Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Good enough for me. valereee (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  The concerns raised here aren't just about one article... Levivich 23:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  I almost posted this myself, thanks for doing it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

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

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

  I know. I was just thinking about cleanup. valereee (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. valereee (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, and you'll notice my suggestion was for a voluntary desysop. valereee (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  Next time I won't bother. valereee (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  Normally, I'd agree but have you ever tried to draftify an article created by an administrator? PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

User @Xpërt3 has started a reversion war on this file without being warned or blocked and therefore I’m complaining against him— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz bm (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have been working on the Arabian and Islamic side of Wikipedia for a little over a year now, and I have noticed a few problems. I recently got into a confict with Aziz bm User talk:Aziz bm over his constant reverting of the File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg. Although his reverts are backed up with a governmental document, it is partially outdated. There are signs of age of that document, such as the design of the Coat of Arms for the Crown Prince (2nd flag on page 10), which does not even match what is use today. Additionally, the colors of the flag on that document have also changed (Page 10). There is definitely another document or royal decree that released for the updating of this flag. Additionally, on Page 12, it shows the calligraphic difference, proving part of my point!!!

To make it clear, the current version of the Saudi Arabian flag on File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg is used by civilians mainly, but not used in the governmental settings. The current version of the File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg is used in governmental settings, as evidenced by this:

• 
  Crown Prince Salman meeting US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, Saudi flag with calligraphy I'm arguing for is visible
• 
  Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman meeting Secretary Pompeo with calligraphy I'm arguing for is visible
• 
  Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman meeting Brazil's president Jair Bolsonaro with calligraphy I'm arguing for is visible
• 
  Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman meeting India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi with calligraphy I'm arguing for is visible

Aziz bm User talk:Aziz bm showed me instances of File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg on User talk:Xpërt3 and then starts to threaten me about how my edits will "cost me suspension", etc. He is still reverting other files such as Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg, which is not even backed by his evidence. Here is an example of that file in use with the flag version I have been reverting back to:

1-[5] 2-[6]

On Admins Noticeboard page, I referenced another users response from around a year ago about the same issue, and here is what the user said:

Zyido states, "I've tried to gather examples of the flag in official use: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3, Example 4, Example 5, Example 6, Example 7, Example 8, Example 9, Example 10. As you can see, the VM version appears inside the royal court, when receiving dignitaries, and on flagpoles in the country. In addition, here, you can see a video shot inside the Saudi Arabian Standards Organization (SASO), the body responsible for maintaining the flag specifications, with the VM version flag in the office. On the other hand, there are, at least, some examples of the FOTW version being used in an official capacity, but they are fewer in comparison: Example A, Example B. In both instances I could find, the flags have been hoisted on the wrong side, indicating they've been set up by the non-Saudi counterpart. Given all this evidence, I am led to believe that the VM version is at least an official, if not the official, current version of the flag. The FOTW version does have an official origin though: It appears to be based on one of several diagrams in the appendix of the 1973 decree (Page 10, Page 11, Page 12) which established the basis of the current flag law. I've been looking through documents all day trying to find a definitive answer on where the VM version came from. It is my understanding that an official flag construction sheet was created in 1984 and attached to a SASO document numbered م ق س 403-1984. I'm still trying to hunt down this document. I am curious to know everyone's thoughts and how we can proceed with this information, and what the relevant Commons/Wikipedia rules are. My proposal is for both flags to appear on the Wikipedia page as alternatives/variants in some way once we decide which one is the "main" one."

This is not incorrect calligraphy, as proven by the sources I have provided above. The admin, User:LaundryPizza03 was convinced by Aziz bm's reverts but in my view he didn't look far enough and made a poor decision. I tried contacting the admin to look at the noticeboard and the information I put there but he didn't respond, hence I came here to express my view of the issue. Both flags are correct, but the flag I'm arguing for is used in governmental settings. If one flag had to be used on the Wikipedia page, it should be File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg as the government uses this flag. Xpërt3 (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From this point on, I will stop this edit war as it is unconstructive, but I request a decision to be made on this issue as soon as possible. Thank you. Xpërt3 (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you maybe give a tl;dr summary of the problem here? I read this and have absolutely no idea what action you're looking for. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights, so Aziz bm was reverting the previous versions of the Saudi Arabian Flag (which is File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg now). I told him to upload the alternate calligraphy to another file but he did not insist on doing so. In addition, he has been reverting Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg to a much older version of a flag that is inaccurate and is not officially used today by the Saudi Gov. The reverting war is the problem. Xpërt3 (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be a dispute over which of two images that represent the flag of Saudi Arabia should be used in Wikipedia articles. If so, this is a content dispute that should be resolved by discussion by the community and consensus, and not by administrators. WP:Dispute resolution is useful here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. It appears most of the conduct issues, such as warring over uploads of images, is occurring on Commons thus will be for Commons administrators to handle. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't challenge this non-admin close, even though the nonadmin closer User:Objective3000 is an involved editor ([7], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I am not understanding why some editors are saying this is an improper forum or to take it to the talk page. I followed literally what Close says. It states, in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, "Depending on the type of discussion, a review will take place at one of several review boards, and distinct criteria are used for each board. In general, deletions are discussed at WP:Deletion review, moves are discussed at WP:Move review, and other closures (including requests for comment^[1]) are discussed at WP:AN." Later on, it states, under "Challenging other closures", "For other procedures, whether formal RfCs or less formal ones such as merging or splitting, contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard." I did my due diligence researching the proper policies and guidelines and User:Objective3000 and other editors could at the very least cite ONE guideline or policy from where they base their actions or opinions telling me that this is not the proper venue, because it is starting to look very arbitrary if they just cite their opinions out of the blue, and all the implied threats against me going on. Thinker78 (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"mercilessly reverted". Good lord, the hyperbole... Zaathras (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)DS-Alerted editor[8] on a mission, e.g. ..I do want to see more accommodation according to Wikipedia's guidance to seemingly conservative posts and critiques..[9]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Sucker for All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sucker for All is requesting an unblock:

Today, May 3, I am requesting the standard offer to any admin willing to unblock me. I am looking to help clean up and better source articles that already exist such as WABC (AM) this month I hope. The 2 admins below seemed to see my likelihood of getting unblocked as "promising", and I just want to be a productive wikipedien again. Sucker for All (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Update: It's now July 1. I believe that I was blocked in large part because I belittled the opinions of users when I disagreed with them and was rude in certain chat pages about which sources were deemed most reliable. In the time since my block, I have not sockpuppeted, I have discussed issues with various users, and my primary occupation would be to fix up pages that have refimprove tags in order to make the community better such as with WABC (AM). I believe in the format and style of wikipedia and that articles should all have appropriate inline citations in a way that leads to more articles being considered up to the standard for an untagged article. In summation, I believe I am now ready to contribute in a positive way to the wiki community by cleaning up articles. @NinjaRobotPirate:, I would appreciate if you posted a request to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Thank you Sucker for All (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

See User talk:Sucker for All for more details. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm the blocking admin (what do you know?), but I don't really have a firm recollection of the block to provide much input, though their talk page does speak to chronic disruption. El_C 18:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also was a blocking admin, actually the first. The major problem here was SfA refusing to accept advice from other editors on their misinterpretation of policy. I do not have an objection to an unblock to allow this editor to try to show us that they have learned policy and will accept advice from more experienced editors. valereee (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've interacted with SfA a few different times, and while I'm not wholly against an unblock, I think this statement is insufficient at the moment. The issues that led to a block are not solely "belittling the opinions of others" or being "rude"; there was also an issue with the understanding and implementation of the policies on original research, synthesis, and primary sources (especially as it pertains to press releases). See this thread on their talk page and the "approximately 15000 of its residents following this religion" thread on this article talk page. If their express desire is to add references to articles, I feel that we need something more about adherence to our policies and standards on sourcing first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse unblock You kinda hafta read the talk page to get the full gist. What they wrote to be carried over lacks the full substance. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• They waited patiently, they asked nicely, what more can we ask? Deserves a second chance. Support per SO and ROPE. Levivich^[block] 16:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it would be good if they showed a bit more awareness of why they were blocked (not so much rudeness as a refusal to accept that their interpretations of policy were not automatically correct, and a WP:IDHT behaviour that wasted a lot of editor time); this is a little concerning since it looks like they don't realise that their discussion style was a substantial part of the problem. I also agree with Writ Keeper, and wonder what kind of sources SfA would be using and which specific edits they are thinking about making. --bonadea contributions talk 19:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern is expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keffals about the nominator (and I see at least one other contributor) who have no other edits outside this AfD, giving rise to the suspicion that they may be sockpuppets using WD as single purpose accounts (SPAs) - in this case, for what appears to be TERFy purposes.

Presuming these are SPAs, do we just have to accept that shit happens, or is it in order to checkuser the accounts to dig a little deeper? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sock farm in full:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/PurpleTurdle
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Stircla
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AustralianFarmer
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/MerlinsSister

Again: please advise on how much seeming manipulation of an AfD is required to trigger further action. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• First, you MUST notify these users that you've reported them here. You've been around long enough to know that. I'm not going to do it for you.
  Second, your report was enough for me to take a look, but these four accounts are  Unrelated technically. It could be a case of off-wiki coordination, but they are not the same person. Katie^talk 21:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• do we just have to accept that shit happens I mean... kinda? At least now that a check's been run. When outright sockpuppetry has been ruled out and the disruption is limited to just the one discussion, I think usually the best approach is to just deploy {{subst:spa}} as needed (which others have done), slap {{notavote}} at the top (which I've just done), and trust that the closer is smart enough to know which comments to weight downward. I've seen heavily-canvassed AfDs that were closed in favor of a position that, by a pure head count, less than 10% supported. If a closer does do a head-count close when there's obvious canvassing involved, that's probably getting overturned. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created this account a few days ago. I am not a new editor. I am just returning to edit Wikipedia from what I thought would be my indefinite departure. My original account was User:Jerm, but I lost my password and had no email assigned via made this account to edit again. I can't really prove that I'm the same editor, so I ask that a checkuser could do it for me, to prove that I'm using the exact same private network/IP, thanks. Judekkan (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, access logs are kept for 3 months so you might have been just outside that range by a few days. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The more important issue is that performing such a check would be contrary to CU policy, per WP:CHECKME. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I ran it anyway, I'll wait for the nastygram from arbcom. Jerm is indeed  Stale. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I’m going to work without my user permissions. That’s fine. I just need rollback and page move rights really. Extended confirm and Autopatrolled I’ll get again naturally. I’m also trying to get twinkle activated, but I don’t see it in my preferences. Judekkan (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preferences, Gadgets, then Browsing. Zaathras (talk) 00:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already tried that, there’s no Twinkle. Judekkan (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be autoconfirmed to use Twinkle – that should happen in about 16 hours. DanCherek (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I took this pic with my iPhone XR: File:Moth IMG 01926345.jpg. Is it possible if I take a new photo with the same phone that it can be identified as the exact unique individual device? Anyone know if that’s possible in WikiCommons? Judekkan (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The pic doesn't contain any unique device ID, which could probably be spoofed anyway, so no. Apparently 77.4 million other people have this device. I've granted you rollback. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Zzuuzz I’m convinced, same person. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

zzuuzz Thanks for getting me rollback. As for page move rights, I'll get that naturally as with the other user rights I had. Judekkan (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also like to have User:Jerm page deleted then recreated as a redirect to my new user page. I don't want the page history there, just want to start anew (somewhat). If there is some satisfactory that I can provide that I'm indeed the same person Jerm, I've already created a new barnstar via the Deaf Barnstar. I'vs also been bold in moving my talk page archives from Jerm to my new account and had User talk:Jerm redirected. Judekkan (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zzuuzz, GeneralNotability. I think I now how to prove who I say I am. File:WikiFilterLogo.png for Edit filter helper, I still have the filter just by itself when I was putting the icon together. Judekkan (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had created the article Cătălin Tecuceanu as it is written in its original language. The article has been moved with the justification that it must be written as is in the language of the new citizenship. How are things? --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The correct answer depends on how English-language sources handle the situation since this person changed his name. 93.172.251.109 (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved back. I'm in favour of using diacritics, considering that we have the technology to use them. As long as redirects are created from non-diacritic titles there really isn't an issue. Mjroots (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never have & never will be in favour of using diacritics in article titles. I'd rather we used the english alphabet, rather then another languages' alphabet. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. I think that arguments over what should be the primary title of an article are silly if we have redirects from all of the plausible versions of the title. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...so we should just deliberately misspell the names of thousands of people? (Including some English names.) – Joe (talk) 09:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Coward. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However this goes I do not believe that the person's citizenship should be the deciding factor. What would we then do about the many subjects with dual citizenship? Otherwise I agree with Robert, and believe that we should concentrate on more important things. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User attempting to add a Fox News conspiracy theory about Israel to the page. Andrevan@ 08:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits from the article. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking into some edits that somehow led me to this AN discussion on WPWP from last summer about editing activity caused a lot of disruption and initiated discussion around filters and throttle messages. Since WPWP 2021 was a summer project last year, I looked to see if it was happening again this year and, yes, there will be a WPWP 2022. However, this year, there is no cash prize for the winners, just a plaque award and some WPWP swag so it might be less of a circus. But I thought since the contest started on July 1st and runs for two months, I'd bring it up here now because in the AN 2021 thread there were suggestions about how to handle this contest in the future and, well, the future is here! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the other recent contests (possibly something relating to 1LIB1REF) also had no cash prize but still got into a lot of controversy. (I'm fairly sure whatever it was had no crash prize since there was a lot of fuss about the cash prize at one of the thread which confused me since I didn't see any mention of it although to be fair details seemed sparse. I eventually worked out it was confusion from the grant request amount which was to be used for various thing but not a cash prize. While I didn't pay much attention to the thread after that, I'm sure one of the organisers confirmed there was no cash prize.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted that this year they've put in a few more good rules, including an age minimum of a year for all participating accounts, clear instructions to leave edit summaries, don't add the hashtag to pages, etc so hopefully this year will be less disruptive. In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive335#Remedies (poll) there was consensus to implement a throttling filter and warning messages, which live in 1158 (hist · log) and should still be life. Failing that and if it gets out of control again this year the above AN discussion also found consensus to in a worst case scenario ban the event entirely. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 06:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs the hashtag Secretlondon (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think so? Last years is still in the filter, and I don't think they've changed it from what I can see (the filter is checking for #WPWP). However, I just noted that the filter has been disabled after last years contest ended. If a passing EFM sees this could they please reenable the filter? Given that the contest has started again its needed again, and consencus hasn't been revoked in the meantime as far as I'm aware. Thanks in advance. -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 20:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-enabled 1158 given that there was no mention of limiting the throttling to the 2021 contest in the discussion and poll that led to the filter being created, and (to my knowledge) no complaints about its operation or effects. I've also tweaked the message shown to users when they're throttled accordingly. If any admin/EFM disagrees with my interpretation they are of course free to revert this. :) firefly ( t · c ) 11:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling this, Firefly. I think it's better to review this situation early because it might help us avoid problems in July and August. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting to everybody who might not have seen it yet that 1073 (hist · log) is also still active, and tracks every edit made as part of this contest (and other similar contest, although I think WPWP is the only one of the tracked set running right now). -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 18:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 24 pending CSD nominations at CAT:CSD. I'm not sure how many is typical, but Draft:New York Arm Wrestling Association has had the {{db-g11}} tag for over 44 hours. Normally, these are handled within a day. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on them EvergreenFir (talk) 17:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done EvergreenFir (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the day when new accounts could create articles, 200 was fairly common. —Kusma (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. These days 10-20 (total) at any given time is pretty typical, as opposed to refreshing each CSD subcat to find 10-20 new pages each time (I don't miss those days). Primefac (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can attest it wasn't any fun deleting or tagging that volume. Glad to see it's not as frantic as it used to be. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note that all CSD categories are not treated equally. There are some criteria (like G3, G7 and G8) that are handled almost immediately upon page tagging while other criteria (most notably G4 and G12) where pages can sit for a while before being reviewed. 24 pages doesn't seem like a serious backlog, I remember being shocked months ago when I saw that there were 0 tagged pages to be reviewed! It's since happened again but it was a shock the first time to see no pages that had been tagged needed to be reviewed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think G4 and G12 take more time/effort to determine if they are valid than things like G3, G7, and G8. So they would sit there longer, both because they take longer to handle and because speedy deletion is supposed to be for pretty obvious, quick, no-brainer decisions. So admins check the speedy queue if they are looking for something to do quickly, so they ignore those that just inherently take a little longer. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got chewed out at a Deletion review for a G4 deletion I made months ago that I thought was appropriate but where the consensus was instead to restore the page and move it to Draft space. How closely do an old and new version of an article need to be to be considered basically "identical"? So, yes, G4s take more time to evaluate than when a page creator tags their pages for CSD G7 deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that really gets me about G4 is that the non-admin tagging it has no way of seeing the deleted version, so they just end up tagging anything at the same title as a previously deleted article, because they don't know. I think we should add a time limit to G4 - 12-24 months or so. Because something that is truly G4-qualified is likely to be reposted relatively soon after the original deletion. Whereas if the article was AFD'd 5+ years ago, it's unlikely to be identical - probably by a different creator and even if it isn't, if the (person, band, company, whatever) was not notable 5 years ago they may be now. At any rate they've likely done something different in that time. I probably turn down 80% or more of the G4s I review, and 100% of the ones where the original deletion was 5 or more years ago. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE:WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Betteruser, This sock tree is insanely huge. The issue currently is a lot of the edits made by the socks that were most recently blocked on 27 June were never reverted; per WP:BE, these should be reverted, right? Curbon7 (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sock in particular made a lot of edits. Am I correct in assuming that you can use your super-special-mass-rollback-tool-thingy for this? Sorry if these questions are stupid or obvious, this isn't a field I foray into very often. Curbon7 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on the "super-special-mass-rollback-tool-thingy" but I do know these type of reverts are easier to do if they are the last edit to the article in question. I believe once other edits have been made to pages, I think the reverts have to be done manually which, when you are talking about a lot of edits, can be very time-consuming. However, these type of reverts don't need to be done by an admin so any editor can proceed once an editor is confirmed as a sockpuppet of a block evading editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of Liam wigley has started be a concern. They have repeatedly tried to start an article about Princess Mirror-Belle, a TV show on the BBC, but the best they have managed is to copy-paste content from So Awkward and leave it at that. Now first things first, Princess Mirror-Belle exists, so it's not something Liam wigley made up. For my part, I have never seen the show and know nothing more about it than it is a real existing show.

Liam wigley has repeatedly been contacted on their talk page about the article Princess Mirror-Belle but they have so far failed to respond to any of the comments. Because of repeated misconduct, the article Princess Mirror-Belle was deleted and salted, and Liam wigley was temporarily blocked.

I am inclined to think Liam wigley is still acting in good faith here, but they are misguided. This is made even worse by their lack of communication. I am inclined to give Liam wigley the benefit of the doubt and remove the salt from Princess Mirror-Belle, if someone won't do it for me before it. But I fear Liam wigley will recreate it with copy-pasted content. JIP | Talk 00:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The protection can stay, although the user tried to create it at a different title Princess Mirror-Belle (TV series) because of the protection. And it's the same with Lagging (TV series) which I speedy deleted twice, however it has not been protected. Jay (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I became aware of that editor when they created Lagging (TV series), which was not about that TV series, and, like Princess Mirror-Belle, was mostly copied from So Awkward. I nominated it for deletion, and it was then speedied. The editor will come off a 31-hour block in a few hours. If they don't provide an explanation soon, I would suggest an indefinite block as playing silly games or otherwise not here to edit constructively. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The programme exists at the very least, so I think a redirect to List of BBC children's television programmes#Current programming (while remaining protected) is at the very least proper. But a much better article needs to be drafted before it hits article space, because Liam's versions have all been poor. Nate • (chatter) 20:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Mirror-Belle (TV series) also needs to be protected as the user tried to create it again, and was speedy deleted. Jay (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the World Athletics is Diego Aldo Pettorossi, for the FIDAL is Diego Aldo Pettorossi. I created the article as Diego Aldo Pettorossi but the article has been moved to Diego Pettorossi. I would like to point out that at the first request for arbitration I had already obtained the moving of the article Cătălin Tecuceanu, but the article has been moved again. Here I warned in his talk the admin that I had made the moving. I would also like to point out that the user is a friend of mine and it is not absolutely necessary to open an ANI, perhaps and only a little distracted, however I had informed him of the facts (his moving of the articles a little "bold") on his talk page. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So... what are you looking for? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would pray that an admin would make the moving of the two artcles for me. Kasper2006 (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kasper2006, I think you're saying the page is at Diego Pettorossi but belongs at Diego Aldo Pettorossi because according to both WA and FIDAL that is his formal name? W/re: Catalin Tecuceanu...you are arguing the diacritics need to be put back?

To me this looks like a content dispute, unless you are saying that the other editor has moved these for nationalistic reasons?

You are required to notify the other editor. I have done that for you. valereee (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do confirm that @Kasper2006: doesn't understand well my moves that are correct (COMMON NAME, from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography). Nobody gives the 2 first names to Diego Pettorossi in the sources (even if Diego Aldo is the correct full name). It is not an Admin issue but an editorial one, by the way.--Arorae (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked a bit at this, and I agree with User:Valereee that this is a content issue and does not require administrator attention. This should be taken up at WP:RM. JIP | Talk 20:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly large backlog, also if some one could review this request. Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 14:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Storch request has been removed, seems to be true. Backlog remains. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hoping you can help. A couple of editors are repeatedly deleting an IP user's comments on Talk:Graham Linehan, namely User:Newimpartial and User:Sideswipe9th. The comment is plainly and explicitly about the article's treatment of its subject, which WP:TPG seems to suggest should not be deleted. When I told them that I would post on an adminstrators' noticeboard to try to get outside input and find a resolution, they took that as a prompt to race me to it and post a complaint about me edit-warring - especially baffling since they were the ones attempting to make the same deletions and edits *to someone else's talk page comment* again and again with minor differences. I don't know if they're hoping to side-step suggestions that they're edit-warring themselves by splitting the deletions between two editors so that I reach three reversions first, but it's very plain that they're effectively working in tandem, and not at all clear that they're allowed to delete that comment in the first place. Surely this isn't acceptable? Grateful for your advice, whoever picks this up. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be using that talkpage as a soapbox, rather than providing specific, sourced suggestions for article improvement. You also appear to be forum-shopping. The correct response to a complaint at AN3 is to constructively address it there, not at yet another noticeboard. I advise you to self-revert as requested at AN3. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clicriffhard, you can hardly expect the admin community to address the situation appropriately if you do not describe it accurately. Apart from all the aspersions, you are leaving out the fact that you have reverted four times in four hours on the same page, without any claim to 3RRNO that I can see (documented here). You also claim that editors are repeatedly deleting an IP user's comments, but in reality no editor has done that more than once; the version that prompted your fourth revert contained all the content of the original IP edit, but hatted according to the WP:TPG.

If you have the idea that it was inappropriate for another editor to post your edit warring to WP:3RRN just because you had expressed the intention of consulting an administrator (!?), I can't see the logic in that. Intending to post something to a noticeboard isn't a license for edit-warring beyond the scope of WP:3RRNO. Newimpartial (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IP post in question is a textbook WP:NOTAFORUM post, thinly-veiled concern trolling. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 02:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it; that comment isn't needed in any serious forum about the subject and does violate NOTAFORUM, and reversion is justified. Stop restoring it. Nate • (chatter) 02:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And do not revert again. Acroterion (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Clicriffhard is now making accusations of hypocrisy, the game-playing, and the bullying over at the related AN3 discussion. Which seems a bold choice given this is about talk page content on a page subject to two discretionary sanctions (BLP and GENSEX). Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Clicriffhard is continuing to make personal attacks while blocked. Saying that an editor is actual poison [10], and claiming them to be exhibiting manipulative behaviour while questioning their integrity [11]. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's progressed from questioning an editor's integrity to saying you do not know what integrity is. [12] @Acroterion: I'm sorry for pinging, but as the blocking admin could you step in here please? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The most evocative line has been, "you don't know what integrity is". Newimpartial (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Usually in these situations. The 'discussion' is hatted & collapsed with a title 'NOTFORUM', rather then outright deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TALKOFFTOPIC gives three options for dealing with off-topic posts. Hatting is one such option, but in my experience with this sort of comment deletion is the more frequently used option. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so. But the 'deletion' method tends create the most irritation from the editor, who post was deleted. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, The content of the post justified full removal to me. No need to keep 'this site lies' and a polemic IP drive-by on that page (they haven't edited eight hours since), and it's in the history. I doubt they'll be back on that one. Nate • (chatter) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Clicriffhard hasn't claimed to be the IP in question; to the contrary. And the third and fourth reverts were to the 'hatting' method, not the 'deletion' method. Newimpartial (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, though this seems moot in this case as the irritation as you put it is from another editor and I would not want to speculate on whether Clicriffhard is or is not the IP editor who made the off-topic comment. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, "hatting" was the nature of my last two edits that Clicriffhard reverted (the third and fourth reverts). Newimpartial (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing such comments with a "WP:NOTAFORUM" edit summary is entirely appropriate in such cases and I do that all the time. This is not true deletion because that NOTAFORUM content is still visible in the page history. Only far more objectionable content would be revision deleted, or in the very worst cases, suppressed. Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I've blocked Clicriffhard for 24 hours for continuing to make personal attacks and general IDHT behavior in the primary AN3 thread. Acroterion (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing my best to calm the lad down, now that he's on a 24-hr 'break'. My task would be made easier, if anyone he's steamed at, doesn't contact him any further during his 24-hr break, ok? GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had Clicriffhard not continued to make personal attacks while escalating their nature after the block, I'd have said this was worth a try. However given that your first attempt was rebuffed as bad advice, and the nature of the attacks has deepened I'm afraid that this will both fall upon deaf ears and be ultimately unnecessary as it seems to me as though that block will be extended. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the lad's sake, it may be best that his talkpage rights be revoked for the duration of his block. That will hold off any more possible anger and/or taunting issues. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second attempt has also been rebuffed in a less than civil manner. And based on that message, I do not think they want to be unblocked. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed talkpage access to keep them from digging the hole yet deeper. I endorse GoodDay’s advice to leave them alone. Acroterion (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[13] Qhnbgjt (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]