Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	0	8	17	1	26
TfD	0	0	2	0	2
MfD	0	0	1	2	3
FfD	0	0	2	1	3
RfD	0	0	11	9	20
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 4 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 103 sockpuppet investigations
• 16 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 7 requests for RD1 redaction
• 11 elapsed requested moves
• 3 Pages at move review
• 32 requested closures
• 170 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 30 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (32 out of 7826 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Ansariya ambush 2024-06-12 19:26 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Hunter Biden 2024-06-12 19:23 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:AP2 flashpoint El C Draft:Naraz 2024-06-12 16:25 2024-09-12 16:25 move preventing eager new user from moving this draft back to another namespace (again) without page review BusterD Steps (pop group) 2024-06-12 15:50 2024-06-26 15:50 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; clear socking, coordination among accounts, and louting; all gaming the system activities BusterD Steps discography 2024-06-12 15:49 2024-06-26 15:49 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; clear socking, coordination among accounts, and louting; all gaming the system activities BusterD Stun Siva 2024-06-11 21:27 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: WP:UPE target - approved draft required Ponyo Keffiyeh 2024-06-11 19:38 2025-06-11 19:38 edit,move Contentious topics enforcement for WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Hari Singh Nalwa 2024-06-11 18:20 indefinite edit,move Continued disruptive despite semi-protection; WP:ARBIPA Abecedare Kuki war of independence 2024-06-11 17:38 indefinite edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thakor_Sumant_Sinhji_Jhala Abecedare Koli war of independence 2024-06-11 17:37 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thakor_Sumant_Sinhji_Jhala Abecedare Naraz 2024-06-11 14:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; no objection for this subject to be created view draft if properly reviewed at NPP ; requested at WP:RfPP BusterD Colombia 2024-06-11 05:19 indefinite edit Edit warring / content dispute Daniel Case Kelly A. Hyman 2024-06-11 04:34 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Daniel Case White Mexicans 2024-06-11 04:06 2024-09-11 04:06 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: per RFPP Daniel Case Nano-ayurvedic medicine 2024-06-10 21:22 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: per AfD discussion Vanamonde93 Tribal revolts in India before Indian independence 2024-06-10 19:19 2024-09-10 19:19 edit,move Sock puppetry; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala + others Abecedare Rebellions 2024-06-10 19:16 2024-09-10 19:16 edit,move Sock puppetry (LTA); see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thakor Sumant Sinhji Jhala Abecedare Principality of Sealand 2024-06-10 18:03 indefinite move Edit warring / content dispute DrKay List of peace activists 2024-06-10 15:12 2025-06-10 15:12 edit Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish False or misleading statements by Donald Trump 2024-06-10 02:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement Modern American politics. Will log at WP:AEL Ad Orientem Carly Rae Jepsen 2024-06-10 00:56 2025-06-10 00:56 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Discospinster Al-Sitt 2024-06-09 21:36 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Hamis Kiggundu 2024-06-09 21:15 2025-06-09 21:15 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case Aditi Rao Hydari 2024-06-09 20:37 indefinite edit Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Sukhoi Su-57 2024-06-09 20:33 2024-06-12 20:33 edit Persistent vandalism - modification to originally intended level. Amortias Nir Oz 2024-06-09 03:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case List of ongoing armed conflicts 2024-06-09 03:11 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:PIA Anarchyte Nuseirat refugee camp massacre 2024-06-09 02:43 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Russian Air Force 2024-06-09 01:56 2024-06-16 01:56 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts; follow up Robertsky IDF Caterpillar D9 2024-06-09 01:48 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Front for the Liberation of the Golan 2024-06-08 21:41 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter Lok Sabha 2024-06-08 21:22 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: wp:ARBIND Ymblanter

JIP

I am very concerned about the terrible sourcing for articles being translated from fi.wiki by JIP, large numbers of articles causing large amounts of work for other editors cleaning up after them.

I first approached JIP about this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suomenlinna Brewery, pinging them to my comment. They didn’t respond to the ping.

I approached them on their talk at User_talk:JIP/Archive_38#poor_sourcing_on_new_articles_created_in_main_space. It archived with no response.

A couple of weeks later, working at NPP in the Food & Drink section, I came across multiple articles from JIP that had been translated from fi.wiki and that just had terrible sourcing. For instance Lordi's Rocktaurant, which had been AfD’d with a result of redirect to Lordi in 2009. The restaurant closed in 2011. JIP translated and created this article in May. Restaurants do not typically become notable after they close. When I got there.

Lordi’s Rocktaurant took me a half hour to check references, find out if the wayback machine had links that were dead (JIP left permanently dead links to self-sources in the references section), pull out the dreck (stuff was sourced to a bare mention in a Master's thesis), and decide that yeah, this isn’t notable. Nominated and discovered it was nominated 12 years ago and closed as redirect. JIP’s archives are littered with notifications of AfDs that did not end in Keep.

I am concerned not only that this is someone who is highly experienced and doesn’t seem to understand our sourcing requirements, not only that they are refusing to communicate, but that this is an admin doing these things. This is a huge timesink for other editors. It shouldn't be happening. valereee (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Ugh. And then we have things like this which may or may not be notable but are nothing more than a product placement. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Also could an admin who wasn't involved in recreating Hotel Korpilampi please evaluate the status of the G4 that JIP removed themselves? Also JIP that's an involved CSD removal if I ever saw one. This appears to be a long term problem, per Savoy (restaurant) their removal here too, which TheresNoTime attempted (ultimately futile) discuss with them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The deleted version was five sentences long and reffed only [1] [2] [3] [4]; the first and third of those are in the recreation. I wouldn't have G4d it. Still shouldn't have been JIP to remove the tag. —Cryptic 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

That's fine - and what I was looking for but my original point still stands that they shouldn't have been the one to remove it, nor should they have done so on the other articles they've created. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  Good enough for me. valereee (talk) 14:27, 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)

• 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)

  Translations from fi.wiki started by 2005 and number certainly in the hundreds. Ugh. valereee (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  The articles would have been fine by 2000s standards. Just standards have changed very much. —Kusma (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I know. I was just thinking about cleanup. valereee (talk) 17:45, 24 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 will get 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)

Sigh. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify my sigh, it means, "No, I hadn't read that far, and now that I have, it makes me sad". -- RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. valereee (talk) 20:38, 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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

  Next time I won't bother. valereee (talk) 16:45, 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)

  Because admins need more time than non-admins to be able to absorb what people are saying without being backed into a corner. Ok. valereee (talk) 14:50, 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)

I have now manually moved the Pizzataxi deletion discussion notification back to my active talk page and replied to it. JIP | Talk 22:12, 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)

• 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)

Challenging closure of Political legacies thread

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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

1. the closer,
   1. was an editor who should have closed,
   2. used a proper reason to close,
   3. interpreted the consensus incorrectly.
2. 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

1. was not an editor who should have closed the discussion, because the closer was an involved editor in the thread dispute.
   1. 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.
   2. 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."
      1. 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.
   3. Per WP:Talk, "Any uninvolved editor may write a closing statement for most discussions, not just admins."
   4. 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."
   5. 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."
2. 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."
   1. 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."
      1. 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.
      2. 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.
   2. Per WP:Consensus, "Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."
      1. 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".
3. 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:

  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.

  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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I won't challenge this non-admin close, even though the nonadmin closer User:Objective3000 is an involved editor ([5], 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) 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)

Per the article talk page discussion, inserting WP:OR directly into the lead of a Politics article is indeed "fundamentally against our content policies" regardless of who may or may not believe it to be the case. Thanks for the clarification. SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)DS-Alerted editor[6] on a mission, e.g. ..I do want to see more accommodation according to Wikipedia's guidance to seemingly conservative posts and critiques..[7]. 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)

In this noticeboard my aim is not discussing the disputed removed content, I am discussing the closure of the discussion to determine consensus about that text. Thinker78 (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

References

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)

• 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)

WP:RPP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request (reopened)

• Special:permalink/1097008915#Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request reopened from archive per email request

---

Whatsupkarren is requesting unblock/unban, and is sock of Tariq afflaq . Roy Smith noted in the prior unban request that user no longer has the original account password, and that he recommended requesting unban with this account. User is WP:3X banned as Tariq afflaq. This is, of course, a checkuser block.

• Whatsupkarren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Tariq afflaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Prior unban request
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tariq afflaq/Archive

Request to be unbanned

It’s been more than a year, I haven’t made any edit on English Wikipedia, used sockpuppets or anything like that since I was banned a year ago, I fully understand why I was blocked, and then banned, I admit my mistakes, I own up to my irresponsible reckless activities years ago, I apologize to all of Wikipedia community, and promise that will never ever engage in such activities again. the ban gave me a chance to acquaint myself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I think the ban is no longer necessary because I understand why I was banned: 1. Sockpuppetry, years ago I created many socks ( 18, not mentioning non registered edits ) and impersonated some users, but I now know that I should not create accounts to mislead, circumvent blocks, or avoid any kind of sanctions. 2. Edit warring and vandalism, my approach to dealing with fellow users was rather barbaric, I now know that disagreements should be resolved through discussing the issue on the associated talk page or seeking help at appropriate venues. 3.I also know that I should remain civil and should not use improper language and should avoid responding in a contentious and antagonistic manner. I also want to add that I've created more than 50 articles on Arabic and French Wikipedias in the past year. I hope this appeal addresses all of your concerns, if not, please point them out. thanks for your time.

Carried over from user talk by --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Checkuser needed for starters, as this is a CU block and can only be considered after a CU has looked at it. No comment on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

   Unlikely but it's a noisy range. @Mz7: had the most luck last time and I believe it's worth a second set of eyes here in case I missed something. To be clear, barring new evidence, my findings clear the checkuser part of the block and mean this unblock request may now be considered on the merits. --Yamla (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't looked into this appeal too deeply yet, but it looks like at the previous unban request, I provided a decent summary of the background here and why I was opposed at the time: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request. I think at least this part of what I said back then probably still applies: If the community does want to extend leniency to this user, I would strongly suggest also attaching some unblock conditions, e.g. a topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Looking at the editting on other wikis, it appears to all be around Syria and people of Syrian decent, which appears to be part of the reason they were originally blocked. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• I'm always up for a second chance. I do think that a TBan from Syria-related topics, to be appealed after a minimum of six months, would be necessary - on the understanding that they would need to demonstrate a capacity to edit constructively in that time, not merely wait for it to time out then appeal. There would also need to be an agreement to stick to one account. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, with a six month Syria related topic ban and a one account restriction. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
• Accept under the conditions of a indef topic ban for Syria, and an indef one account restriction, with either restriction being appealable after 6 months of actual editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Decline until they show any interest in editing any other topic. When was the last time that Whatsupkarren/Tariq afflaq made any edit to a non-English Wikipedia that wouldn't have been a direct violation of their topic ban here? I mean, their most recent Wikipedia mainspace edits were a month ago on ptwiki, to pt:Moise Safra—where they were re-adding claims asserting Syrian nationality to a biography, as part of a slow-motion edit war on that article. For reference, he was trying to make essentially the same edit (since reverted) to enwiki's Moise Safra in December 2020, just hours before his original indefinite enwiki block. (And again as an IP evading his block less than a month later. And then as a sock two weeks after that. And then as another sock three months later.)
  This editor has not shown that they are capable of editing anywhere outside of their topic ban. Instead, they've spent their time outside of enwiki exporting the same 'Syrian-tagging' disputes to multiple other Wikipedia projects. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Non-plussed by user's feeing that edit warring is not edit warring if they have a good reason for edit warring. An opinion shared by many of the edit warriors I have encountered. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  edit for the bot to not archive before close --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

---

--Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Unblock per Girth Summit, Cullen328, and Dennis Brown above. Appealable-in-six-months TBan from Syria-related topics, agreement to stick to one account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
• Lift ban, unblock with Syria topic ban and one account restriction as suggested by others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment (I actually started closing, thinking it was clearcut, before realising that it's only actually slightly in favour of an unblock at the moment). @Whatsupkarren: - can you point to recent activity on another project on a topic other than Syria? What would you do here if you were unblocked but TBANNED on Syria? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Whatsupkarren emailing a response isn't the best thing to do - answering on your talk page with a ping is fine. Am I fine to post the content of your email response? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

  Drat, just when it was getting good --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Lift ban, unblock with a TBAN on Syria stuff. WP:STANDARDOFFER. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Unlocking page for Kobi Arad

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

Great, thank you. Sincerely appreciated!!!! Dwnloda (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User cannot edit their GA nom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IP editor continuing to add spam links despite warnings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 fanpeople footwork 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)

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 apologized if 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)

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)

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)

The article is going to get deleted anyway because of WP:SNOW, so if the subject of the article did not get to pay anyone to delete it for them, no harm will be done. JIP | Talk 01:28, 14 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. 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Exclusion of Mathematical Finance From Financial Economics

A new editor (formerly editing on the topic with IP) User:Thesmeagol2 is trying to exclude my discussion of mathematical finance on grounds that I (professor of mathematical finance) have a conflict of interest. See Talk:Financial economics. It would be interesting to see why experts in a field can be excluded from commenting on it, say Medical Doctors prevented from discussing issues in medicine. (Let us ignore the separate issue of the conflation of the problem by editor User:SPECIFICO on the difference between the academic fields of finance and financial economics). I am certain that excluding topic experts from an encyclopedia is ultimately against the rules, but it would be interesting to see under which arguments. Limit-theorem (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you asking admins to do here? Among several sensible things Thesmeagol2 said something a bit silly. The reaction should be to simply point out that it is silly and carry on with the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

First off, claiming you are a topic expert is irrelevant and counterproductive. Second, yes the other editor may be misusing the term COI as we define it here. Third, this article remains in very poor shape, starting with the garbled lead which is not supported by well-sourced article content -- in particular the opening sentence which is nonsense and cited to a self-published webpage bit, ostensibly a college course handout by Prof. Bill Sharpe. On the merits, the new editor's contributions have been positive, including some of the content they have removed. I have suggested on the article talk page that this page should be merged with Finance, our article on the topic that is currently in much better shape and could easily absorb whatever relevant material from this page does not already appear at that one. SPECIFICO talk 16:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Arguments pertaining to Randy in Boise aside, generally Wikipedia is governed by the principles of reliable sources and citations. There is no inherent policy that allows for the exclusion of scientists and experts on a particular subject, but experts cannot use their own expertise as a source unless it is backed up by secondary peer review from a reputable journal.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Limit-theorem. I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Expert editors. There is some excellent advice there. Cullen328 (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I always provide citations. My problem is exclusion because of expertise. Best, Limit-theorem (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has excluded you, so -- fortunately -- that is not "your problem". As far as I can tell, the edit of yours that @Thesmeagol2: reverted did not provide a citation. Nor, btw is it clearly written so as to convey any specific meaning, as far as I can tell. Their edit summary said "deleted un-cited speculative commentary..." SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I added 2 citations, very senior ones. My Reversion came in two parts. And they reverted my text and citations. Limit-theorem (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Right, you had to "add" them because you had already twice inserted your text with no source citations. But we should not be adding such content directly to the lead and the content and any sources will -- except for inherently contentious text -- be taken from the article body. Moreover, having looked at the sources you added, they are quite weak sources and do not really verify the text you keep reinserting. You should have used the article talk page to discuss and gain consensus for your proposed content. Instead, you claimed that you are a professor or teacher of some related topic and dismissed the editor's concern out of hand. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

They are not weak sources; one is an assigned textbook. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Anyway I came to confirm that expertise is not COI and citations >> no citations. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The textbook you cited is an undergraduate text in practical calculations for finance practitioners. That's not a good source for lead content on the broad subject of Finance, or as the article is titled, "Financial Economics. Please also, to ensure you don't suffer any more COI allegations, stop calling yourself an expert. And don't make easily refuted claims such as that you always provided sourcing when the other editor apparently was motivated in part when they saw your speculative unsourced ramble about math models in Finance. SPECIFICO talk 19:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack? Limit-theorem (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

No. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Calling a "speculative unsource ramble" professionally phrased comments that were neither speculative nor unsourced nor a ramble? Not helpful For an encyclopedia contributor. Limit-theorem (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell this one has never made it through peer review? Thesmeagol2 (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not replying to your comment to argue, but to state to other editors the procedural fact that all Spinger Nature books are peer-reviewed, with the same standards found in Nature, see https://www.springernature.com/gp/policies/book-publishing-policies (look under books). This is particularly applicable to mathematics books. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:41, 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)

Changing content model of a user page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved to WP:IANB (diff)

Primefac (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Resolved

 – Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sphere Matchers

• Draft:Sphere Matchers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• LiliaMiller2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This draft is a hoax created by LTA LiliaMiller2002

He have a long history of creating Wiki articles about non-existent video games allegedly developed by notable companies.

Please see here Trade (talk) 00:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you post this here rather than simply tagging the draft as a hoax and, if you wish, putting in the above explanation on the draft Talk page. In any event, I've deleted the draft.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Because this is not the user's home wiki? I don't see the harm in bringing cross-wiki vandalism to the attention of the admins in this board. –FlyingAce^✈hello 15:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Ban removal appeal of PotsdamLamb aka Galendalia

The following is the appeal of PotsdamLamb for the removal of their ban. I am placing this here as a courtesy, and make no endorsement in doing so. 331dot (talk) 06:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I am requesting an unblock on enWiki as I have made significant changes to the way in which I behave and interact with others. I fully understand my previous behavior was extremely rude and downright gross to other editors. The insults I hurled at others were uncalled for and would never happen again. Granted I may get upset again, however, I handle it with a conversation that is non-derogatory and constructive without name-calling, blaming, etc. The entire block was based on my behavior and which has now changed.Thank you very much for your attention to this unblock request and I look forward to the results. You can see a lot of the work I have done on simple Wikipedia. All of my accounts were locked by a user who falsely listed information about my account and they have since been unlocked. I work directly with stewards and and admins (we do not have many experienced editors on simple) on IRC when I have questions and the appropriate places to go when I have questions. I have learned a lot more about the workings of WP. I was blocked for 6 months late last year for the calling someone a name but have not done so since and I have had great, calm discussions since. I have expanded one article to a great extent and am working on my second one which is a BLP that I was able to save from being deleted. Just as a side note when I look back at the discussions on WP:ANI I disgust myself for that behavior. I am willing to take the standard offer. I do not have access to any of my other accounts (as stated above) because I use a password creator and my passwords range from 40-90 characters if allowed. This is my only active account I use and I am working on a bot on media that I am developing and that name is PDLArchiveer Bot (I believe). These are my only accounts. I look forward to getting the feedback from the community and being unbanned.

• Per the information provided above, TonyBallioni has performed the CU check and has verified no login from my account and no socking. He asked me to repost this on IRC. This was his statement Prefer public, but basically I told 331dot that since there are no logins I can see through CU, I believe your story on loss of access and there does not exist from a CU perspective any reason that would prevent an unblock. Since you're banned, it now has to go to AN. I would post a new appeal on the current account and ask an admin to copy it to AN. If there are any questions, you should be able to reply using PDL The prefer public was from me asking him if he wanted to chat in a DM or in public.

With that said, I am asking for this to be moved over to WP:AN and I will add the page to my watchlist. Thank you for your time and consideration. PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 23:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose gave permission to unblock on CU grounds and on this account as there's nothing from a CU angle preventing it, but as the original blocking admin of the main account looking at the recent activity at w:simple:User talk:PotsdamLamb/Archive 3 reminds me a lot of what was experienced here before the initial block. There's a lot of rushing into things without understanding what is going on, discussions with admins and other experienced users with a lot of back and forth and an assurance in the rightness of their views. I don't see any personal attacks in the simple archive, but I didn't dive too deeply. In short: while socking does not prevent an unblock of this account and if the community wishes to unban it certainly can, I do not think the potential for positive contributions outweighs the risk of known disruption at this time. Note: I don't plan on following this discussion and I don't have AN watchlisted so pings/replies might go unresponded to, especially since I'm around less these days. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
• As one of the (many) admins previously involved with the Galendalia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) account, I am skeptical towards unblocking and unfortunately this appeal does not really convince me otherwise. This appeal mostly focuses on issues of incivility and rudeness towards other editors, which would arise from when Galendalia would make problematic edits and then face warnings or reminders as a result. That disruptive and hasty editing is key to why Galendalia was blocked in the first place- and this appeal really doesn't address it. While I could go into all the various issues which can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1038#Broader_issues_with_Galendalia's_editing, User_talk:Galendalia/Archive_1, User talk:Galendalia/Archive 2, and especially User_talk:Galendalia, I don't think the energy is worth it. At this time, there's nothing that convinces me that unblocking won't lead to another demoralizing time sink. Sorry, no. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
• As some who talked with Galendalia and who was his short lived mentor, I'm leaning towards opposing his unblock request. Seeing the appeal doesn't install confidence in me. I agree with Tony that this shows us that a lot of that problems that Galendalia had before getting banned (e.g., rushing into things without really knowing what is really going on), haven't really been fixed. Although I no longer consider Galendalia at risk of socking again, I think Galendalia needs to sort the problems that led to his ban first before appealing. I'm sorry Galendalia, but at time, I simply can't support a unban. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 20:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• (from their TP) I have been reading my appeal, however, I cannot post on ANI, but I wanted to answer the question that seems to be lingering. My edit count on simple is over 1k with no rollbacks of my changes (other than vandals). All of my contributions have been a net positive. I have expanded numerous articles, as well as, handling a lot of formatting issues, organizing page sections, cleared numerous categories with backlogs that had some sort of error on the articles and many other things. I also do have rollback rights on simple. One issue I had in the beginning on simple was with categories, which has since been remedied. I have stayed within what I know and have gone slowly and a matter of fact I posted that same advice to someone who was just blocked on enWP and started in on everything possible and caused some issues. I advised them to slow down, read through all of the policies, go very slow, preview all edits and if you are not sure, hold off and ask others for their opinions. I know it may be hard to determine if I would be a net positive on enWP, which is why I stated I would be willing to accept the standard offer to show the enWP admins and editors of what I can do so the proper determination can be made, without referring to the edits and arguments in the past I have had with editors and admins. Thank you and if you have any questions, I can directly answer them on my talk page here PDL^{Talk to me!}_{OMG, What have I done?} 21:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Accusation of copyright violation and plagiarism against me

A user has accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, and will neither provide any evidence nor retract the allegation despite being invited several times to do either. How should I proceed? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This thing was already explained in the edit summary [8], all I said is to paraphrase things rather than add what exactly the source says. Also the lead section source of Top 10 best John Cena's matches says how significant and historic it was but ItsKesha keeps removing that their 2014 match was the end of their historic rivalry even tho source 1 and 22 implies that and I just paraphrased it. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I already proved it on the edit summary saying the need to paraphrase and both source 1 and source 22, wwe and comicbook.com implied it was historic so I just paraphrased it but you won't accept because its not copy pasting, which is what you do, let admins review the page and find out then. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• To both, please read tedentious editing and WP:Bludgeoning, fight about content across three pages is pretty disruptive especially when you are both repeating yourselves over.

Now to the actual issues, Dilbaggg, wrestling is fake and should not be presented as reality. Wikipedia likes boring writing, no need to add emotions or qualify people as prominent writers. Also, there is zero reason ever to include a source twice simultaneously, once with a proper cite template and once with the raw link. The raw link serves no purpose there. Finally, stop using words like vandal, plagerism, and BLP because you clearly do not know their meaning on Wikipedia. Wrestling is fake, writing about fictional characters is not a BLP violation, content disputes are not vandalism and unless you have better diffs there is zero evidence that copyright or plagiarism plays a part in the dispute.

ItsKesha, just stop posting the same thing over and over again. Its not helpful here or on any other page where you repeat yourself and continuing a content dispute across three pages without waiting for any other editors to comment is just silly. Brevity is your friend. Slywriter (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter Thank you for ypur comment, I will just point out taht I am not the only user who had issue with ItsKesha, he removes warnings from other users and even admins, all can be viewed on talk page, but yes I agree with you i should not use thsoe terms like that either and am genuinly sorry, and ok I won't accuse ItsKesha anything, this is mainly sorrounding content dispute and yes I guess we wrestling fans do get carried away, but I promise I won't accuse editors including ItsKesha for that unless its proper reasoning. Thank you. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

But you still haven't removed any of the accusations? Whether I remove comments from my talk page is absolutely irrelevant and none of your business whatsoever, and has no place in discussions here. Your apology, which I don't accept as being genuine, doesn't excuse your accusations, which still haven't been retracted. It's not a "content dispute" to make such accusations which are still scattered all over the place. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, with only a few exceptions, an editors is allowed to remove sections from their talk page, and doing so indicates that the editor has read the message. The removed posts stay in the edit history. Will you please withdraw the incorrect accusations that you have made against ItsKesha? Cullen328 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok he may not have violated copyrights and will remove that, but my accussation below is legit @Cullen328, also he removed my comment here, thats what is aid, i never said he can't remove talk page warns, but I just brought that up because he does it as a tactic to hide his persistant behavior, but he can not remove my comment here which he had done if you check the history as this is not his talk page. Anyway ok I egt itsKesha gets lot of smpathy for kesha's picture and all, and I never said he can't remove talk page warns but just brought up the fact that he gets away with his undeniable abuses (if you check his edit hostory and all the similar warns he reciieved) by doing that. Guess the cute Kesha pic has a soft effect for him tho. Either ways to me he did plagarise, but I respect admin decision so will erase that part. But I request taht eh does not contiue t WP:EW and remove the PWTorch WP:PW/RS which i talked about in the section below. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, you've just accused me again of plagiarism? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, just to clarify, are you actually accusing editors and administrators of bias towards me because I jokingly have a picture of Kesha on my userpage? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Do not flater yourself ItsKesha, I never said Admins are biased to you, I pointed out taht you do not take admins seriously and hide their warnings from your talk page, which would ahve been fine but you still violate the things they waarned you for. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If you never said admins are biased, why have you apologised below? And why have you, again, accused me of plagiarism? This is absolutely pathetic. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, your assertion that I am somehow influenced by a picture on ItsKesha's userpage is ludicrous and spurious. You are digging a hole for yourself. It would be wise to stop. Cullen328 (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I apologise deeply, i was frustrated that itsKesha always get away even with admin warnings just by erasing talk page wars and erasing talk page waarns is nothing wrong but he continues to do the things people, including Admins warned him not to do, and saadly Admins are too busy to review over 500 edits in his talk page history. They have a busy life and simply don't have sufficient time to review his case, and I can't take things to ANI as PW is in GS Anyway my commet was sort of uncivil, if youw ant you can punish me, unlike ItsKesha I take responsibilities for my mistakes, so please forgive me and if you want you can punish me but I request you to stop ItsKesha's aggressive EW behavior. I myself am guilty of content dispute with him but I am a human, I have feelings and I am just frustrated with how he turns things and its been that way with him for 2 years, anyway please accept my apology, I am sorry about that. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Dilbaggg, thank you for your apology which I accept. In return, I want to give you some advice which I hope that you will find useful. Do not edit Wikipedia when you are angry. Go smell some roses instead. Do not edit Wikipedia when you are frustrated. Watch some kittens frolicking instead. When you edit Wikipedia, edit with a level head, and strive to write logical persuasive sentences, and do your best to use proper grammar and to spell correctly. Never criticize another editor without providing persuasive evidence, and do not expect someone else to go searching for the evidence. That is your job. These are the skills of productive encyclopedia editors, and will also make your opinions on article content more persuasive. Cullen328 (talk) 05:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

ItsKesha's removal of major WP:RS contents claiming then not notable based on personal views and accusing me of lack of sourcing tag when very line of the aricle was complient with WP:PW/RS

I asked Its Kesha to request consensus for majotr changes in [9] and [10] but he refuses to do that and keeps erasing 7 years accepted WP:PW/RS based on personal views. He has a history of warning for aggressive editing but he always erases them on his talk page but they can all be viewed on his talk page history. Anyway i am done here, if I am the one at fault am sorry, but i didn't want to tell about ItsKesha's persistant agressive editing behavor, but I did, and if I am the one out, its fine, I just said fact, best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I've asked several times for you to prove these allegations or to retract them altogether. You can't accuse somebody of this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

ItsKesha removed my latest message, he has no right to remove other people's comments, even if they are offtopic (which this is not as they are on similar topic) only admins can do that, if they do I will accept whatever decision they take. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm removing nonsense that has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

its your history of disruptive and uncivil behavior, just FIVE of MANY recent examples by multiple editors on your talk page and yes since the matter is here all can be included, including the time you falsely accused me of adding bad citations when you are the one keeping one and removing my WP:RS contents: [11], [12], [13], [14] [15]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilbaggg (talk • contribs)

That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a place all issues can be brought up and looked into, anyway one alst thing, you have no right to remove other people's emssages, this is not your personal talk page where you have removed so many warnings (including from admins), just similar to what it was here, nothing else left to say to you: [16] Dilbaggg (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with your allegations against me. You have accused me of violating copyright and plagiarism, you either need to prove this allegation or retract it. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes I did in edit summary I already said that you should paraphrase, and both source 1 and 22 implied its a historic match but you just copy paste. Anyway let admins decide, if its against me I will respect their decision, but I have the right to warn you to not delete other peole's messge regardless and all issues can be brought up here. No I will stop talking because I already explained but you keep saying I didn't, you are just trying ti bury my allegation under your texts, keep it up, I willrespect whatever admins decide. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I seperated the topics, happy now, also here is a false tag of article having unreliable source when all the sources were WP:PW/RS and ItsKesha insistes on removing wwe.com and wrestleview despite both of them being accepted sources and there being other sources like pwtorch, 411mania aned bleacher report. Dilbaggg (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Let me also say that pro wrestling articles fall under santions for editing. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly why i didn't want to bring these issues up, but ItsKesha always gets a free pass just by erasing all editors and even admin warnings from his talk page, his talk page history shows that, anyway you are right WP:PW is in GS, and I should be careful and won't ring up content disputtes here again. I am sorry for the trouble we caused, and I hope ItsKesha and me can work together in peace with cooperation. Bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried to be nice and let go, but User:ItsKesha continues to remove WP:PW/RS such as PWtorch a very reliable source:[17] and adds sources like TMZ whih don't fall into Wp:PW/RS [18], and this has already broken WP:EW limit, yes he removed a little duplicate info, but he also intentionally removed WP:PW/RS PWtorch and the crucial info, and he says the quality is not good enough to im, who is he alone to determine that [19], I requested him to seek Wp:RfC many times he doesn't. I am a human, I have patient limits, I respect Wikipedia rules but this is a user who always gets away with WP:EW and stuff by always removing talk page warns, yes I am guilty of being dragged to content dispute too, I am sorry, but why shold ItsKesha always get away for his behavior just because he hides all his past warns. Does erasing talk page warns including from admins lets you get a free pass? Don't talk page histories gets checked. If he stopped the behavior after warning, its not an issue to remove them, but he doesn't. I restored the PWTorch info one last time and hope @User:ItsKesha doesn't shamelessly WP:EW after this and I am sorry to be dragged to this WP:PW debate under GS, we wrestling fans tend to be passionate but I request that Itskesha stops removing WP:pW/RS and claims he alone gets to judge an articles quality. Have a busy day ahead, so my last words, bye. Dilbaggg (talk) 17:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

One last thing regarding the Randy orton article, it does feel like WP:BLP violation, pro wrestling is scripted yes, but so are movies, if people remove large amount of contents from actors rticles such as Johnny Depp for eg, it will count BLP violation, I repeatedly requested Itsesha to seek WP:RfC but he will not do that because votes will not go in favor, [20], what is his problem in seeking RfC, and he had similar issues in the past in 2020 but that time project ws more active and they got to him and forced him to ask a consensus, sadly a lot of editors are inactive now : [21], anyway I know there is nothing wrong with removing takl page warns but Kesha has used it as a tool to evade any action and has even removed admin warnings and continued to do things he was warned for likeremoving WP:RS, doing WP:EW and stuff, sad thing is admins are too busy and do not have the ti e to review 500+ edits on his talk page history. Anyway this is the last thing i will say here, peace. Dilbaggg (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

(Multiple EC as I started replying hours ago then got busy with other stuff) First this edit [22] by ItsKesha, was not right. I initially thought it was a hidden edit conflict or accident, but the above discussion seems to suggest it was intentional. Other than when removing outing or where the editor making the comment is a sock or troll, or maybe a very serious personal attack, no editor should remove a complaint against them at AN. It doesn't matter if the editor making the complaint has an existing complaint which you feel they have not provided sufficient evidence for, let the community deal with it if a WP:BOOMERANG is needed. Likewise if you feel it would be better to segment the threads, then it might be okay to do so, but don't remove the complaint.

As for the other stuff. Well an editor doesn't get away with edit warring because they remove warnings. You're supposed to show diffs at ANEW anyway and so the removal of warnings doesn't affect the ability to report edit warring to ANEW. Frankly ItsKesha has been around long enough it's questionable if warnings are needed.

Also "we wrestling fans tend to be passionate" is a well known problem and any wrestling fan should be ensuring their passion isn't causing problems. Notably I'd point out that wikiproject reliable source guidelines are effectively WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. They are hopefully useful in excluding those unreliable specialised sources for the area, as well as in finding specialised sources which can be used. But they should never be taken as some sort of bible of what sources to use.

In particular, reliable sources should not be excluded just because they don't appear in some wikiproject guidelines. This doesn't mean it's a good idea for an editor to go around replacing one reliable source with another, generally speaking there should be sufficient reason to do this, but this applies in both directions. And a source appearing in a wikiproject guideline is not by itself sufficient reason.

I would note WP:TMZ is not a good source so I can't imagine any reason why an editor would be replacing other sources with it. If the existing source is no good, then find another source. However the general point remains and no editor should be saying the BBC (to give a random example) is not a good source just because it doesn't appear in some wikiproject guidelines. In fact, if it supports the information, replacing pwtorch or 411mania with the BBC is likely to be a good thing since there's generally far less question over the reliability of the BBC so that's probably sufficient reason to do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the diff, it seems the TMZ was used as this was a statement made to TMZ. That's one of the few cases when using TMZ in BLP is probably okay although due weight considerations still apply if TMZ is the only source. (If no one else cares that this person said whatever to TMZ then probably it isn't very important.) Also I may have misunderstood the above statement I assumed "continues to remove WP:PW/RS such as PWtorch a very reliable source:<diff removed> and adds sources like TMZ" meant one source was being replaced with the other. But it seems these were separate events supporting different info. Nil Einne (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban requested for multiple users on American History articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

French Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:AE

Getting a bit backed up and stale, if any admin has the time to help out. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Jv.anthonny again

• Jv.anthonny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already blocked once and also reported here before by ResPM, Jv.anthonny has been adding unsourced recording dates to infoboxes for a long time and have been given way too many "final" warnings, with no effect. Yes, WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU, but this has to stop. Perhaps a longer block with a pointer to the talk page will make them communicate? --Muhandes (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• I went ahead and partial blocked from article space indefinitely and invited them to discuss here. Any admin can unblock at their discretion w/o jumping through hoops. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Martinevans123

I have blocked longtime user User:Martinevans123 and removed his Autopatrolled right due to persistent copyright problems. I see on his talk page three postings regarding violations of the copyright policy this year alone (March, June, today), and he has received numerous additional warnings (I see six warnings from myself alone in his archives; there are likely others). He has twice been blocked for copyvio (two short blocks: 2018, 2019). I am noting my actions on this board given the extent of the problem, as he has ~200,000 edits. A CCI will likely have to be opened. — Diannaa (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Disappointing. I thought better of them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If the community thinks it would be constructive, and if Martin is agreeable, I offer to provide supervision/mentoring. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Awesome --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're the right person to act as a mentor, since you did not seem to see what the problem was with the edit I posted about on his talk page back in March. — Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If people don't want me to, I won't. But I want to correct what you said about me, because I feel like it's a bit condescending. You linked to a version of his talk page, as of that comment that I made (a somewhat facetious comment, starting with an offer to spank him). But there was further discussion after that. Here is a link to the full discussion: [23]. I actually did take it seriously, offered to help with a serious rewrite, and did a genuine rewrite myself, including the source material that Martin wanted to include, but rewriting it in a copyright-compliant manner. Here is the combined diff of my edits: [24]. And here is a link to the source: [25]; anyone please feel free to check/compare. And Martin was cooperative with me. I'm a retired tenured university professor, and I find the opinion that I am poorly equipped to recognize plagiarism, well, troubling. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I've also been editing here since 2007, including FA work, and have never had issues with copyvio or close paraphrasing in my own editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In spite of your initial flip remarks to which I linked, your proposed rewrite does look okay according to Earwig's tool. I want to say though, that your jocularity about the problem impeded my efforts to get him to take the copyright matter seriously. — Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect, there are times when editors, and particularly administrators, take themselves too seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

My experience with Martinevans is that I have not seen him take any criticism seriously. In my opinion, he seems to have lots of banterbuddies on this site, and seems he to navigate articles and issues with an unwarranted degree of entitlement. The cited thread regarding the copyvio seems typical. SPECIFICO talk 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, I'm not one of his "banterbuddies", but having seen/interacted Martin over the years I think that's overly harsh. Sure, he does default to flippancy generally (not just specifically in relation to criticism) which is not necessarily everyone'e cup of tea. But I don't recognise "unwarranted degree of entitlement". I have to say that Martin's flippant responses are often in contexts when other editors might well have got aggressive, genuinely uncivil, downright PA etc or is in the face of other editors' aggression, incivility, PAs etc. A little facetiousness is a small price to pay when it defuses/avoids what so often otherwise happens on WP. As far as the Copyvio is concerned, I have no comment other than if Tryptofish is willing to mentor and Martin is willing to go down that route then after his 200k+ edits, 100+ articles created and 15 years I would hope and expect that to be solution. DeCausa (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of the way Martinevans123 responds to stuff but that's neither here nor there. But I feel I should repeat something I've said before thought. While Martinevans123 is ultimately responsible for their actions, editors should consider whether the way they've responded in trying to support a friend who may be unhappy with a situation, have unfortunately contributed to this editor not understanding the seriousness of the situation and the urgent need for reform. This doesn't mean editors cannot offer words of support for their friend, simply that it should not come the the expense communicating the gravity of the situation. If not in the initial support, then later when their friend has had a chance to calm down. Since ultimately their friend changing their behaviour is not only for the benefit of the project, but likely the friend themselves. (As a lot of the time, we end up with this result where whatever problems their friend is causing can no longer be ignored so a long term block results.) To be clear, this is a comment on how we ended up here, I have no problem with the mentorship. Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm fine with Tryptofish mentoring. None of us are perfect, but Trypofish has the skills, and Martin will listen to him, which is just as important. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I am okay with mentorship as a last chance, but I am not optimistic that he will change his ways. People who get warned repeatedly for copyright infringement usually don't come back. SPECIFICO's comments make me even less optimistic. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this probably needs a CCI. Harry van der Weyden is also copyvio from [26] (tagged instead of deleting to let others double check). There's also at least a sentence of straight copypaste at Lawrence Mynott. I'm sure there is more than what I can find in 5 minutes. —Kusma (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Coincidentally I have been writing a guide to copyright blocks at User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks, which contains advice on when to block and how to appeal. I doubt it will be completely useful in this situation, but who knows. I do want to say though, I do not want to see conflict between people I care about here. I really hope that doesn't happen. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 05:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've enjoyed the odd bit of banter in the past with Martinevans123, and I think that SPECIFICO's comments above are unnecessary, and rather unkind in the circumstances. I cannot find fault with this block however - that latest Sam Smith article was indeed a direct cooy/paste job of an entire article - no one should be doing stuff like that, far less an experienced user whose Autopatrolled flag means that issues are less likely to be detected by others. Tryptofish's offer is generous, I hope that will offer a route out of this situation that gives us confidence that there will be no more similar occurrences. Girth Summit _(blether) 07:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• I've taken a look at that Sam Smith issue, too, and it's a clear copy-paste-edit-save. valereee (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's very disappointing and concerning considering the number of warnings he has been given. I like Martin a lot but he does seem to have a blind spot when it comes to this sort of thing.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am very reticent to support any mentoring because this isn't something that should require mentoring. These are the most basic copyright violations you can make. Someone with 200,000 edits should not be making them. This is a basic question of competence, and Martinevans spent all the time he was being given warnings continuing to use his talk page as water cool and soapbox, rather than changing his behavior. He can't even say anything close to a "my bad" or "I understand" the issue on his talk page—and has met previous warnings with hostility or contempt. What indication has been made that anything will be different after all these blocks and warnings? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse block, I'm sorry to say this about a longtime and valued contributor. But copyvios are serious as it runs afoul our licensing, as noted at WP:Copyright violations; and may cause legal problems. RD1 is specifically for this purpose. Indeed, the editing window has the disclaimer on it. If it's a copyvio: We. Can't. Keep. It. I am ambivalent on Trypto's offer, which is kind. It may help but these are persistent problems and unblocking should not occur without a very strong understanding about what is acceptable and not. Maybe wait 6 months and apply for the standard offer with a detailed appeal that describes what went wrong? Again, I'm sorry to say this because I believe Martin is here in good faith, but these are serious issues. Best, Jip Orlando (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• I appreciate the kind comments about my offer from some of the editors here. And I recognize that there may not be consensus for mentoring. Perhaps I did myself no favor by offering; Wikipedia can be a very insensitive place. But Martin has been a long-time editor and a net positive, and there is a difference between pride, and bad faith or incompetence. I am well aware of the fact that he has already had multiple previous warnings, and has a concerning history of recidivism. Despite my wiki-friendship, it has bothered me, too. In my professional life, I have been a hard-ass about not tolerating plagiarism – just ask the students that I flunked. I'm not naive about it. And I want to make it clear that my offer is not intended as a get out of jail free card. I would see it as something with:
  • a 6-month community editing restriction where he could not start new pages or make additions to content without my prior approval.

  And I would treat it as:

  • making him learn, not as me rewriting it for him.

  And finally,

  • a failure on his part to reform would lead to a reinstatement of the indef block.

  I don't see that as a risk to the project. I wouldn't offer this if I didn't believe in doing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: he could not ... make additions to content without my prior approval. Is that practicable? That seems like potentially a lot of oversight. I don't know enough about how he works and how much content addition is what he does though. DeCausa (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Good question. I would likely slow him down, and that would be part of the price he would pay. I would assume that a failure to wait for me would result in a block. The way I see it, he would have to make a draft version in draft space or user space, and I would have to review it before it could go into main space. And any version that fails the test would be subject to revision deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• I can't fault the block - the article in question was a clear copyvio and had obviously been written by taking the biography on the subject's website and changing the odd word. It comes off the back of two prior blocks and two warnings from this year alone. The responses to the prior warnings were very flippant and to one of the very few people here who does much text copyright work. I'm also very dubious about mentorship for similar reasons to David Fuchs above. Hut 8.5 16:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• It occurs to me that I should say that I don't fault the block either. I really don't. I'm just trying to offer a solution. (And although it's true that some people simply cannot learn, that's not something that's true of everybody.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• At his talk page, Martin has agreed to a variation on this, with the block still in place (but with continuing talkpage access): [27]. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Possibly a daft question, but where is the (C) copyright text at http://sam-smith.org/ ? Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Copyright is automatic, it doesn't have specific copyright text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I love that question, and if I can stop laughing long enough to show off my knowledge of the copyright policy, I'll try to answer it. There does not have to be an assertion of copyright for Wikipedia to recognize copyright. Absent an explicit licensing to the contrary, it is always taken as a given that the author of a work owns the copyright. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • There's no need to be patronising - I understand that copyright is fixed as soon as the material is, but I was just wondering if that might have been the issue here? Only Martin can answer that, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Oh, Black Kite, I'm so sorry, I truly did not intend that to be patronizing. Sorry it came off that way. I was genuinely trying to explain how this works, and I genuinely was amused by the thought that the block might have had an incorrect rationale if there were no copyright violation – just think how pointless this whole discussion would have been if it were. Martin should have known that copyright applied, even without a notice about it, though. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • My fault, I should have been clearer the first time. This is what happens when you edit in record temperatures (39C here when I typed that!) Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Berne Convention is relevant here. Basically tl;dr in the absence of a disclaimer otherwise, it's subject to copyright. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is an example of why it'd be better if we all stopped talking about "copyvio" and "copyright violation", because those are complicated legal terms that none of us really understand, and instead talked about "license violation", because that's really the problem, which is that the text we're purporting to license CC-BY-SA is not actually properly attributed to the actual author. Forget about how close is too close paraphrasing and whether something is covered by copyright law in what jurisdiction or what notices or disclaimers it has... if the text we publish is not actually written by us, we are violating our own license. Every time we publish in mainspace, we're purporting to license the prose we publish CC-BY-SA, and we cannot re-license prose that was written by someone else. Levivich (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  (Forewarning: all of the following is a side note from the original issue.) The license that has to be considered is the one for the original text, and whether or not it is compatible with being relicensed as CC-BY-SA. If the text was released in the public domain, for example, and so all reuses are freely allowed, then it can be licensed as CC-BY-SA without attribution. If the text has a CC-BY-SA license, it too can be reused, though it has to be attributed (see the bottom of Length measurement for an example). Close paraphrasing often does have to get discussed, for better or worse, since many instances of copied text are done with some modifications. isaacl (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Case requested. This will take years to clean up with how little people actually care to clean up copyright issues. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for getting that going, and for tracking it down. About the time and effort needed for cleanup, that is indeed a significant problem across the copyvio area. Martin has indicated on his talk page that he is going to pitch in and clean up after himself (in userspace). I would hope that he will save other editors a lot of work, as well as demonstrate his willingness and competence to reform. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Given how things are developing, I think we can save editors some time and energy by no longer discussing the block here. Martin is accepting it and not going to contest it, and instead pursue an effort in user space to demonstrate his good will. There's no need to close the discussion, just that it seems settled that there will be no unblock for now. And editors can wait and see what happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Given the timing of the first edit made on Wikipedia, I would have thought the experience would be enough for Martin not to add copyrighted material in addition to numerous warnings. One bit of assistance between Martin and I recently was to try and stop content dispute on Will Young which has stopped thanks to a partial block. Hopefully the user will come back with a clearer mind on copyrighted content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iggy the Swan (talk • contribs) 20:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Given how much time and effort it takes other people to clean up copyvio issues, I've never understood why there isn't a sanction that goes like this "Until your CCI is complete, you can choose to be blocked or help clean up. If the latter, you may not add anything to any article except in the course of cleaning up past articles under the guidance of volunteers at CCI." I don't understand how we have (a) several CCIs open while the editors people are cleaning up after continue to edit other articles without pitching in; (b) people blocked who are willing to help with their own CCI, unless they're somehow totally helpless in understanding copy/pasting and close paraphrasing. In the immediate, this means: if Martin is down to help clean up, let him try before indeffing, and indef if there are any edits outside of the scope of the CCI. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. DeCausa (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that's a good point. I guess that when it comes to laying down the law, Wikipedia would rather cut off our nose to spite our face. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  From what I have seen and heard from others, these efforts generally simmer out after a few months. On a MUCH more positive note, people helping out with cleaning up their own messes makes it easier on us, especially if they're not WMF, Community, or 3X banned on other merits. As for why blocks first; people don't just stop when we request them to. We don't know if they're going to really go and help out at their CCI or are going to make more work for us, and we don't know if they even understand copyright. If they continue to edit as we open a CCI, we have to expand the list with even more edits. And especially to our copyright admins, they do not have the time to babysit an editor that they unblocked looking for edits that aren't in the vein of cleanup. I can see Martin getting an unblock, or at least a downgrade to a p-block from mainspace, if mentoring goes well, if he demonstrates understanding of copyright, and especially if he helps clean it up. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites: The majority of those who get blocked for copyright violations don't offer to help out at the subsequent CCI. If they do offer to help out and are subsequently unblocked, few actually help out at the CCI. Forcing them to help as an unblock condition has provided mixed results when I've done it. For the "try before indeffing" comment; if I understand what you are saying correctly, something similar used to be tried in the early days of CCI; a 48 hour block or so would be applied or the contributor would be warned after the CCI was opened instead of a block. This almost always lead to further violations, leading to that practice being discontinued. Just in the last year, I've had to block two users for copyright violations that occurred after their CCI was opened, when they should've been just blocked at the time (both cases were opened in 2014). Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Why not just downgrade to p-block from mainspace now? Levivich (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's actually a very good point. Why not? Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  I was thinking earlier that part of the mentoring should ideally be helping to clean up the mess that a CCI would likely be. In terms of the more general point though I don't see how allowing someone to continue to edit but demanding they participate in a CCI is helpful by itself. The whole point is that by the time we're blocking someone, they've been warned repeatedly but have demonstrated that they can't be trusted to avoid creating copyright problems, we can assume because they don't understand the problem. They have to demonstrate an understanding before their efforts to help out at CCI are going to be useful. This isn't like someone vandalising Wikipedia where we can assume they know. The alternative is they do know but don't care which is far more serious and I think many will be reluctant to trust them ever again even if they seem to be make a genuine effort at their CCI. Of course partial blocks are also still newish but still I'm not sure a change to practice is called for. Remember such blocks are one of several examples where indefinite does not have to mean infinite or even very long but the editor needs to convince an admin before we can allow them to return. And an editor can still use CCI to help demonstrate their understanding, just that they need should use their talk page since we can't trust their efforts as being useful. Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Though I agree in theory with having editors clean up after themselves before doing anything else, I appreciate in practice, letting editors continue with other activities is the carrot to get them to help, rather than just leaving. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• The CCI has been opened at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20220720 (numbered names are used for real names/privacy related reasons.) It won't be filled out for a few days or so due to the large number of edits. For those wanting to help out, I have written a guide to CCI at User:Moneytrees/CCI guide. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: change to a mainspace p-block

Per the last couple of comments above, I propose that the community endorse the idea that the indef block will be changed to a p-block from mainspace. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • To expand on why I support this, there would be zero risk of anything becoming a problem in article space, and it would create a situation in which Martin could actually help clean up the CCI, as I believe he will, reducing the workload on other editors. He can demonstrate whether he can remain a net positive, and editors will be able to evaluate that. Should things turn out wrong, the block can always be changed back to an indef. What matters most is improving articles, not making an example of an otherwise good member of the community, and this is a risk-free way to accomplish that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per, well, my support above. Black Kite (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support There are issues that need to be resolved for sure, and there are people willing to work toward that end. For all that's gone wrong in the past, let's try and get this long-term contributor back on track rather than show them the door. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Oppose I would not advise extending trust to someone who has repeatedly been warned and blocked about this single issue and yet is too lazy to obey a very clear rule. Anyone so foolish is not a value-add to this endeavor, even if other Wikipedians find them to be pleasant to get along with. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It works in reverse, too; trust me. Also, "lazy" is too harsh; go with something more sympathetic, like "stupid". Levivich (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator spewing of bile) To be blunt, that's childish. At his talk page, you can see me explaining this "very clear rule" (which, somehow, an awful lot of people find sufficiently unclear in real life, that it has to be taught to them), and him acknowledging that he feels badly that he previously misunderstood some of the distinctions between attribution and original writing. The rule that violations are bad is a very clear rule, but the line between what is and what is not a violation is something that needs to be learned. I spent considerable amounts of time explaining it to university students, including graduate students. And only on Wikipedia would it be considered a virtue not to be appreciated by one's colleagues. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, and he wouldn't be getting away with anything, unless the goal is for other editors to do more work just to make a point. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support, he can help with the CCI (and elsewhere) and there'd be no risk of making the CCI worse by adding more mainspace edits. No evidence of disruption outside mainspace. Levivich (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a final chance to change his editing. Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support as a first step, hopefully some mentoring and discussion and soul searching will lead to a full lift of the block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose what exactly are we gaining by an editor who cannot be trusted to edit all of articlespace? I don't think stuff like keeping his political enemies list up to date is dearly needed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• I'm fine with this being changed to an indef P-block from (Article) and/or Draft: space, since that's how I typically make my copyright blocks. The change is mostly semantic, and it can make appealing easier. I'm not sure this whole proposal is needed though, you could just ask Diannaa if she'd consider changing it. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support per what I said just above this section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• Don't know (non admin comment) I've only just arrived here, and don't know the backstory, but as Tryptofish asks for community input here's mine.... as a "virgin" editor unfamiliar with this behavior and this user, I'd like to hear something - anything - from Martinevans123 that seems convincing of their grasp of the problem and feedback without straying into WP:GASLIGHT territory, or other form of WP:GAMING. If they can do that, then sure, do a temporary p-block from main space. But if they can not or do not provide such a statement, why are we talking about anything short of a global indef? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  @NewsAndEventsGuy: Just noting that the only thing close to a "global indef" would be a global lock or global ban and would have to be proposed on Meta. These only occur where there has been abuse on multiple projects or they are a spambot, which doesn't appear to be the case here given their history. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I'll plead lowly regular editor (not admin) naivete. When I said "global" I just meant indef from the english wikipedia. Of course, a preferable result would be a demonstration from this editor that they can modify their contribs in response to abundant feedback. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry for doing this as an IP - I don't edit much anymore - but Martinevans123 is a significant net positive to the project. The issue here, for those who know him, is that he is a very relaxed and casual funny person. I think he felt that copying text off low-grade sites with no obvious copyright and with some paraphrasing was okay (what BlackKite was referring to earlier). From this process, he now clearly realizes that this is not the case (i.e. copyright is automatic and a serious issue regardless of origin), and will try and fix his problems. Experienced editors helping to fix their own CCI in a good faith manner, is a far better solution all round. 78.19.224.254 (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Allowing sysops to override the spam blacklist

There is an RfC at meta on allowing administrators to override the spam blacklist; you are invited to join the discussion. HouseBlaster^talk 01:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Closure requests#Requests for comment

Reposting here per Dennis Brown, I posted this to BN and he suggested I bring it here. I was adding something to this closure requests page and I noticed what appears to be a very long backlog. Maybe some admins could pop by and close some RFCs? Seeing some very very old discussions there ahead of that one I added that makes me worried about whether this backlog is getting enough attention from consensus-judging-experienced admins and editors. Best wishes, Andrevan@ 12:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've knocked out most of these. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks ScottishFinnishRadish!! Andrevan@ 19:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

gadget notice

Wikipedia:EditNoticesOnMobile will be launching as a default gadget. It is limited to mobile users who are using Minerva skin. A waved approach is being done, wave one is only admins. Should something break, it can be instantly disabled via MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. Please report any issues to Wikipedia talk:EditNoticesOnMobile. You (admins) should not see anything from this unless you edit an article with an edit notice, while logged in as an admin, while on mobile with Minerva (en.w.wikipedia mobile front end site). Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 23:05, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Can someone undo my mistaken overwritten redirect?

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)