his edits as incompetent and that, after acknowledging and saying he'll act on the criticisms he's received here, it's reasonable if he wants to busy himself with other things. For me, personally, that isn't conduct that screams out for sanctions, though I absolutely see why you brought this here in the first place. – Joe (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am really not enjoying being the loud one here, but just to clarify, you seem to be saying that when multiple people are expressing a valid concern about your competence to edit, either at your talk or at a noticeboard, it's fine if you keep making the same kinds of incompetent edits (ten minutes after promising not to) and it's also fine if you just don't respond to those concerns, over and over and over again, by either archiving the posts unanswered or by ignoring noticeboard discussions for days at a time? Because I am finding this very surprising. I would have thought that most admins would be saying the opposite. valereee (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- My "sigh" comment, and the subsequent clarification notwithstanding, I don't believe any action is needed at this time. JIP has been around for 17 years. I'm not saying that makes him WP:UNBLOCKABLE, but let's give him some time to absorb what people are saying without feeling backed into a corner. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- JIP this morning archived unreplied this edit from a few hours ago, which was made in response to the notification of this AfD, which mentions that the nominator tried to discuss the Pizzataxi article with JIP, but their post on JIP's talk was archived without response. valereee (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Possibly, they've given up on all those pages and are archive-and-forgetting...? I haven't read the material in this thread closely, but I agree that such a broad TBAN is not really suitable for admins. If a desysop is warranted, which it may well be, it should happen at WP:RFAR. Additional sanctions, such as the aforementioned TBAN could follow that (imposed by ARBCOM), or brought up to the community separately.
- I'm just not sure immediate action by way of this thread/proposal is that feasible. I think the issue of JIP's advanced permissions ought to be tackled first. In my view, it would reflect poorly on the project to have a sysop who'd be unable to do what virtually every other user could. This isn't like the (now-expired) TBAN of admin Mzajac (whom I sanctioned) from Kyiv — again, it is very broad. El_C 18:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- They this morning archived the post which was made this morning after the AfD notification had been posted this morning and someone responded this morning.
- The AfD which was posted this morning included an explanation that, six weeks ago, the person making the nom had tried to contact JIP about the article being poorly sourced and JIP didn't bother to respond.
- As has happened multiple times before, JIP just let the orginal post from six weeks ago expressing concern get archived. Then this morning, they very quickly archived posts about it. So, no. This wasn't because they're archiving and forgetting. This is an ongoing problem that happened again this morning.
- I keep thinking I should stop responding. But I feel like I have to respond to what seems like a misunderstanding. This isn't archiving-and-forgetting. This is happening in real time, now, after over two weeks of discussion, much of which JIP hasn't bothered to respond to. valereee (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Like I said, either they're done, or they're not. I don't know which it is. But if they gave up on those pages (and creating ones like them), then they don't really need to do anything. Granted, it's poor form not to say anything (and to leave us guessing as to the meaning of their recent archiving), especially after the broken promises, but in my view, that action still wouldn't be sanctionable yet. Yours and others' mileage may vary, though. And as noted, mine was just a passing comment. I don't know a great deal about this case to be able to remark on it with confidence, so FWIW. El_C 21:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just this morning, I received thirty notices that VR train templates I had originally created in 2007 were nominated for deletion because they were unused and obsolete. I routinely archive my talk page once it goes past thirty topics, so the previous discussions got archived in the process. I was not the only editor who got multiple notices about obsolete VR train templates. I intend to take this matter up on some forum later, that could it be possible to prevent so many mass notices in one go. JIP | Talk 22:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, per RoySmith. If this wasn't an admin, we wouldn't be rushing to sanction, we would mentor, or have this discussion and give it a chance to sink in. Admin don't need special treatment, but let's give him equal treatment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm only commenting on one small piece of this (and not even hinting anything more than that) which is new/imported article creation which is much-discussed above. In NPP work I've looked at about 1,000 new articles in the last month (including maybe 200 imported ones). Creating new articles without including GNG-establishing sourcing (where wp:notability looks like at least a plausible possibility), while it makes our NPP life hell, and while I would advocate draftifying to lean on the creator to add such sources, is a common practice and not a conduct problem. Even more so for creating a new article with other flaws in it......such can be considered merely an article that needs work / development. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Normally, I'd agree but have you ever tried to draftify an article created by an administrator? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- @PRAXIDICAE: I agree with you. I just mentioned that as a sidebar. My only real points were very narrow: 1. That those particular poor practices that I mentioned are not a mis-conduct issue. 2. That other flaws in an article are common, not a misconduct issue. I agree that something should be done. North8000 (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Normally, I'd agree but have you ever tried to draftify an article created by an administrator? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any case at all being made for most of this."Closing and relisting deletion discussions": Which deletion discussions has he closed or relisted improperly? Really, what deletion discussions has he recently closed or relisted at all? The only ones he's even edited this year that I see are WP:Articles for deletion/Cultural differences between Kazakhstan and Malaysia, WP:Articles for deletion/Lordi's Rocktaurant (2nd nomination) (for an article he started), and several discussions on WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17."from declining speedy deletes": There's no evidence of this being a problem in general, only for his removal of the db-g4 from Hotel Korpilampi, an article he created. That one case, though, is deeply problematic. JIP, we block people for that, when repeated after a warning. It happens often enough that we have specific warning templates for it, {{uw-speedy1}}-{{uw-speedy4}}. It's especially bad when it's an administrator or other very experienced editor that does it, since it looks like a "Rules for thee, not for me" kind of situation. You screwed up, we've warned you, don't do it again. That should be the end of it."Restoring deleted articles": No reason's been put forward why this is a problem, except when combined with the fourth arm,..."from creating new articles in mainspace or moving articles to mainspace": This is the only part with any kind of evidence of a broad problem here. Like Dennis Brown, though, I don't think we'd be topic banning a non-administrator editor here yet. Removing autopatrolled? Yes, in a heartbeat. But JIP's not autopatrolled. —Cryptic 23:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- This pile-on looks more like general skepticism of legacy admins than any solid case for action. The involved removal of the CSD tag was an obvious error which JIP admitted. Trout for that. They probably should be more communicative for their own good, if nothing else. That was their other major error -- not knowing (or not fully appreciating) that if you don't respond very promptly when people raise problems, then things will go badly for you at AN/ANI (especially if you're an admin ... why don't we have more of those again?). Looks like some of their articles are being merged, some kept, some edited, etc. I'm just not sold that there are egregious problems here that call for dumping a ton of bricks on them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Just to note, if anyone is wondering, I did not create the original version of the article Hotel Korpilampi, it was created by another user. I only created the second version, after the original version had been deleted. The reason the versions are so similar is that they had been translated from the same article on the Finnish Wikipedia. I did not use my admin tools to recreate the article but instead created it by hand. JIP | Talk 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak oppose. I hate to play devil's advocate, but it seems that this is their only warning, so I think they should get their WP:ROPE. If their behavior doesn't stop, I support this, but for now, I don't support this. CLYDE (TALK) @PING ME! 03:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per WP:ADMINACCT, only the Arbitration Committee has the prerogative to sanction or de-sysop an admin in this manner.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 11:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe your technicality depends on how one interprets
Administrators ... may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee
from that section; to me, that reads as "may be sanctioned" OR "have their rights removed by the Arbitration Committee"; ArbCom definitely has the sole ability (at current) to remove rights, but I do not feel that we are the only ones who can even give regular sanctions to admins. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)- It might well be an issue of wording. If the intent of that statement is to allow admins to be sanctioned by their peers, it might be worth clarifying that to prevent future Wiki-lawyering. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Definitely a fair point, and likely something to discuss in a separate thread. I will note that in March 2021 an admin was successfully topic-banned at ANI, so there is a small precedent. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- My reading of WP:ADMINACCT is that only arbcom can sanction an admin's use of the admin tools. It's rare that arbcom imposes any sanction short of being desysopped but it does happen; I had to go back to 2017 to find an example: Magioladitis is restricted from unblocking their own bot when it has been blocked by another administrator (although, they did get a full desysop not long after that). And, WaltCip, it's not an admin's peers that can impose sanctions. Arbcom is not a peer, they're a supervisor. The topic ban being discussed here would cover:
- closing or relisting deletion discussions
- declining speedy deletes
- restoring deleted articles
- creating new articles in mainspace
- moving articles to mainspace
- Of those, only the "restoring deleted articles" item requires the use of admin tools, so I would think that's something the community cannot do, but all the others are within scope of WP:CBAN.
- I'm not saying we should do any of those things. I'm just responding to the narrow question of what a CBAN can cover vs what requires arbcom action. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
it's not an admin's peers that can impose sanctions. Arbcom is not a peer
That is my argument, that regular admins can't sanction other admins; only Arbcom can. That differs from your reading, of course, which is that they can so long as it's not prohibiting admin actions.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- My reading of WP:ADMINACCT is that only arbcom can sanction an admin's use of the admin tools. It's rare that arbcom imposes any sanction short of being desysopped but it does happen; I had to go back to 2017 to find an example: Magioladitis is restricted from unblocking their own bot when it has been blocked by another administrator (although, they did get a full desysop not long after that). And, WaltCip, it's not an admin's peers that can impose sanctions. Arbcom is not a peer, they're a supervisor. The topic ban being discussed here would cover:
- Definitely a fair point, and likely something to discuss in a separate thread. I will note that in March 2021 an admin was successfully topic-banned at ANI, so there is a small precedent. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- It might well be an issue of wording. If the intent of that statement is to allow admins to be sanctioned by their peers, it might be worth clarifying that to prevent future Wiki-lawyering. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe your technicality depends on how one interprets
User cannot edit their GA nom
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey, I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I believe an administrator would be the best person to solve this problem, so I'll take a go at it.
User Moonlight+BLONK nominated Thank U, Next for good article status yesterday. I picked up the nomination later the same day. I began reviewing the nomination, and among the article's several issues (a cn-tag among them), I noticed that the nominator had 1. never edited the article before and 2. wasn't extended-confirmed and therefore is unable to edit the article. This is a major problem, obviously, as the nominator is the main one who's supposed to be doing the fixing, and the user cannot implement the fixes I recommended.
So, even though neither of these are really permitted (or expressly permitted) by policy, I'd like to request that either:
a. Moonlight+BLONK be granted with early extended-confirmed permissions for the purpose of editing this article (or some sort of perm to edit this specific article) or b. The protection for Thank U, Next be reduced to auto-confirmed (at least until the review is done).
Again, I do not even know if this is the correct venue to ask this at, if not, please assist me. I probably could have quick-failed the article, but I do not want to intimidate a well-meaning contributor. --VersaceSpace 🌃 16:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is EC permission overridable? We seem to have two choices here, either place the GA Nom on hold until such time as Moonlight+BLONK gains EC permission, or if it is possible, a temporary granting of EC permission to allow editing the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I'm not sure it's a "time" issue. The user has had an account for over a year, it's the 500 edits part that's holding this up. The editor has ~130 edits. --VersaceSpace 🌃 19:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Does the article still need to be EC protected? Does the reason given on 4 November 2020 still apply? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging the protecting administrator RoySmith for your input please. Can the protection be lowered to semi-protection? Noting that there was a sockpuppetry problem. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- The associated SPI case for the most recent page protection is still active (MariaJaydHicky), but not sure if extended confirmed protection is needed. Semi protection is probably fine. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember any of the details of the block, but sure, semi-protection seems perfectly reasonable. I've reduced the protection level to that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. --VersaceSpace 🌃 19:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, for future reference, WP:RPP is the official place for these kinds of requests. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm aware, but I didn't have a <policy> based reason for requesting this so I figured it would make more sense to discuss it here. --VersaceSpace 🌃 19:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I can't think of any better policy than, This will help get an article to GA -- RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm aware, but I didn't have a <policy> based reason for requesting this so I figured it would make more sense to discuss it here. --VersaceSpace 🌃 19:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, for future reference, WP:RPP is the official place for these kinds of requests. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. --VersaceSpace 🌃 19:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't remember any of the details of the block, but sure, semi-protection seems perfectly reasonable. I've reduced the protection level to that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Does the article still need to be EC protected? Does the reason given on 4 November 2020 still apply? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: I'm not sure it's a "time" issue. The user has had an account for over a year, it's the 500 edits part that's holding this up. The editor has ~130 edits. --VersaceSpace 🌃 19:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Changing content model of a user page
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220724233553im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Purple_arrow_right.svg/20px-Purple_arrow_right.svg.png)
Primefac (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Adding comments to a closed RM
In these two edits, two comments were added to a closed RM. Both users are relatively new (one is a new account from earlier this year, the other has just over 500 edits), so I don’t want to “bite the newbie”. Also I was an “involved” party in the RM. Please could an admin advise on the right action to take? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was also involved, but it was an archived discussion so I just moved those comments to outside of the archived area. nableezy - 09:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
- Since all you were doing was clerking the discussion without changing the words, I don't think "involved" is at issue. And moving them outside the closed discussion is exactly what I would have done, so anyone looking at it later would understand they weren't included in the final decision. That's the least drama causing solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Raphael Gomes
I wish to review Draft:Raphael Gomes; please could someone restore it as a draft, or to my user space, or email me the markup? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't WP:RFUD be more appropriate to request this than AN? PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Restored, Pigsonthewing. But as above, WP:REFUND is probably the best place for requests of this kind. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20220724233553im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
French Wikipedia
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ask the French Wikipedia administrators to follow the normal Wikipedia format. The new French format is unhelpful and unpractical. 70.30.78.143 (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- We have no control over how the French Wikipedia is administrated. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
fr.wiki has made Vector 2022 the default skin.- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Topic ban requested for multiple users on American History articles
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the talk page of Founding Fathers of the United States, a number of RFCs have been initiated on the question about signers of the Continental Association (CA) should being described or not in that article as Founding Fathers. The pattern is that the RFCs go against the viewpoints and preferences of certain contributors so they initiate new discussions such as this or new RFCs, i.e. this RFC, this, and this (denoted as "revisited"), with essentially the exact same purpose, i.e. how to categorize in Wikipedia the CA signers as Founding Fathers.There is no use in rehashing the long arguments here once more, nor should that be allowed: This is about certain contributors explicitly violating consensus. (See Allreet's firm objection to the practice.) Therefore, and without taking any joy in it, I propose that a topic ban be applied for all articles about the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period of the history of the United States on users Gwillhickers, Randy Kryn, and TheVirginiaHistorian. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- pinging: Binksternet, Gog the Mild, Robert McClenon, North8000, Orson12345, and Pincrete. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- pinging: Gwillhickers, TheVirginiaHistorian, Mhawk10, Sideswipe9th, Randy Kryn, and Allreet. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- pinging: Thucydides411, Firefangledfeathers, Rjensen, and Atsme. -The Gnome (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- Proud to be among those named in this weird and, if I may say, misguided request. Please realize that consensus has not been violated, not once, and also please realize that Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian are two of the longest serving, most trusted, and productive members building and refining Wikipedia's American founding documents and founding events collection, and in the recent discussions have provided so many productive edits and analysis that it seems The Gnome is working from an alternate Wikipedia than I've visited. I would not recommend a boomerang for The Gnome (too easy, although a trout or two not out of the realm of supplemental fish). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Let's check the veracity the absurd claim that "consensus has not been violated", on which, moreover, a boomerang threat is plugged.
- Chronologically, this RfC was the first one. Its decision, by three editors, mind you, was quite clear (emphasis in the original): "consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, not as the result of a vote. And, through that lens, editors achieved a rough consensus that the article should not list the signers of the Continental Association as Founding Fathers on that basis alone." Note that a rough consensus is still a consensus.
- After one month, a 2nd RfC was initiated. The question posed is essentially the same as in the previous one. The discussion metammorphoses into an expanded, long discussion without closure, although the suggestions ran 6-5 against "the signers of the Articles of Confederation be[ing] listed in this article and in their biographies as Founding Fathers of the United States."
- After about one month, we get hit by a third RfC, stating inter alia, that "there was only a consensus to remove names of those who only signed the Continental Association." and yhat "there was nothing said in that RfC about removing the entire C.A. listing." That RfC as well, soon degenerates into an exchange of the same viewpoints, again and again, yet no consensus changing the original RfC's decision is met, by any stretch. On top of this, one of the three editors named in this proposal takes it upon themselves to claim a "proposal to reinstate the signers of the Continental Association in the Chart of Founders"! Which goes beyond WP:BOLD and well into the realm of total arbitrariness and a disregard for consensus. This whole episode of trying to re-write History-per-sources by first trying to sneak the re-write into Wikipedia is getting nauseous. -The Gnome (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your third RfC isn't an RfC (please look again). The 2nd RfC you mention is on an entirely different topic (reading comprehension comes into question). If you feel sick, Pepto-Dismal may help. I've trouted you for not realizing that consensus hasn't been broken by either of the two long-term productive topic editors you mention (or by me either) and, once realizing that, not removing this misinformed complaint (this is actually my first trout, as I gave up fishing once I caught an Alligator gar and let it swim free after realized the majesty of such a thing in nature). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@The Gnome:, your involvement here has started out in a violation of noticeboard rules. At the top of the noticeboard, in bold red letters, it says, When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You failed to do this in your apparent rush to crucify multiple long time contributors. Thanks.
- Instead of posting up in talk pages, I acted in an equivalent manner by pinging here not just the three editors but everyone involved in the relevant discussions. -The Gnome (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The notice at the top of this page, and the edit notice, both explicitly state that pings are not sufficient notifications for AN discussions. Pings and talkpage notices are not equivalent because you can opt out of recieving pings, whereas there is no way to opt out of web notifications for talkpage messages. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Regarding your unfounded accusations: This whole episode of trying to re-write History-per-sources by first trying to sneak the re-write into Wikipedia is getting nauseous.
- What is actually "nauseous" are these trumped up weasel accusations. — "sneak the re-write into Wikipedia"?? — No edits have been made in violation of the RfC ruling. It is not a violation of the RfC ruling to discuss new developments since that ruling.
" This is about certain contributors explicitly violating consensus"
There has been ongoing discussions over the many new sources that have been introduced to the talk page. Even the ruling of the RfC in question clearly states:
The ongoing discussions on this page evidence that this close will not end all disputes regarding who to include as Founding Fathers. As always, consensus can change, and long-standing text can later be challenged and removed if editors decide it is no longer due for inclusion.
Rather than trying to vilify multiple editors with such ridiculous claims, you might try looking into the many new sources, and see why there is new discussions occurring, ones where Allreet has been an active participant in his challenges. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I had tried to help out navigating the situation at that article and was "up to speed" at that time but subsequently left. The situation there is a large complicated one. The RFC resolved one specific question but IMO that article has a fundamental structural problem embedded in it (in it's title) which will likely prevent any real resolution. In essence trying to define defining the scope and topic of a historical article using a variable-meaning 20th century term. Any statement that implies that the narrow answer from the RFC somehow defined an overall course for the article in the disputed area(s) is not correct. Hence, any statement of a potential behavioral problem would need to be far more specific to go any further or to expect others to review it. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The main problem with the listed editors is that they have decided collectively to violate WP:No original research by taking one or more topic definitions and applying those definitions to other articles, to create a novel synthesis. Specifically, if the term "Founding Fathers" can be said to include anyone who signed a particular document, then everyone who signed it can be called a founding father, despite the utter absence of sources saying the person was a founding father. Randy Kryn applied that concept here at the biography of young Thomas Lynch Jr who was filling in for his influential father. No historian says directly that Junior was a Founding Father; the connection can only be inferred. Randy Kryn edit-warred to keep that term in the biography, where it remains today, a black mark on WP:NOR. In talk page discussions and in practice, Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian have agreed that we can bypass WP:V and apply the term "Founding Fathers" to a wide variety of American revolutionary figures, without having those figures explicitly named as such in reliable sources. It's a travesty. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? Thomas Lynch Jr. signed the Declaration of Independence so is considered a Founding Father by every schoolchild (or at least used to be when schoolchildren knew what the declaration accomplished). Allreet, please set this fellow straight. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm looking forward to WP:V being returned as a hard policy. This notional "every schoolchild" assertion is another gaseous claim. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- True, they undeniably don't, I wish every American schoolchild still knew this. A Wikipedian can dream. Randy Kryn (talk)
- I'm looking forward to WP:V being returned as a hard policy. This notional "every schoolchild" assertion is another gaseous claim. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're kidding, right? Thomas Lynch Jr. signed the Declaration of Independence so is considered a Founding Father by every schoolchild (or at least used to be when schoolchildren knew what the declaration accomplished). Allreet, please set this fellow straight. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The main problem with the listed editors is that they have decided collectively to violate WP:No original research by taking one or more topic definitions and applying those definitions to other articles, to create a novel synthesis. Specifically, if the term "Founding Fathers" can be said to include anyone who signed a particular document, then everyone who signed it can be called a founding father, despite the utter absence of sources saying the person was a founding father. Randy Kryn applied that concept here at the biography of young Thomas Lynch Jr who was filling in for his influential father. No historian says directly that Junior was a Founding Father; the connection can only be inferred. Randy Kryn edit-warred to keep that term in the biography, where it remains today, a black mark on WP:NOR. In talk page discussions and in practice, Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian have agreed that we can bypass WP:V and apply the term "Founding Fathers" to a wide variety of American revolutionary figures, without having those figures explicitly named as such in reliable sources. It's a travesty. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Binksternet:, regarding this statement:
"This is yet another unfounded accusation. Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian have agreed that we can bypass WP:V.
Nonsense — we have not "agreed" to any such thing. Please quote any such statement. On the contrary, we have referred to an array of new sources so as to bolster WP:V. Add: there has been no "novel synthesis". The sources clearly support the idea that e.g.TheFirst Continental Congress, which btw, included Washington, Patrick Henry, John and Samuel Adams and other such notable people, are among the founders and that the documents they produced, which introduced independent colonial representation, a bill of colonial rights, natural law, clearly contributed to the founding of a nation. You could have participated in those discussions, rather than resorting to these inflated accusations on a noticeboard. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Binksternet:, regarding this statement:
- Unbelievable -- an attempt to ban multiple editors from American Revolution history articles in general.
- No violation of the RfC ruling has occurred in the article. Since the ruling many, not just a few, new sources have come to light, and all we are doing is discussing them and suggesting ways for their inclusion in the article - again through discussion. These sources can be viewed here and here. It is only fair that they be considered by other editors. IMO this noticeboard is being manipulated in a rather obvious attempt to ignore the sources and stop any further discussion over them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your lists of sources are all about applying an external rule to Wikipedia, to blanket the topic with hundreds of "Founding Fathers" by showing that writers on the topic consider signing a particular document evidence that the signers are founding fathers. But the only thing we should be doing with that information is summarizing it for the reader. We can say that this source, that source, et cetera, define the topic in some manner. But we can't carry that definition over to the Thomas Lynch Jr biography and apply the external rule to say that the very uninvolved Lynch Jr was a "Founding Father", a label which cannot be found by itself in any reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- The article already has close to 200 names listed and many of them lack individual citations because its understood that their collective involvements, in e.g. the Constitution, make them founders, per sources. No one wants to add "hundreds" of other names, just the dozen or so that were removed. Assertions were made that few sources support the idea that some individuals were involved in the founding. I provided an array of sources that show the claim to be without much merit, where they cover events that were important in the founding. Also, the opinion that I'm trying to create some "external rule" is yet another rather wild accusation. In any case, this noticeboard is based on the accusation that the RfC ruling has been violated, which is equally without basis, as no one has made any edits to the article that go against that ruling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Outside of Wikipedia, you can take whatever "array of sources" is available and apply their ideas to related situations. Inside of Wikipedia, what you are describing is a violation of WP:SYNTH. Nobody ever said that Thomas Lynch Jr was a founding father, largely because he didn't do anything notable to organize the colonists, compose a constitution, etc. All he did was was sit in his father's place and exercise his writing arm to sign the Declaration of Independence. Your external rule cannot and should not be applied to Thomas Lynch Jr by Randy Kryn because it's "understood' that Junior was in the group of founding fathers.
- This is all related to the continual tendentiousness of the RfC process, which continues to be used to exhaust the community's patience. We are talking about behavior here, by editors who should know better than to violate SYNTH. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- The article already has close to 200 names listed and many of them lack individual citations because its understood that their collective involvements, in e.g. the Constitution, make them founders, per sources. No one wants to add "hundreds" of other names, just the dozen or so that were removed. Assertions were made that few sources support the idea that some individuals were involved in the founding. I provided an array of sources that show the claim to be without much merit, where they cover events that were important in the founding. Also, the opinion that I'm trying to create some "external rule" is yet another rather wild accusation. In any case, this noticeboard is based on the accusation that the RfC ruling has been violated, which is equally without basis, as no one has made any edits to the article that go against that ruling. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is classic WP:SYNTH. Citing 15 sources to infer something from them which none of them directly states. Any statement you want to make in a Wikipedia article that is actually verifiable should need no more than one or two sources. When editors come forward with a large heap of them, it's almost always because none of them actually supports the statement, like is the case here. If this is part of a sustained effort to present the signers of the Continental Congress as Founding Fathers of the United States when no reliable source actually does that, it is indeed concerning. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I just mentioned above, a "heap of sources" were introduced because of the claim that there were not enough sources to merit including some of the names in question. Statements from the sources were not cherry picked and strung together in some attempt to introduce some bizzar or unusual idea to the article, but only to show the validity of their involvements in the founding, one source at a time. You can disagree with this of course, but this is not a "violation" of consensus or the RfC ruling. This noticeboard discussion is now turning into the same debate over sources that's been going on in the Founding Fathers Talk page, and not about a "violation" of consensus. No one has made edits to the actual article going against the RfC ruling. What should "concern" you is an attempt to ban three long time contributors from 'all' American Revolution related articles, and all for asserting an opinion in one article's Talk page, which is where disagreements are discussed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter whether the inferred statement is bizarre and unusual or not, if it's not in the sources, it's synth. Now some forms of synth can be acceptable in certain contexts, but not for anything over which there is editorial controversy. None of these sources labels any individual, nor the signatories of the Continental Congress as a group, 'Founding Fathers'. Notice the upper case: as suggested above it is perhaps a problematic label, but precisely for this reason it can't be applied to anyone to whom the sources do not explicitly apply it. I have no opinion on topic bans at this time, and no interest in the content, I just thought you should know that what you're doing is considered 'original research'. Please read the applicable policy pages closely. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Apaugasma, many of the existing names are not cited individually by name but are considered founders because their involvements with e.g.the Constitution, establishes them as founders. Members of the First Continental Congress, esp the delegates, are considered by various sources to be founders. In the same way signers of the Constitution are listed as founders the members of that congress should so be considered. Of course you have every right to disagree with this perspective but then this should apply to the entire article. I agree than some forms of synth are acceptable, but when there is editorial controversy no edits should be made to the article involving the disputed ideas, and this has not happened.
In any case, this noticeboard discussion isn't about which sources we should use and how. It is based on the accusation that violations against the RfC consensus were committed, and that has not happened, and the accusation to that effect is totally unfair. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)- I understand. It does seem a bit unfair to me too. Don't worry too much about it, if you try to take criticism on board you'll be fine. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your words of conciliation. They are much appreciated. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I understand. It does seem a bit unfair to me too. Don't worry too much about it, if you try to take criticism on board you'll be fine. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Apaugasma, many of the existing names are not cited individually by name but are considered founders because their involvements with e.g.the Constitution, establishes them as founders. Members of the First Continental Congress, esp the delegates, are considered by various sources to be founders. In the same way signers of the Constitution are listed as founders the members of that congress should so be considered. Of course you have every right to disagree with this perspective but then this should apply to the entire article. I agree than some forms of synth are acceptable, but when there is editorial controversy no edits should be made to the article involving the disputed ideas, and this has not happened.
- It doesn't matter whether the inferred statement is bizarre and unusual or not, if it's not in the sources, it's synth. Now some forms of synth can be acceptable in certain contexts, but not for anything over which there is editorial controversy. None of these sources labels any individual, nor the signatories of the Continental Congress as a group, 'Founding Fathers'. Notice the upper case: as suggested above it is perhaps a problematic label, but precisely for this reason it can't be applied to anyone to whom the sources do not explicitly apply it. I have no opinion on topic bans at this time, and no interest in the content, I just thought you should know that what you're doing is considered 'original research'. Please read the applicable policy pages closely. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:39, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I just mentioned above, a "heap of sources" were introduced because of the claim that there were not enough sources to merit including some of the names in question. Statements from the sources were not cherry picked and strung together in some attempt to introduce some bizzar or unusual idea to the article, but only to show the validity of their involvements in the founding, one source at a time. You can disagree with this of course, but this is not a "violation" of consensus or the RfC ruling. This noticeboard discussion is now turning into the same debate over sources that's been going on in the Founding Fathers Talk page, and not about a "violation" of consensus. No one has made edits to the actual article going against the RfC ruling. What should "concern" you is an attempt to ban three long time contributors from 'all' American Revolution related articles, and all for asserting an opinion in one article's Talk page, which is where disagreements are discussed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your lists of sources are all about applying an external rule to Wikipedia, to blanket the topic with hundreds of "Founding Fathers" by showing that writers on the topic consider signing a particular document evidence that the signers are founding fathers. But the only thing we should be doing with that information is summarizing it for the reader. We can say that this source, that source, et cetera, define the topic in some manner. But we can't carry that definition over to the Thomas Lynch Jr biography and apply the external rule to say that the very uninvolved Lynch Jr was a "Founding Father", a label which cannot be found by itself in any reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- No violation of the RfC ruling has occurred in the article. Since the ruling many, not just a few, new sources have come to light, and all we are doing is discussing them and suggesting ways for their inclusion in the article - again through discussion. These sources can be viewed here and here. It is only fair that they be considered by other editors. IMO this noticeboard is being manipulated in a rather obvious attempt to ignore the sources and stop any further discussion over them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Accused reply - TheVirginiaHistorian
- 1. I do now CONCUR with the “First RfC” without apology, yielding to concerns expressed by User:Allreet at the dangers of making the article sprawling and therefore unreadable for the WP international reader with English as a second language, one of User:Robert McClenon’s concerns, and though I have discussed its conclusion in relation to the article SCOPE, I have never violated the conclusion of the first RfC in the mainspace article narrative in practice;
- 2. Subsequent to the First RfC, a decades’ long collaborator of mine, asked me to become active again to contribute to the ‘Founders’ Talk page. - (2.a) My initial position on joining Talk was to support inclusion of the Articles as a ‘founding document’; - (2.b) my subsequent position in half a dozen posts in as many threads was to try to distinguish between actors and events in the following two (2) ways, enumerated as (i) and (ii):
- (2.b.i) leading to Joseph Ellis’ Declaration “First founding” and
- (2.b.ii) leading to Ellis’ “constitutional settlement” in the Constitution “Second founding” as sourced in my posts from a link supplied by User:Allreet in our collaborative discussions with User: Gwillhickers and User:Randy Kyrn.
- 3. In the User:The Gnome Topic Ban request here, he has NOT yet provided any article history links to support the that I have disrupted the article to violate the RfC conclusion that Gnome linked in the ban introduction:
“Editors attained a rough consensus against categorizing signers of the Continental Association as … Founding Fathers, [per se]".
- 4. My latest post-proposal is to maintain the wp:consensus list of Founders of the “First Founding” as Founding Fathers = Declaration Signers (vs. the "100s" imagined elsewhere), then add COLUMNS-NOT-NAMES for those documents for the unchanging list of names in the CONSENSUS Constitution signatories who are ALSO found as signatories in documents that meet both of TWO (2) verifiable criteria enumerated as (a) and (b) (unlike speculation that I may not not use verifiable relatable scholarly sources at TALK):
- => THE VISUAL EFFECT of adding columns of additional 'Founders roles' in the chart is to present a graphic depiction of the breadth of the many contributions by a very few Founding Fathers across many critical junctures BOTH (a) in the founding of the nation-state and (b) in the founding of a nationhood becoming the Declarations's "one people" in the Constitution's "We the people" (see Ellis 2000, p.9).
- - QUERY: If my intent as posted and sourced, is to limit the Founding Fathers list for an expressed editorial effect, how can that be characterized in wp:good faith as expanding the list by "100s" without "wp:verification" as I am accused by editors here?
- - ASSERTION: Surely my tormentors seen here "piling on" unwarranted accusations in their administrative disruption of my editing contributions to the Foundation's English encyclopedia, must be WP administratively banned from stalking me in the future at my posts to Articles and Talk pages of history and politics from 1500 to the present. This is my welcome back after a 3-month Wiki-break?
- - (4.a) User:Gwillhickers’ REFERENCED among the 1927 Documents Illustrative of the Formation of the Union of the American States; AND
- - (4.b) “founding documents” as CONFIRMED among User:Allreet’s "modern" scholars. I suggest an operational definition of “modern” to be those published within the last 50 years 1970-2020. The two sources I have used at TALK are suggested by Allreet: Bernstein (2009) and Ellis (2000).
- - (4.c) criteria for the Ellis’ “second founding”, in which I rely on User:Allreet’s reference the National Archives exhibition, “Charters of Freedom”, the Declaration, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Additional columns for a chart of article consensus Founding Fathers-as-SIGNERS of the DECLARATION and CONSTITUTION may be extended to those few most prominent in achieving the BILL of RIGHTS enumerated at (i) and (ii):
- (4.c.i) Bernstein’s “Chronology” (2009) applies, “Ratification Conventions” in the states – which in turn accommodates much of User:Gwillhickers’ concern to include ARTICLES signers or its important defenders because the few most prominent as sourced in Pauline Maier’s Ratification (2010), such as Articles defenders Patrick Henry and George Mason (VA) and Elbridge Gerry (MA & ex-officio in CT).
- (4.c.ii) Bernstein’s chronology also applies to include Articles signers and article consensus Constitution signers for COLUMNS of those signers in the First Congress James Madison, First President & Cabinet George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, First Supreme Court John Jay, encompassing the First Session of Congress reporting the BILL of RIGHTS as the first ten Amendments ratified by the States.
- 5. I submit that neither my last post at 5:05am, nor any previous posts on the Talk page in my effort to reconcile the well-researched positions of two opposing fellow editors there, should not have triggered a Topic Ban on me at 13:22pm for the American “Revolutionary and post-Revolutionary” historical periods 1763-1824 in the chronologies under discussion at Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States, and under review at this Topic Ban for my participation there during the month of July 2022. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Correction and Comment
I have not recently been following the controversy at Founding Fathers of the United States closely because it has become repetitive, and am not ready to provide diffs or other details. However, a correction is in order, even before I do any further review. User:The Gnome refers to a first, second, and third RFC, and implies that the second RFC was an attempt to set aside the first one. Neither the first nor the second RFC was submitted by the editors in question, User:Randy Kryn, User:Gwillhickers, or User:TheVirginiaHistorian. I became aware of the controversy when a case was filed at DRN, which was moderated by User:Casualdejekyll. I took part in the DRN as a participant (not as a moderator). The first two parties to this dispute had been disagreeing with User:Allreet and others about whether the signers of any of four documents should be considered Founding Fathers of the United States by reason of their signing of those documents. The four documents are the:
- Continental Association (1774)
- US Declaration of Independence (1776)
- Articles of Confederation (1777)
- United States Constitution (1787)
There is widespread agreement that the Signers (of the Declaration) and the Framers (of the Constitution) are often considered founders. It is the other two documents that are the issue.
The discussion at the article talk page, Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States, has been a mess, with discussion simultaneously in multiple sections, and multiple pinging across sections.
I started the first RFC, on whether signers of the Continental Association are founding fathers by virtue of signing that document. It was not started by the subject editors. They did, in my opinion, behave tendentiously, and at one point said that the RFC should be closed as yes, although the !votes were running to No, because they had found a particularly good source. That is the usual pattern. They find a good source and say that the matter is resolved and settled. They did demand that a panel rather than one closer close the RFC. It was closed as no. The second RFC was not on the same subject, but on whether signers of the Articles of Confederation should be considered founding fathers. I also originated the second RFC. The second RFC has expired, and has not been formally closed, and it looks as though a closer would say No Consensus. The so-called third RFC is only a discussion of whether either to ignore the first RFC or to start the first RFC over until we get the right answer.
In my opinion, Randy Kryn and Gwillhickers have been tendentious and should be warned. I haven't seen anything that would call for a topic-ban, but I haven't recently reviewed the history. I found much of the discussion to be repetitious. I thought that this would be a quick comment, but it is not quick. Nothing in this controversy is brief. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- In my opinion, User:TheVirginiaHistorian has done nothing hat should even remotely be considered a conduct issue. Robert McCletnon (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, thanks, that seems a fair summary. I've been a son of a Wikipedian sometimes within it, but please remember that this discussion passed its six-month anniversary about a week ago and editors have become familiar with each other in such a way that we can bicker sometimes. But the issue here is a specific accusation that the three scoundrels routinely toss consensus to the wind so let's ban them from any and all articles on the founding of America or, by gum, anything remotely connected to it. There have been statements from almost all of us involved that none of us has broken consensus. It is hard to tell why The Gnome thinks that three of us did, jumping to a good faith conclusion somehow (which is why I would oppose a boomerang, to be so wrong has to have a good faith reason, and I personally settled for giving my first trout in recognition of the silliness of banning Gwillhickers and TheVirginiaHistorian from a topic area where they have excelled for many productive years), but I'm actually glad this was taken here so that more eyes and researchers can give some attention to Wikipedia's amazing collection of American Founding articles as the 250th anniversaries near. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Can someone undo my mistaken overwritten redirect?
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Context here but the gist is that I moved Pass Me By (R5 song) back to its original title of Pass Me By (song) when I shouldn't have because there was a move discussion for it being at that former title. I apologize. I was going through redirects in the new pages feed because I was thinking this is something I'm less likely to mess up, but I made this mistake anyways. While I'm at it, can someone check to make sure I haven't made any other mistakes? I think most of the redirects I've patrolled have been fairly uncontroversial, but it seems like a good idea to make sure I'm not getting the wrong idea in regards to other things. Clovermoss (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Never mind, it's already been fixed. I started panicking and thinking that this is something I'd need help from on here. Clovermoss (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of SMNI 43
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For God's sake, User:Sammi Brie placed a proposed deletion on my article SMNI 43 cause no information can sustained for a separate article and suggest recreation if the station is akready built. Please dont delete it, check the sources. Same issue as AMBS Manila, but does nit happened and reviwed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goodvibes500 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am new here after 3 to 4 months, and I dont know yoir guidelines. Please dont delete it, double check the sources. Unfair for AMBS Manila😭😭😭 Goodvibes500 (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)