Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pictureperfect2 (talk | contribs) at 12:33, 28 June 2022 (nbrd.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)


    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Jun Jul Aug Sep Total
    CfD 0 0 5 10 15
    TfD 0 0 1 7 8
    MfD 0 0 1 5 6
    FfD 0 0 1 5 6
    RfD 0 0 0 100 100
    AfD 0 0 0 5 5

    Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

    Report
    Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (30 out of 8481 total) (Purge)
    Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin
    Dahieh 2024-09-29 01:27 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    Abbas Nilforoushan 2024-09-29 01:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    Rafa Salama 2024-09-29 01:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    Ukrainians 2024-09-29 00:24 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Johnuniq
    Costa Rica–Libya relations 2024-09-28 21:32 2024-10-28 21:32 create Repeatedly recreated Liz
    Faiq Al-Mabhouh 2024-09-28 20:51 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBPIA Ymblanter
    2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike 2024-09-28 20:30 indefinite edit Highly visible page currently on the main page and if this gets moved, it should be done by an admin who can also attend to the resulting main page redirect as per WP:MAINPAGENOREDIRECT Schwede66
    Talk:Hassan Nasrallah 2024-09-28 18:04 2024-09-30 18:04 edit,move Persistent non-EC edits; temporary ECR Valereee
    Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/diffusingchildren 2024-09-28 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 4745 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Karl-Anthony Towns 2024-09-28 17:56 2024-10-01 17:56 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba
    FIFA Club World Cup 2024-09-28 14:22 2025-03-28 14:22 edit Disruption by autoconfirmed users Black Kite
    2025 FIFA Club World Cup 2024-09-28 14:21 2025-03-28 14:21 edit,move Persistent disruptive editing Black Kite
    FIFA Club World Championship 2024-09-28 14:19 2024-10-05 05:13 edit At least one of the disruptive accounts was autoconfirmed Black Kite
    Thirumagal (TV series) 2024-09-28 12:49 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated UtherSRG
    Ali Karaki 2024-09-28 11:02 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C
    Samthar State 2024-09-28 09:40 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement Johnuniq
    27 September 2024 Beirut strikes 2024-09-28 02:34 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Gangwar (surname) 2024-09-28 02:15 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Template:R from book 2024-09-27 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2509 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II
    Ibrahim Aqil (Hezbollah) 2024-09-26 22:28 indefinite edit Highly visible page I've posted the article to the main page, so if the decision is to move the page, the admin who moves it should simultaneously adjust the resulting main page redirect. Schwede66
    2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence 2024-09-26 17:25 2024-10-07 14:13 edit Persistent vandalism TParis
    Hunter Schafer 2024-09-26 08:58 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:ARBGS ToBeFree
    United Nations Security Council Resolution 2749 2024-09-26 02:24 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Turha 2024-09-26 02:20 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Demographics of Somalia 2024-09-26 00:12 2026-09-26 00:12 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生
    Kalachuri (Rajput clan) 2024-09-25 20:35 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case
    Tron (cryptocurrency) 2024-09-25 17:07 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/Crypto David Gerard
    Justin Sun 2024-09-25 17:07 indefinite edit,move WP:GS/Crypto David Gerard
    Philadelphi Corridor 2024-09-25 04:38 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case
    Thejo Kumari Amudala 2024-09-25 03:19 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated Liz

    Page blanking that is impossible to revert due to proxy links

    Hi, I'm not sure where to post this, but Confederate States of America was recently blanked in this edit here, creating a cyclic redirect to Confederate States and back. If I try and revert that edit, I get an error message about proxy links, and it won't let me publish my edit. Does anyone know how to solve this issue? Endwise (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Endwise: - done. There was a proxy link at the end of the sub-section titled "Horses and mules" (4.3.1). I removed it and replaced it with a CN tag. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the link had to be removed, not the reference. It's also on the publisher's site at https://www.historynet.com/southern-horse/. 82.132.185.134 (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lugnuts what is a proxy link? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: - I only found out what this was today! OK, if you go to this version of that page, click edit and then publish you should get a big pink box at the top of the page with more info. That's the version of the page before it was blanked BTW. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The info in the pink box for those who don't want to take the trouble:
    Warning: An automated filter has identified that your edit includes a link or reference running through a local proxy – typically, the links include '.proxy.', '.gate.', 'ebsco', 'oclc' or similar in the domain. Such links only work inside the institution that is providing the proxy (sometimes even only in your current login session). The link is (often completely) useless for anyone who does not have access to the proxy of the institution that you are in.
    NOTE: you will NOT be able to save this edit if you do not resolve the issue with the proxy link that you added in your edit.
    Please replace the proxy links with direct links that do not use a proxy. Thanks!
    TryKid [dubious – discuss] 16:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Ugh. And then we have things like this which may or may not be notable but are nothing more than a product placement. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also could an admin who wasn't involved in recreating Hotel Korpilampi please evaluate the status of the G4 that JIP removed themselves? Also JIP that's an involved CSD removal if I ever saw one. This appears to be a long term problem, per Savoy (restaurant) their removal here too, which TheresNoTime attempted (ultimately futile) discuss with them. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The deleted version was five sentences long and reffed only [1] [2] [3] [4]; the first and third of those are in the recreation. I wouldn't have G4d it. Still shouldn't have been JIP to remove the tag. —Cryptic 19:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine - and what I was looking for but my original point still stands that they shouldn't have been the one to remove it, nor should they have done so on the other articles they've created. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not my intention to vandalise Wikipedia but to improve it. The articles come from the Finnish Wikipedia where they usually have been edited and reviewed for years so the Finnish Wikipedia seems to have accepted them. Apparently the English Wikipedia has stricter rules for article contents. Some of the Finnish articles do have quite little in the way of sources so I try to pick articles that are long enough and have enough sources. I admit I should not be removing deletion notices from articles I have created myself, but otherwise I don't see why this is such a huge issue. Also I don't see how this counts as an abuse of admin powers when I haven't even used my admin powers in creating these articles. JIP | Talk 16:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      No-one has mentioned vandalism. WP:ADMINCOND does not just cover admin actions but also policy knowledge, and it is concerning that you only now seem to be aware that apparently the English Wikipedia has stricter rules for article contents. Also, if you have not been responding to valereee's concerns, then that would raises issues of WP:ADMINACCT as well. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You created an article which had been g4'd, recreated it and then declined the deletion tag. That is involved to the nth degree, among other issues. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not to mention it shouldn't take multiple editors and an AN thread discussing potentially taking this to arbcom to get you to comply with WP:ADMINACCT PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It has already been established that the article I created about Hotel Korpilampi was not substantially identical to the deleted version, being over two and a half times as long as the deleted version. Still I must admit I acted wrongly in removing the speedy deletion notice straight away, I should have discussed it on your talk page first. Anyway, what happened with this one article should not have much negative impact on other translations from the Finnish Wikipedia, they should be viewed as articles on their own. JIP | Talk 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The concerns raised here aren't just about one article... Levivich 23:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You're still wildly missing the point and haven't begun to address the crux of the problem. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • JIP, you've been an admin for 17 years, and you're essentially admitting to not understanding basic content policies, basic deletion policies, and a basic understanding of WP:INVOLVED. Is this really the path you want to go down? This is somewhat concerning. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      JIP, I would have to echo Scottywong's concerns here. None of us admin are specialists in all areas, but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of our most basic content policies, as well as WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINCOND, as well as WP:ADMINACCT, even if the tools aren't being used. The community has been very aggressive in policing admin who are out of touch with basic conduct expectations, and a number of admin have found it in their best interest (and the best interest of enwp) to simply resign the bit and be a non-admin editor. Is this one of those cases, or are you saying you are going to devote all your time to get up to speed with expectations that are placed on EVERY admin here? There really isn't a third option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I wish to remain an admin and to get up to speed with the expectations. I will continue my work here as normal but also take greater care of Wikipedia policies and admin accountability. JIP | Talk 23:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @JIP: There is a page for admins becoming more involved after a period of reduced activity or absence: Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      JIP, you literally created Harri Hylje yesterday with an edit summary of "this is now ready to be moved into article namespace". As far as I can tell not a single one of those sources is okay. valereee (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I almost posted this myself, thanks for doing it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @JIP, you can't go and just directly translate articles from the Finnish Wikipedia without checking their sources. Many of the sources used for this article are dead. Apparently your source for your articles is the Finnish Wikipedia, which is a wiki, hence not a reliable source. Sure, most of the time, wikis get it right, but to produce something truly reliable, we need to check what we are doing. (I know and remember from my own translations that things were different ten years ago, but we try to be much better and verifiably correct these days). —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Translations from fi.wiki started by 2005 and number certainly in the hundreds. Ugh. valereee (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      The articles would have been fine by 2000s standards. Just standards have changed very much. —Kusma (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I know. I was just thinking about cleanup. valereee (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not an admin however wondering about the Lordi article and it being mentioned here. Why is this tiny article even being mentioned? If JIP is editing many articles incorrectly naming only one makes very little sense.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Whatsupkarren / (Tariq afflaq) unban request

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

    Request to be unbanned

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

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

    • Checkuser needed for starters, as this is a CU block and can only be considered after a CU has looked at it. No comment on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
       Unlikely but it's a noisy range. @Mz7: had the most luck last time and I believe it's worth a second set of eyes here in case I missed something. To be clear, barring new evidence, my findings clear the checkuser part of the block and mean this unblock request may now be considered on the merits. --Yamla (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't looked into this appeal too deeply yet, but it looks like at the previous unban request, I provided a decent summary of the background here and why I was opposed at the time: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#Whatsupkarren / Tariq afflaq unban request. I think at least this part of what I said back then probably still applies: If the community does want to extend leniency to this user, I would strongly suggest also attaching some unblock conditions, e.g. a topic ban from Syria-related topics, broadly construed. Mz7 (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the editting on other wikis, it appears to all be around Syria and people of Syrian decent, which appears to be part of the reason they were originally blocked. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm always up for a second chance. I do think that a TBan from Syria-related topics, to be appealed after a minimum of six months, would be necessary - on the understanding that they would need to demonstrate a capacity to edit constructively in that time, not merely wait for it to time out then appeal. There would also need to be an agreement to stick to one account. Girth Summit (blether) 23:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unblock per WP:LASTCHANCE, with a six month Syria related topic ban and a one account restriction. Cullen328 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept under the conditions of a indef topic ban for Syria, and an indef one account restriction, with either restriction being appealable after 6 months of actual editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Request for assistance to revert the article name

    Hello admins, if in case my concerns were not intended in this section please consider addressing it to the correct section. Thank you. Recently, i created an article regarding the members of the Filipino boy group BGYO, but my concerns are the edits or the contributions made by Kwikilover88 on the following pages:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelo_(singer) = originally, the name of this article was Angelo Troy Rivera 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JL_(singer) = originally, the name of this article was John Lloyd Toreliza

    I believe the changes in the article names were unnecessary and not constructive. Please help me to revert it to the original article names. Thank you admins.Troy26Castillo (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Troy26Castillo: You can move the pages back to their original title yourself by following the steps at Help:How to move a page. If you need any further assistance, please let me know. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CX Zoom Thank you for the help. Much appreciation. Troy26Castillo (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    CX Zoom I thought the last edit I made in the articles will return the original state of the page but as I can see now it's the article's original name only. I reviewed it again and it says like this: The edit appears to have already been undone. You may have attempted to undo a page move, protection action or import action; these cannot be undone this way. Any autoconfirmed user can move the page back to its previous location, and any administrator can modify or remove protection. I believe I have a wrong question last time but what I truly meant is to revert the unnecessary changes made by Kwikilover88 in the articles. I am sorry for the confusion I caused regarding this matter. But for the last time, Is it possible to retrieve the original state of the articles? not as the redirected version. Thank you. Troy26Castillo (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Troy26Castillo: No you're alright, the page history shows only one activity from Kwikilover88. They moved "Angelo Troy Rivera" to "Gelo (singer)". Then you moved it back to "Angelo Troy Rivera". So, in a sense, you already undid it. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I did not get the notification. In the original edit you forgot to add the ping template. So you added it in a later edit. Pings work only when your signature is added in the same edit. If you ever forget pinging in original edit, just add a new line, with the ping and your signature. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @CX Zoom okey then. I thought I made a mistake. Thanks again.Troy26Castillo (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Everybody's Got Somebody but Me

    I was trying to move Everybody's Got Somebody but Me to the correct title, as "but" is a conjunction and should be lowercase. However, I fatfingered and accidentally put a symbol in the title. Could someone please clean this up for me? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, although not as cleanly as a more competent admin would have done. i think everything is now in the right place. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on J. K. Rowling TFA

    Everything worked out, soon to be off main page, further discussions about the article should take page at the talk page, further discussions on the fitness and running should be held at TFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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


    J. K. Rowling, a WP:MILLION BLP subject to some controversy and under double discretionary sanctions (BLP and Gender) recently passed a rigorous Featured article review and will be Today's featured article on the mainpage this Sunday, June 26. Extra eyes appreciated, and especially, help with delivering discretionary sanction alert notices.

    The article content enjoys broad consensus, after the most widely attended FAR I've ever witnessed, including five pages of talk discussion archives conducted in a fine collaborative effort among a couple dozen editors of varied opinions and editing strengths. The article content, lead, gender section, and TFA blurb were worked without acrimony; a hopeful example of Wikipedia collaborative effort at its finest. Thanks for any extra eyes on TFA day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd be fine with someone adding extended-confirmed protection for a few days before it becomes necessary, contrary to the usual practice of not doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Watchlisted. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'll call it now: this is absolutely, 100%, no-doubt-it going to blow up in our faces. Remind me not to log in tomorrow. – Joe (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Distruption is likely to spill out to talk pages, and sub articles like Political views of J. K. Rowling. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's ever a case for IAR extended confirmed protection, this is it. I think we all know how this is going to end if we don't protect it ... Hog Farm Talk 15:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the need for semi, but why do we expect many autoconfirmed problem users? —Kusma (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the strength of feeling on all sides of the discussion, and our policies in the "controversial" area. I support the call for some protection btw. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as I haven't seen any evidence that semi has been insufficient on previous TFAs, I oppose increasing the protection level. —Kusma (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This also isn't a typical TFA - Battle of St. Charles (June 17) and Banksia canei (June 4) aren't exactly comparable in level of controversy. Although per Sandy I would like to hear the thoughts of the significant contributors to the article and the FAR. Hog Farm Talk 16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not anticipate a call for more protection when I made this post asking for more eyes. Because of the exemplary collaborative effort that got the article to this point, I'd be in favor of at least giving it a chance, and only increasing protection if the community is unable to deal with any issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, and Vanamonde93:, most significant contributors, for their ideas as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is already semi-ed and has over 1,300+ watchers. I don't think we should preemptively increase the protection level. That can be done when a clear need arises, which may well happen tomorrow UTC but isn't guaranteed to. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a reason for increasing protection, unless the 'consensus'-in-question is changing. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't see the need for any pre-emptive increase in the protection level, as long as people are watching this and admins are prepared to increase the protection level if (probably when) necessary. A pre-emptive increase would seem like admitting that the Wikipedia model cannot deal with trolls, which I do not believe to be true. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for an increase in protection. All Sandy was calling for was an increase in watchers, which seems sensible. I will add it to my watchlist. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the Main Page is highly protected anyway. Not even I, can edit it. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The TFA blurb will be fully protected, yes, but the article itself is currently at the semi-protected level. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know this couldn't have been foreseen, but the timing of this with the Roe decision and everything is pretty bad. Hilariously bad, even. One of the more tone-deaf options bad. SilverserenC 21:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's quite possibly one of the worst TFA decisions in the history of Wikipedia. WaltCip-(talk) 16:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The 25th anniversary of Harry Potter seems like the perfect day for this article to me. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        But poor timing for a person who has been consistently anti-feminist for the past several years. If the TFA was something that was actually Harry Potter for the anniversary, then things would be different. SilverserenC 17:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        When would be a good time? —Kusma (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        A week ago or any time since April. Like I said, this couldn't have been foreseen, but with events on Friday, that ended up putting this TFA in an incredibly tone-deaf front page time period. SilverserenC 18:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Why should a US supreme court ruling that applies to 4% of the world's population affect the running of an article about a British author on the main page? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Because it still affects the entire world in one way or another and affects movement of peoples internationally, along with potential rights implications elsewhere. And this British author is one who has been actively making herself the world representation for the anti-feminism groups through her actions (including all of the ones in the United States) and is thus one of the primary visual representations of them. SilverserenC 19:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Her article does not seem to mention either her position on abortion or any opposition to feminism – do you think these are missing so the article is not comprehensive? As far as I am aware, the Rowling controversy is about transgender rights, not about reproductive rights. If I am wrong, then perhaps her article needs to be updated. —Kusma (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Do we really need to get into a discussion of how the anti-trans groups are also anti-feminist groups working alongside various far right conservative groups against women's rights? There's a reason why it's being noted that various of the women Rowling hangs out with and supports by name have been making statements of "abortion rights being an acceptable sacrifice" over this weekend. But, again, is this really a conversation we need to have, here especially? SilverserenC 19:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes: you said it is obvious that JKR is a bad choice as TFA (a completely unsupported claim), and I am telling you it is not obvious at all (it is different from, say, featuring Osama bin Laden on 9/11). "We can't have her on the Main Page because she hangs out with the wrong kind of people" isn't an argument I find acceptable in a neutral encyclopaedia. —Kusma (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        I see it both ways. While the 25th anniversary of the release of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone is a natural time to have a TFA on that book's author per Kusma, I also agree with Silverseren that given the news that broke on Friday with respect to Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that given the controversy surrounding Rowling on feminist issues (particularly transgender people and transfeminism) it does seem rather tone deaf.
        I will say however that this TFA was drafted, discussed, and approved back in April, long before we could have anticipated the judgement of Dobbs being released. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        The problem is that these sorts of arguments can effectively be used to prevent the TFA being ever run - effectively subjecting the front page to external censorship.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Yep. "Tone deaf" is a less-than-useful complaint to bring up because virtually any date can have "bad optics", especially for an encyclopedia with a global purview. You could argue given the state of LGBT rights in the world there's never a good time to run Rowling's article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        All of this is hopefully good advertising for wider participation at WP:TFAR. TFAs are scheduled based on community consensus: get involved there if you disagree with the scheduling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Close it

    Assuming that the bio-in-question is sufficiently being watched, more now then ever. Why is this AN report still open? GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    As the person who opened the thread, asking for more eyes, I would be fine should someone decide now to close it. TFA has served its purpose; some article improvements have occurred as a result of more eyes on the article, some issues have been raised that are being worked on, and contrary to some opinions expressed early on, Wikipedia did not break and in fact, did just fine. The JKR FAR experience has been the very example of how collaborative editing is intended to work. Thanks to all who lent a hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is fine to close this thread, but I would like to note that the article had only just above 50 edits today so far (many of them minor copyedits, or attempts at that) and has not required increased protection. —Kusma (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We've had an interesting BLPN thread (ping JeffUK) and an AE block (ping Cordyceps-Zombie); the initially proposed extended-confirmed protection would indeed not have had an effect on edits by these experienced users. There has been less controversy than perhaps expected, but not none. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ScottishFinnishRadish your close indicates "off main page";[5] it still has several hours to run. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry about that. Adjusted. Thanks for the heads up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Firefly promoted to full clerk

    The Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that Firefly (talk · contribs) has been appointed a full clerk, effective immediately, concluding his successful traineeship.

    The arbitration clerk team is often in need of new members, and any editor who meets the expectations for appointment and would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by e-mail to clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org.

    For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Firefly promoted to full clerk

    Appealing the closure of an RfC

    I was told: "I believe WP:AN is the default venue for appeals of miscellaneous closures that aren't covered by the RM and AFD processes mentioned above..." [6]

    I'd therefore like to initiate an appeal regarding the closure of this RfC. It seems like the closing administrator did not actually review the extensive body of arguments. Israell (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you try talking to them instead of about them as a first step? BD2412 and Amakuru, why didn't you recommend this? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment by closing admin: my RFC closure was directly related to the ANI closure. Review of the RFC should include the ANI. Also pinging Black Kite EvergreenFir (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO the closure of the RfC is fine. It's No Consensus anyway, even without the involvement of some highly suspect account behaviour (as listed in the ANI) which all !voted "Support". There is a certain irony to the OP's suggestion that there was an "extensive body of arguments" as many of the possibly-canvassed accounts are merely parroting - sometimes badly - the comments of others. Black Kite (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. One could see range of arguments from both sides so a 'no consensus' close could be recommendable. It needs to be noted that the RfC closure was reflecting the chain of events such as subsequent accusations of canvassing, ANI thread, accusation of racism, etc. and that's why it was a valid closure. Orientls (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding accusations of canvassing, the same observations were made against some of those editors who voted “Oppose.” With all due respect, what makes this RfC particular is that admins generally do not understand how the sales are calculated. If we reword anything, it would have to include a mathematical equation that anyone can look at and agree to. The problem is, the equation that Harout72 uses for these pages ONLY exists on Wikipedia. It is also unsourced and his own original research, and it's been that way for 12 years. WP:NOR

    Another problem is the fact that record sales of Michael Jackson are largely uncertified. According to ‘Guinness’, the ‘Thriller’ album sold 4 million units in Brazil, but it was not certified there, whereas Madonna is certified for almost 4 million records in that country. Michael has almost no certifications in Brazil but has still verifiably sold millions there.

    ChartMasters is a great source for record sales figures, but it was proscribed on Wikipedia—unduly so, I believe. Taking digital certifications along with the physical certifications into consideration, tens of millions of new certifications of Michael Jackson are missing. Updating the sales of ‘Thriller’ to 100 million is much reasonable, esp. since it is a figure given by many reliable sources incl. USA RIAA, UK BPI, Rolling Stones, CNN, Broadway World, New York Times, Telegraph and MTV.

    And just because some editors agree with one another doesn’t mean they are just “parroting” one another. Once again, such observations have been made regarding both sides. It was never determined for certain that such mass-canvassing had taken place; the closure should therefore not have been influenced by such allegations. Israell (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg

    Hi, I’m here to fill a complaint against user:Xpërt3 for vandalizing File:Flag of Saudi Arabia.svg, I uploaded a file from someone’s work on Wikipedia and it really matched the once’s on the royal decree’s source on the summary, meanwhile that user is reverting the edits Because of his speculations and interpretations. Saying that the royal court’s ones doesn’t look like my version and the one he uploaded does which in fact doesn’t make sense at all since his version is from an unreliable source (Construction Sheet) while my is from government especially the constitution, I don’t want to dispute with him and going further and further with him, all I want is to give him some warning or Barring him from editing that file since my position is very clear and I don’t need to put myself into an endless disputes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aziz bm (talk • contribs) 04:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment) @Aziz bm: You did not notify Xpërt3 (talk · contribs), as is required for ANI reports involving a specific user. Additionally, the file is hosted on Commons, so this issue is outside the scope of Wikipedia; the edit warring issue should be raised at c:COM:ANI instead, and I am doing so for you. I would also open an RfC at Talk:Flag of Saudi Arabia ver. As the version by Xpërt3 is identical to the status quo, I'll side with them as the naïve position, and since your version is identical to File:Flag of Saudi Arabia (type 2).svg, I have restored the status quo.
    For those who do not recognize the difference between the two contested versions, the one that Aziz bm asserts is wrong has a different calligraphy, which matches the 1938–1973 version:
    1. FDRMRZUSA, 16:41, 14 June 2022 — last version before Aziz bm (talk · contribs)
    2. Aziz bm, 07:28, 15 June 2022 — first version by Azi bm
    3. Xpërt3, 04:19, 25 June 2022 — first version by Xpërt3; identical to #1
    –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Status quo version, same as on historical versions
      Status quo version, same as on historical versions
    • Alternate calligraphy, as in the version by Aziz bm
      Alternate calligraphy, as in the version by Aziz bm

    Please see c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Upload_war_over_the_flag_of_Saudi_Arabia for more details; there is still a heated dispute over which flag should be used, as both versions of the calligraphy seem to be in use. Captions above are now obsolete. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate

    Two duplicate articles of Pakistan Premier League

    Page creation and move confusion

    Can someone with a brain working better than mine is today look at Special:Contributions/Wangbeotkkot 2022 and try to make sense of what's going on? There are page moves, pages created in the Wikipedia space, user pages... I'm not sure what the target for this user is, could someone else review please? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've moved the article from Wikipedia:Kim Ku Lim to Kim Ku Lim (which has now been moved to Kim Kulim) and tagged User:Kim Kulim for deletion (per WP:U2). There are a couple redirects at Wikipedia:Kim Kulim and Wikipedia:Kim Ku-lim that should be deleted as well (they are redirects to User:Kim Kulim). -Niceguyedc (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thank you. I couldn't parse anything that was going on there. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was moved to Draft:Kim Kulim without a redirect, but the user in question copy/pasted the article back at Kim Kulim. So now there is a copy in both draftspace and mainspace. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    But "reverting addition of unnecessary climate section that dwarfs the rest of the article" is not a valid reason for removal of properly sourced contents. OhanaUnitedTalk page 23:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for weighing in, Ohana. Did you visit the WikiProject Weather discussion linked above? Eric talk 00:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    A somewhat puzzling topic

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    A probably related thread by FrB.TG involving pictureperfect2 exists at WP:AN3. Duonaut (talk | contribs) 11:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1095450168"