Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome to the administrators' noticeboard
This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators. It is rarely appropriate for inexperienced users to open new threads here – for the "Incidents" noticeboard, click here. Do not report breaches of privacy, inappropriate posting of personal information, outing, etc. on this highly visible page – instead click here. 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. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over six days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Click here to start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	23	121	0	144
TfD	0	0	2	0	2
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	1	29	0	30
AfD	0	0	37	0	37

• 15 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 13 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 37 sockpuppet investigations
• 18 Candidates for speedy deletion
  • 0 Duplicate files
• 2 Fully-protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 3 requests for RD1 redaction
• 38 elapsed requested moves
• 12 requested closures
• 59 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 15 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (21 out of 3822 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Farouk Hosny Foundation for Culture and Arts 2022-07-04 22:16 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated: Created in different spaces and different languages. An extended-confirmed editor may create this from an approved WP:AFC draft. Anachronist Module:WikidataIdentifiers 2022-07-04 17:59 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2500 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Handskills 2022-07-04 12:38 2023-07-04 12:38 create Repeatedly recreated Anarchyte X=Prem 2022-07-04 09:59 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Justlettersandnumbers Malcolm Brogdon 2022-07-04 00:44 2022-07-11 00:44 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Nithyananda 2022-07-03 20:44 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing and WP:COI editing that resumed within a week of previous ECP protection expiring Abecedare Template:Census 2021 AUS 2022-07-03 16:48 indefinite edit,move Highly visible template: (soon) El C Jock Landale 2022-07-03 13:48 2022-07-10 13:48 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba DeAndre Jordan 2022-07-03 10:17 2022-07-10 10:17 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Sourav Jain 2022-07-02 20:52 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Template:Twin Atlantic 2022-07-02 18:01 2022-09-24 20:13 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: upgrade to WP:ECP for the duration El C Twin Atlantic 2022-07-02 17:49 2022-09-24 20:08 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: upgrade to WP:ECP for the duration El C Yazidi languages 2022-07-02 11:12 indefinite create WP:AE action: converting pre-deletion WP:ARBKURDS protection to salting Tamzin List of Yazidi tribes 2022-07-02 05:34 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:ARBKURDS; sockpuppetry by autoconfirmed accounts Tamzin Abd al-Mu'min 2022-07-02 02:38 2022-10-02 02:38 edit,move Edit warring / content dispute: Reverting by a series of new editors. A dispute here was originally reported in 3RRArchive454. Use the talk page to get consensus EdJohnston Gary Payton II 2022-07-01 14:52 2022-07-08 14:52 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Technoblade 2022-07-01 13:52 2022-07-08 13:52 edit,move Persistent vandalism Widr File:Technoblade.jpg 2022-07-01 13:36 2022-07-08 13:36 edit,move,upload Widr Draft:Shahidul Islam Shohel 2022-07-01 03:45 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz Richarlison 2022-07-01 02:18 2022-07-07 13:15 edit Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: upgrade to WP:ECP for the duration. WP:CRYSTAL El C Maharashtra Legislative Assembly 2022-07-01 01:50 2022-07-07 05:18 edit downgrading from WP:FULL to [[WP:ECP] El C

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)

Partial block question

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T202673

Recently, I issued an indefinite partial block for a user on a specific page for BLP violations. Another admin added a second page to the partial block. Then the user continued to spread the BLP violation on the first article's talk page and I issued a full sitewide block for one week. After the full block expired, the partial blocks were gone. Is there any way that indefinite partial blocks can remain after the expiration of a temporary sitewide block? I know the non-technical answer is to do what I did, reissue the partial blocks after the sitewide block expired, but I wish this was automatic. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I too often issue partial blocks which I call pageblocks, and find quite useful. It would be very useful to have the automatic functionality that Mobushgu describes without the administrator having to remember to go back and reimpose the partial blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You were that other admin I was referring to. You probably remember the user I'm alluding to. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328, FWIW, the User:SD0001/W-Ping script is great. You can set it to ping you to any page after any length of time. valereee (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a way: Implementing phabricator task T202673 in MediaWiki. Or in other words, there is no way for us yet. For IP address blocks, you can create multiple blocks on overlapping ranges (such as a partial block on two IPv6 /65 ranges supplementing a sitewide block on the /64 that encompasses both). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I would need to go back to college at age 70 to learn how to do that, which would require deep study of the meaning of what you just wrote, ToBeFree. That is not going to happen. If I went back to college, it would be to take a class in painting or writing poetry. Cullen328 (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It is currently not possible to place multiple blocks on the same Wikipedia account at the same time. For example, it is not possible to block an account from editing the page Earth for two weeks while also blocking them from editing Mars for three weeks.

However, if we're dealing with someone who does not use an account, we see their IP address. It is possible to place multiple blocks on the same IP address at the same time. For example, it is possible to block all IP addresses starting with "123.456." from editing Earth for two weeks, while also blocking all IP addresses starting with "123." from editing Mars for three weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

About User:Eric multiple deleted entries about climate data.

User:Eric has repeatedly deliberately deleted parts of the article about climate without any valid reason, and its behavior involved inappropriate behavior under WP:POINT. After his disruptive editing behavior was discouraged by multiple users, he still went his own way. Hope the admins will consider topic ban on the climate topic as appropriate for this inappropriate behavior.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 迷斯拉10032号 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

From the instructions for posting in this forum: When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. In this and the previous frivolous posting here regarding my clean-up efforts, the above user has failed to notify me of the posting. I would suggest that the user endeavor to become more familiar with procedures before calling out to admins. Eric ^talk 14:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have a question since you've provided no diffs. When you say "After his disruptive editing behavior was discouraged by multiple users", where are you referring to? I looked at your previous AN/I thread about this topic as well as the WikiProject Weather discussion and I don't see what you're describing. If anything, I see agreement with Eric that the content is problematic in their current state. I think it would be helpful to provide diffs to back up what you're saying, or at minimum provide links to these prior discussions you're referring to. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I went for a deeper look to maybe see if I could find what you're referring to, but I came up empty. You say that he deleted edits without any valid reason, yet reasons were given, both in edit summaries and in the discussion on WikiProject Weather. Just because you disagree with the reason doesn't mean it's not a valid reason. You say he's being WP:POINTy, but looking through his recent diffs I can't find any evidence of such, and would highly advise you to read WP:NOTPOINTy. Not a single thing you have said can be substantiated based on a review of his recent contributions, so I have to ask, can you provide proof for any of these claims? - Aoidh (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

But "reverting addition of unnecessary climate section that dwarfs the rest of the article" is not a valid reason for removal of properly sourced contents. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Ohana. Did you visit the WikiProject Weather discussion linked above? Eric ^talk 00:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I think there can be an argument that it's putting too much weight on a climate table when ~53% of an article's size is one table with a single source, especially when there's a smaller more concise template that can be used, and when there's some agreement on the WikiProject talk page that such content is too much for a smaller article. I'm not saying it's a perfect argument, but I do think it's one that does have some rationale behind it. - Aoidh (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I read about this type of article, because comparing the French original with the current English entry, there is a lot to be translated in the French version. All entries are never a final result, and the weight of a source within an article (provided it must be reliable) cannot be a reason for its removal.

In addition, I also had a period of editing experience on Chinese Wikipedia. The behavior of User:Eric is actually in line with the Chinese Wikipedia's judgment on the behavior of WP:GAME, but the English Wikipedia seems to This definition is rather vague. Before this there was a case where User:離心力青蛙/w:zh:LTA:FROG was blocked indefinitely. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, where are the diffs showing that "multiple editors" discouraged his editing? Where is the evidence that his edits violated WP:POINT? - Aoidh (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

See edit history for page Ciboure, with User:Canterbury Tail's revocation, User:Eric stopped disrupting the page. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh he stopped? But above you said he ignored multiple other editors and continued? Which is it? That page's edit history doesn't even come close to supporting the claims you made in your comment above. This is so contrary to what you claimed about multiple editors commenting on his disruptive behavior to the point where I'd argue that you're bordering on personal attacks by making such baseless claims against another editor. I'm guessing your comment about WP:POINT is equally as baseless since you have not supplied any evidence for that claim either. - Aoidh (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@迷斯拉10032号: each Wikipedia has their own policies and guidelines. While experience in editing other Wikipedia is often useful, you need to ensure you comply with the policies and guidelines on the Wikipedia you are on. And whatever you do in the Chinese Wikipedia, content being sourced does not mean it always belongs despite the unfortunate implication of OhanaUnited's comment above. Some content despite being covered in sources simple does not belong on the English Wikipedia because it's not the sort of thing we cover or because it's way too much information for any encyclopaedia article. To give an obvious related example, there's a good chance that large table of some random specific location's detailed historic climate data going back 100 years is not something that belongs in any English Wikipedia article.. I said below I'm not intending to comment on the content issue, at the time I hadn't looked at the content. Now that I have it's the sort of thing we do normally allow so I'm unconvinced about the removal, however I stick by my main comment which is that ultimately that's a decision for discussion and the mere presence of sources does not mean it belongs. Also if you're going to imply that a 16 year old account is somehow related to a sock, you need very good evidence or you should withdraw your suggestion or face a block for a personal attack. Nil Einne (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm just citing the case of a user on Chinese Wikipedia, not that he abused multiple accounts. At the same time, I exercise restraint and ensure that my actions are in line with the community's requirements for WP:CIV. While most of his editorial behavior seems fairly normal, the deliberate removal of climate data templates from articles without justification is inherently inappropriate. I hope that the party User:Eric will recognize the mistake and withdraw all controversial deletions. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@OhanaUnited: can't say I agree. Sure the comment should have referred more to specific policies and guidelines but such a comment seems to obviously raise WP:UNDUE and maybe WP:NOT concerns. Content being sourced doesn't mean it belongs. To be clear, I have no opinion on whether the content belongs, that's a discussion for the article talk pages or something. Maybe a centralised discussion if it concerns multiple article. I'm simply pointing out that a comment like "reverting addition of unnecessary climate section that dwarfs the rest of the article" does raise even if not in a well explained way legitimate content concerns that should be discussed rather than simply dismissed because they were not perfectly explained. Nil Einne (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

First of all Meteo-France is the official data platform of the French Meteorological Service, and France is a member of the World Meteorological Organization, and its data is also recognized by WMO, so it should be a reliable source. In addition, if you think that climate data accounts for too much of the article, you can consider other ways to optimize, such as setting the climate data template to be off by default. In addition, I can describe the climate of the place in three sentences at most. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: UNDUE what? Don't randomly cite policies without actually reading what the policy is about. UNDUE policy is in reference to viewpoints that are published in reliable sources and avoid giving minority views too much detail. And MeteoFrance is a French government department that participates in WMO (just like NOAA). Their data 100% meets the reliable source criteria. The climate box that 迷斯拉10032号 contained only facts that are properly sourced. The numbers are impartial and did not have any text that advocate certain views. It certainly is encyclopedic content. This discussion is about why Eric removed these contents while not having any policies to back it up. Revert wars are user conduct disputes. And 迷斯拉10032号 is right to bring it here because it is of interest to admins. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused why you assume Nil Einne didn't read WP:UNDUE, or why you suggest that content having reliable sources means that it must be included in an article, especially through the lens of other policies such as WP:VNOT. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject..." and the argument that historical weather data is a minor aspect that probably should not take up over half of the article is a valid argument under that policy. While you personally may not agree that the information is undue, and consensus may end up being against Eric, that doesn't mean that he removed the content "while not having any policies to back it up." - Aoidh (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello all- Though I don't think this is the ideal place to discuss the content I reverted, as I attempted to address that elsewhere from the outset; In the interest of providing context, here is an example of what I see to be an unhelpful addition to a short article on a village of 362 people in France: Quintenic before, Quintenic after. While I do not see the utility of an extended climate narrative and large data table to any article on an individual municipality, I could see an argument for it in an article covering a country or a large region. Eric ^talk 11:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I reiterate that neither of your reasons for removing climate data from your article without reason is justified. You said that adding a climate template in the article affects the layout of the article, and you said that adding a template for climate data in a village with a few hundred people makes no sense. The reality is that these two reasons of yours are not tenable at all, because there are so many articles like Antipayuta, Deputatsky, Grise Fiord, Resolute] , King Salmon, and Makkovik, there are hundreds of such articles on the English Wikipedia. Why is there no problem with people writing climate data, but a problem with me? Also, I have withdrawn all of your actions to delete climate data. If you are determined to delete it, I will apply for a topic ban for you in accordance with the regulations, and finally know that your account has been blocked. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

All disruptive deletions made by User:Eric have been withdrawn, and if persistent, the person will be notified of a level 4 (most severe) warning. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@迷斯拉10032号: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for why your argument is basically irrelevant. Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to make the same point I made the last time this came up. I have no view on whether or not the template should be included, but when added it really must be added with "| width=auto" as a parameter to stop it from taking up its own full lines and taking over the articles. And preferably with "| collapsed = true" for small articles. This stops the takeover of articles (and I don't know why these aren't in the template by default.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure whether to report this user or simply ignore the edit-warring and tendentious statements: Special:Contributions/迷斯拉10032号. Rather than engaging in a collaborative manner in content discussion on the topic's project talkpage, the user makes frivolous reports here, issuing diatribes and dire warnings without substantiation. Advice, anyone? Eric ^talk 14:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a content issue, which is outside this noticeboard's purview and 迷斯拉10032号 should learn to first start a new topic in a user's talk page to engage in discussion before running straight to AN(I). I'm not amused by 迷斯拉10032号's casting of aspersions in their edit summaries, see [5] and [6] for examples. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

A somewhat puzzling topic

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

---

• FrB.TG (talk · contribs)

This editor / user along with two or more of their friends try to take over articles. On top of that they seek to draw other users into a debate, argument, conflict, or such and get them into a difficulty with 3RR or other reverting.

There is no recourse other than going to ANI or almost canvassing for admins to stop the problems. Said users ignore their talk pages, often pay no attention to efforts to get a consensus through talk pages on a page, etc.

These users evidently aren't going to go anywhere. Must we leave 2 or 3 dozen "pop culture" articles to their usurpation? No good options here.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Note: Pictureperfect2 has now opened a similar thread on WP:ANI. It would probably be better dealt with there, assuming some actual evidence is provided... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A probably related thread by FrB.TG involving pictureperfect2 exists at WP:AN3. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 11:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

---

Duonaut, you're hardly editing and now you're here on noticeboards? You said your editing interests have been clerical.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Pointing out the existence of a related thread is the sort of thing I'd expect from an editor who's interest is clerical so I don't know where you're going with that. Whatever the case I'm certain it is no where good so I suggest you drop it and concentrate on the ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Closure of Kashmir Files RfC

This is a request to review the close at Talk:The Kashmir Files#RfC about article lede to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer here. I believe the closure's assertion that arguments for option C being against NPOV were not refuted was incorrect, and an incorrect summary and reading of the discussion, as multiple editors argued for the neutrality of option C and it's adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I request that this RfC be reclosed. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I am loathe to challenge experienced closers but you do appear to be right... Perhaps its just an error in phrasing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Multiple editors gave detailed reasons as to why option C failed NPOV. Nobody refuted that in any way, simply asserted it. If option C fails NPOV it cannot be considered, and given the multiple editors demonstrating that it did fail NPOV and nobody offering any reason for why it does not I couldnt give preference to those arguing for strict adherence to FLIMLEAD over NPOV. That left A and B, and the objections to B were much stronger than A. Beyond that, while Option C did have numerous supports, it also had numerous explicit opposes. I also slightly discounted the handful of users with a trivial number of edits prior to that discussion. nableezy - 16:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You are aware that "no consensus" is an option? The fact pattern you've laid out only makes sense if the closer is being forced to pick one of the options, but thats just not the case IRL. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware, but I also see consensus against option B, and see option A as having general support. nableezy - 16:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

So was "That left A and B" just a slip of the tongue and you meant "That left A, B, and no consensus"? You're also skipping past the point that option C appears to have significant support which you can't handwave away with "one guy said it didn't meet NPOV and nobody ever directly refuted them." I've never seen a closer do that and I'm pretty sure theres a good reason for that... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It wasnt one guy, and sure no consensus was always an option. And yes, I addressed option C already. It is not handwaving to say that one of the options was convincingly shown to be a NPOV violation and that was not addressed, and per NPOV that rules it out, no matter how many people raise their hand for it. nableezy - 17:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(Commenting as as an admin involved with the page) Note that a no-consensus close would leave the status quo wording in place per the page restricton I had imposed and that is a version that has so little (no?) support that it was not even nominated as one of the proposals in the pre-RFC discussion. Abecedare (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Thats very interesting, but it doesn't appear that the closer was aware of that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

the "detailed arguments" were assertions by Fowler et al that the film was controversial and the lead must call it "fictional" to have a "countervailing effect". this was refuted by many others who pointed out that controversy, political or not, is no reason to stuff criticism into the first paragraph as shown by hundreds of popular film articles, such as Cuties, other propagandist political films, and whole film section of Wikipedia:Featured articles. I don't see how that claim is tenable in any sense.

The claims of other editors pulling out FRINGE etc were already discussed and refuted in the pre-RfC discussions with Fowler. Perhaps the closer missed that background. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I did not read anything besides the RFC no. I think you are understating the NPOV arguments. nableezy - 17:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Involved !voter - The closer appears to have missed my rejoinder to V93 where I emphasized that there is no policy or practice which imposes upon us to ensure NPOV in every single line of content, divorced from its succeeding content. Policies request of us to write a NPOV lead; not "NPOV first line", "NPOV second line", and so on. I have nothing significant against A but this closure is ridiculous. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No, I did see that, but I also saw you say C >~ A and that you I can see the grounds for a possible exception given the constant efforts of the film-maker to market it as a documentary that unearths the TRUTH of Kashmir. I actually found your comment to be very well put and substantive and was one of the reasons I found consensus for A. nableezy - 17:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I will not oppose but you needed to write a better and more detailed closing statement. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There is clearly no way to close this as anything other than "Strong opposition to B; almost equal well-argued support for A and C". The closer cannot cast a supervote to decide whether my or V93's arguments win. That Abecedare's restriction necessitates a winner: do a headcount between A and C. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I dont know what supervote I cast here. The only viewpoint I presented is that NPOV trumps FILMLEAD, and that if NPOV is violated it doesnt matter if FILMLEAD is met. nableezy - 17:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed! NPOV is a "non-negotiable policy" and FILMLEAD is just a style guide. People don't seem to understand the difference! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I was about to write the same, that NPOV must be achieved while FILMLEAD (MOS) ought to be achieved — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Kautilya3, The question isn't whether FILMLEAD triumphs NPOV. of course it doesn't. it's about the correct reading of the discussion and whether or not it's even true that option C violated NPOV. the closer's assertion are not supported by the discussion—I believe all arguments against the neutrality of option C were adequately answered, by multiple editors, multiple times. other than that we only have brute assertions and "perceptions" that it isn't neutral, which flies in the face of all logic and Wikipedia precedent on the interpretation of policy. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue is mainly that the discussion found no consensus that option C violated NPOV. There were assertions, arguments and counterarguments. The closer's decision to ignore all that and imply the supporters of option C are ignoring NPOV without presenting any counterarguments is a misreading of the discussion and constitutes a supervote. As such, the RfC needs a reclose. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support for the closure. As the initiator of proposal B, and as the author of every phrase, every clause, and every sentence of proposal A, except for felicitous moderation by Mathsci's fine ear for the language, and some minor reshuffling by others, I support this decision. This nonsense has gone on long enough. Agnihotri has other fish to fry. Good job Nableezy! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Without pointing to anyone in particular, the pussyfooters who appeared on this page to dicker with the lead after the film's director's temper tantrum on Twitter about Wikipedia's unfair coverage, or the drivebys-of-the-moment who have appeared at the RfC, treating this glorified and dangerous propaganda film—to be on par with Pather Panchali, Rashomon, or the masterpieces of Lang, Eisenstein, De Sica, or Goddard, when in fact as a propaganda film it does not rise to Riefenstahl's 1933 effort let alone Triumph of Will or Olympia—to be deserving of the ministrations of FILMLEAD and proposing that this is only a film article, are in my view, interfering with Wikipedia's primary purpose of telling the reliable truth, and of bearing witness without let or hindrance. This is all I have to say on this matter. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• 1. Your repeated attempts, throughout the pre-RfC discussions and now here, to cast aspersions at the motives of editors in good standing borders on assuming bad faith. 2. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. Our goal is to present a neutral summary of the subject. Whether or not the various proposals achieve that has already been discussed in the RfC and before, the contention here is whether the close assessed the consensus of the discussions correctly. The question never was of deciding between FILMLEAD and NPOV—but whether there even is a conflict between the two in this case. I believe the consensus emerges in the discussion that there isn't—option C fulfills both. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing a more cringe-evoking comment on Wikipedia. User:Fowler&fowler, thanks for gracing us with your "I am very smart" wall of text. Best wishes, NebulaOblongata (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

+1. This specific brand of chest-thumping would be parsed as parody coming from most people, but peculiarly seems to be the editor's default mode of communication. I assume it works well on Reddit or something. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I do the hard work and you get to facilely Wikilawyer? How is that uncringeworthy? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You = the lot of you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse the close I don't see anything wrong with the close maybe it could have been worded better for some, but undoing the close for that is unnecessary. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• B definitely fails, based on that discussion, so the closer's got to choose between A, C, and the status quo ("no consensus"). Status quo in the case of that article is a moving target, because it changed rapidly during the discussion, and it's also basically a bad close because editors went to RFC looking for a way on, and no consensus doesn't do that. This case called for a decision rather than a compromise. I believe that I too would have preferred A over C, had I been the closer.—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse B fails, A is better than C in summarizing the article as 'dramatization' is pretty close to a weasel word looking to obscure the reality of the article. Slywriter (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

1Lib1RefNG junk-references

I don't know who is running this edit-a-thon, but they seem to be going for quantity and have no idea about WP:RS. Common cites being added include Google books that are copy-paste of enwiki content (that do not cite us!), various wikipedia mirror or aggregation sites, and other collected-search-results links. If anyone can trace the origin, might want to alert them how poorly it seems to be going. DMacks (talk) 13:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this again... Wikimedia User Group Nigeria is responsible, you can find them at Meta[7]. Fram (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Olaniyan Olushola is their chairman, their secretary is banned from enwiki. Fram (talk) 13:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

And User:Atibrarian seems to be responsible for the 1Lib1RefNG campaign. Fram (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I have started handing out short-term WP:DE blocks for hashtag-campaign offenders after a single warning, because contacting the coordinators has (so far) been unsuccessful in getting things changed. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Fram,

Thanks for the TAG, however, insinuating I am responsible for the campaign is a kind of tool bold statement to make when you have already ascertained that [Wikimedia User Group Nigeria] "is responsible" for the program.

I am only a participant interested in improving Wikipedia with reliable and verifiable references.

Going forward, i will notify the organisers to look into the concerns raised by User:DMacks.

Warm regards. Fatimah (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good start. DMacks (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Not really a good start, when they don't want to take responsability for their own actions: this makes it pretty clear that you are responsible for the campaign, and your comment above about me "insinuating" the same looks really poor. You are the contact person, you are asking for a grant, you should take the responsability, not act as if you have little or nothing to do with it and are "only a participant" who will "notify the organisers". Fram (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I note that in response to the question in the grant application "How have you let relevant Wikimedia communities know about this proposal? You are required to provide links to on-wiki pages to inform these communities about your proposed work. Examples of places where this can be done include community discussion pages, affiliate discussion pages, or relevant project talk pages." the organiser provided a link to Meta. Is the English Wikipedia not a relevant community? Where did the organiser notify us? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that you have not meticulously gone through this [proposal] to see it's not an approved grant. The proposed date of execution has elapsed without approval and yet you are referring to it as evidence. Fatimah (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

So you made a grant proposal for this, with you as the contact person: but because the grant isn't approved, you no longer are responsible and your project spontaneously started, after you posted on the user group that it started. Sure... Fram (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User:Fram, Is it possible to kick off a program that wasn't discussed let alone being funded?

I honestly don't know or understand the point you are trying to prove with your continued claims that I am responsible for the edit-a-thon.

Here is a link to the project meta page and here dashboard link in which the organisers and coordinator/facilitator is obvious, you rather have me to accept your unsubstantiated claims than reach out to the organizers yourself. Quite unfortunate.

Regards. Fatimah (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. You can also reach out to the organizer here. Warm Regards. Fatimah (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095#Gombe editors for a previous similar issue with low-quality edits from an initiative by the same people (before that it was a photography contest from WPNigeria where pictures were added left and right indiscriminately, and before that probably others I don't remember now). Fram (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Another thread from March 2022 at the AN archives. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hashtag search in case it helps anyone else. —Kusma (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time to investigate further, but I'm seeing a lot of references to Nigeria's version of the Who's Who guide (called BLERF). Sounds less pay-money-to-be-listed than Who's Who, though. Primefac (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC shutdown request due to sockpuppets Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling

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

---

Can you check the sockpuppet issue here and shut down RFC? Sockpuppets are voting the same way as initiator.

Talk:Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterling#Requested_move_28_June_2022

ANI ongoing here - hopefully you can coordinate. Thanks. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sockpuppetry_-_developing_story Oppa gangnam psy (talk) 04:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've shut down the RM (not sure if I've done it correctly) & as far as I know, nobody's opened up an SPI on anyone. GoodDay (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: unfortunately closing down an RM is a little more complex than just removing the tag at the top of the section. In general a closure needs a formal rationale, even if it's a procedural one. There are some instructions at WP:RMCI if you're interested! For now I have closed it myself, with a rationale of "withdrawn by nominator" with a note about the confusion that the apparent socking had caused. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Oh crumbs, I've made yet another misteak

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clavius Base should be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clavius Base Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(2nd nomination) Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Shirt58, I think you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clavius Base (2nd nomination), but you never made any addition or contributed any text to an AFD (anywhere) that I can see, so I can't copy anything over. Primefac (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see where it entered the log or did anything except put the template on the page. I would just revert the template and try again. Odd that it was deleted on Jan 31 2006, and recreated in Feb of the same year and has hung on since then. I don't think we can G4 it, given the time since recreation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism from 176*

There is vandalism coming from this IP range; the vandal replaces reliable sources with their own fantasies (for example, they remove the origins of the names of Russian rivers which are sourced to the Fasmer dictionary and writes their Sanscrit names instead, which of course have no relation to the names which are not of Indo-European origin), or sometimes adds gibberish to the articles. So far I have identified and blocked three IPs (176.65.112.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 176.65.112.53 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 176.65.112.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). Could somebody please help me to identify the relevant range (so that I can revert the edits) and see whether a range block, possibly a long-term one, would be in order? Thanks. Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Blocked the /25 for a couple of weeks, Ymblanter, on the principle of minimum force; happy to widen or extend that if needed. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/176.65.112.0/25. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, much appreciated. Ymblanter (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

admin accounts offered for sale in an online forum

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

---

• Slavuta33 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
• RegentsPark (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
• Pschaeffer (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
• Jorrojorro (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
• Elli (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
• RHB100 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)

Hi, I found this post, where some accounts from the en.wiki are listed for selling: https://www.playerup.com/threads/selling-old-wikipedia-admins-accounts-6-years-to-20-years.5416388/

this includes @Slavuta33 @RegentsPark @Pschaeffer @Jorrojorro @Elli and @RHB100 ඞඞඞHatsuneMilku(=^ ◡ ^=) (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Dunno what playerup.com is, but I'm sure not clicking on that link. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a forum showing a post where someone has, likely doctored, screenshots showing them logged in with admin accounts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

PlayerUp is a site where people can sell accounts to various sites. It's shady as all get out. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Only RegentsPark is an admin... they and Elli are the only active accounts, so if the others start editing again I'd say a block is appropriate for being compromised, but otherwise I don't think there's anything going here. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Those two editors have been notified, btw. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't believe you're selling your account for $1,000, RegentsPark. That's outrageous! What are you thinking? As we all know, admin accounts cost $500, not a penny more. If you want $1,000, you're gonna need to run for crat first. Levivich^[block] 13:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Do they do any discount for bulk purchase? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Hold on, so there's an option for me to A) make money and B) break my Wikipedia addiction? Canterbury Tail talk 13:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  And with inflation like it is, really how can you afford to not sell your account? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Jorrojorro has been blocked for almost 4 years for disruption as well. Also I looked at the link and it's a bad PS job on those screen shots. Also, I'll settle for no less than $2,500. Not one penny less. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I can't believe someone would open photoshop for that, when they could just edit the HTML to change the name displayed. Inefficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Elli/Archive 8#Your account is getting sold?:

my account isn't hacked and I have WP:2FA enabled so this person is likely lying about at least some of these accounts. This is certainly concerning though. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Nardog (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

---

• Who cares about admin accounts for sale? The far more interesting question is: how much is the indef-blocked account going for? This is like the underpants gnomes business plan, except instead of "?", step 2 is apparently "find someone who will pay money for an indef-blocked account". --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  aw, man. too slow again. feel free to delete or archive if you feel the need. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Heh, I figured the silliness would continue past it, I just wanted an obvious indicator that this wasn't a five-alarm fire. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Do you think anybody would support me? -Roxy the bad tempered dog 14:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Review admin block and subsequent admin action of UTRS appeal by Swarm

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

---

I would just like to get a general feeler for this because I felt it was an incorrect usage of the tools and then violation of policy to action the same admin action. I will try to list out the bullets, but the full timeline and comments are on my talk page here: User_talk:Sir_Joseph/Archive_11#Interaction_ban

• I was blocked for a tban violation.
• I was having a conversation regarding the block on my own talk page
• I complained about it and vented a bit.
• The person who initiated it gave their reasoning.
• I responded I am OK with a block and I am OK with taking time off, I just didn't like how it went down, and then told them to stay off my talk page.
• Swarm then came in and said I was being disruptive, reset the block and revoked talk page access.
• I filed an UTRS appeal
• Swarm posted that the UTRS appeal is denied

I don't want to relitigate anything or discuss anything but posting on your own talk page, and posting about an immediate block isn't disruptive and is usually not seen as such in past history, especially when you are not forced to be there. Acting on an appeal of a block you initiated is also not something that I think is within policy.

Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, are you asking for a review of a block from October 2019? Because I'm pretty sure that isn't going to be happening. The time to do this would have been, well, then. Black Kite (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I wanted the block removed from my log because in my experience it's used against me. I followed procedure and asked ARBCOM. ARBCOM said they need to hear from the community because the policy says ARBCOM or community can decide. I am asking now because I don't think it's fair to have this (or others) in my log. I am also not asking for a full review, just if it's usual policy to block on talk pages and action on a UTRS for your own block. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  You've got at least seven (or is it eight?) non-overturned blocks in your block log (it's a bit difficult to read), and we don't generally edit block logs. I don't think the last one is particularly an issue, especially as it wasn't a block in itself (that was set by Yunshui), but merely a reset of four days by Swarm for misusing a talk page. But even without that ... Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  So you're asking for log deletion? Or log suppression? Because you didn't mention that above. – Joe (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I don't mean to wikilawyer (but I will anyway), and Sir Joseph, I do understand the impetus for the request, but I have to believe this is one where something like the doctrine of laches applies. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 18:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I would like the bad blocks to be removed from my block log so it's not seen. If that can be done by suppression, then fine. I do agree with Dumuzid that it's been a while, but I don't think that should stop a discussion on this. Plus, I did appeal to ARBCOM right away, I just took a wikibreak and I don't usually edit certain areas anymore, but there are times when people have used my log in a conversation and I feel if I can remove even a couple, then that is worthwhile.

  I don't want to relitigate, but just wanted to get feelers out to see if the actions were appropriate. (This is why I posted on AN and not ANI.) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm just trying to understand what procedure/policy you were referring to above, because as far as I'm aware logs are only removed in extraordinary circumstances and usually by ArbCom or the oversight team. What exactly did ArbCom ask you to ask the community for here? – Joe (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  They told me they couldn't do it without input from the community quoting the policy that community or ARBCOM can decide to suppress. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I make no comment on what, if anything, should or is likely to happen now. But as a general principle, it is clearly wrong for an admin to revoke talk page access and then reject the UTRS appeal against that revocation - it should be left to another admin to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  But is that what happened? The only UTRS appeal on that talk page archive is UTRS appeal #27110, which was handled solely by 331dot. Sir Joseph's timeline above doesn't seem to match what's on the talk page or UTRS. – Joe (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've no idea what happened as I can't see UTRS, and I haven't commented on that. I merely stated a general principle which should apply in such cases. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Well in that case, yes, it's settled policy that you don't decline appeals of your own blocks. – Joe (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  From the above it appears that Swarm simply posted the result of 331dot reviewing the appeal. I don't see anything exceptional in this case that would justify removing a log entry. If I get wrongly blocked there will be a log entry for it, and I will expain the circumstances if necessary. A log is simply a record of what happened, whether right or wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• I have reviewed the UTRS log #27110 timed 2019-10-12 21:56:59 and can confirm that it was 331dot who declined Sir Joseph's request for talk page access to be restored. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for that. I don't think it's hard to presume why I thought otherwise. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  It appears to have been a misunderstanding. Can we close this now? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  I'm still curious about the revocation of talk page access, especially after I said I was done with the conversation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Typically, talk page access is provided so the blocked user can post a block appeal. If they use it otherwise then talk page access may be removed. As this was reviewed by 331dot at the time and the block is long expired, I don’t propose to look into it further. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Close as stale The only other outstanding issue, of who denied the unblock, has been answered and there isn't a basis for action here. This isn't saying Swarm was right/wrong/harsh/gentle, just that it's a bit late to appeal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Keep the log; no convincing reason for log deletion was presented so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Sir Joseph, the advice that I would give to you is to conduct yourself going forward in a way that no credible editor and no competent administrator would ever think about recommending a block or actually blocking you. In other words, do not push any envelopes. That has been my editing philosophy for 13 years, and it has worked out very well for me. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

    While I think that is good advice, I also think there is a difference in subjects we edit. Editing in certain areas, and then editing as a minority and then getting frustrated, etc. is not always a piece of cake. My block log has a few blocks that I feel were possibly warranted and then a few that weren't, but because of the power dynamics, there's basically nothing to be done about it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Reverting war on File:Royal Standard of Saudi Arabia.svg

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

Hello,

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

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

• 

  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-[8] 2-[9]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ([10], 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[11] on a mission, e.g. ..I do want to see more accommodation according to Wikipedia's guidance to seemingly conservative posts and critiques..[12]. 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

Unblock request by Sucker for All

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

Sucker for All is requesting an unblock:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sockpuppet advice pls

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

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

That sock farm in full:

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

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

• First, you MUST notify these users that you've reported them here. You've been around long enough to know that. I'm not going to do it for you.
  Second, your report was enough for me to take a look, but these four accounts 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)
• 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)

Requesting transfer of user rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the correct spelling of a name?

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

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

September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories

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

WPWP query

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

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