• Kobi Arad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, this name seems to be blocked, I assume to prior issues he has had with prior editors that didnt disclose paid editing, as he has explained to me. I have been hired to retry the page and would like to submit to AFC. I have already disclosed on my user page that he has hired me. He now qualifies due to recent win of HMMA Awards and Global Music Awards, which means he meets qualifications for artists. Please unlock his name. Thanks. Dwnloda (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwnloda: Draft:Kobi Arad is not protected. You may create it via WP:AfC. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first attempt to create an article on Kobi Arad was in 2010. At that time the reviewing editors complained about sources of low quality, advertising, copyvio, socking and paid editing. See the discussions at:

• WP:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad,
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129/Archive
• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MusicLover650/Archive (from 2016).

These problems should not prevent User:Dwnloda from attempting a new draft. EdJohnston (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting error message when I try to create it. It says:

"You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: Creation of this page (Draft:Kobi Arad) is currently restricted to administrators because the page title matches an entry on the local or global blacklists."Dwnloda (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, the article Kobi Arad is protected. Draft:Kobi Arad says not.

That protection expired is 2018.

I set it to no protection manually, so it should work. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's blacklisted. Beyond my ability to fix. Can someone who does the blacklists have a look. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reluctant. See the hits at quarry:query/65355; there was, it appears, a lot of title gaming, though some of those deleted titles may have existed before the afds and mfd - I haven't looked at most of them. The usual advice is to create in a user sandbox, then ask an admin to move it to the proper draft title if it truly isn't more of the same. Courtesy ping MER-C, who first blacklisted it. —Cryptic 13:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also advise anyone against taking any action here without thoroughly familiarizing themselves with the history. WP:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad (2nd nomination), from 2020, is an ok start. —Cryptic 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dwnloda "I have been hired to retry the page" Here's my standard response to paid editors - you wouldn't pay someone to fix your bathroom without knowledge of plumbing. So why would somebody pay you - who joined Wikipedia less than 24 hours ago and have less than 20 edits to your name - to write a Wikipedia article that has already been deleted multiple times and whose last iteration (available to admins) looks like a really awful lop-sided non-neutral over-promotional piece of writing (and that's putting it politely)? I strongly oppose recreation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Richie333: I admit that I may not be familiar with all the rules, but I have an IT and web design background. I have worked on Kobi's Website and am aware of his past declines. I have learned many things ever since he last tried to have a page. He has made some mistakes and hired people that did not comply with the rules of disclosing paid editing. I have done a fair amount of research before trying this and along with Kobi, we interviewed some Wikipedia freelancers, but decided that I would do it. Several experts have reviewed the draft and told us that he would qualify and the only reason for his past declines is because of undisclosed paid editing issues. In addition, we were told that he meets the qualifications of Artists due to his Hollywood Music In Media (HMMA) Award, which is a recent achievement and not on prior versions of his page. And he also has other awards like the IMA award. If it is OK, I can take MER-C's advice and post the draft in the Userpage and then ask it to be moved. I also have made sure to make the page non-promotional. If you see promotional issues, then I would be glad to revise. I will appreciate your kind advise and guidance on how to make it legit this time. Dwnloda (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't remember telling you that. My advice to you is to forget about this commission, tell your client "no", log out, and scramble your password. MER-C 01:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, @MER-C it was @Cryptic's advise. he said "The usual advice is to create in a user sandbox, then ask an admin to move it to the proper draft title if it truly isn't more of the same." However I did think it was a good one since the way I was brought up was to give people opportunity, and not block & judge people for past mistakes / being new users. As a new user I would want to feel welcomed by Wikipedia's staff, and not be told to "Scramble my password". I would appreciate that you, like Cryptic consider and give this new article (and myself) a fair chance, and share your expertise in legitimizing this article. Dwnloda (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't realised yet, this is a volunteer run encyclopedia. You're not a volunteer and you're representing a serial abuser of Wikipedia for self-promotion. MER-C 02:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just spoke to Kobe, and on his behalf I apologize. He says that he got ripped off by various freelancers in the past and that no one ever told him it was against policy not to disclosure paid editing. I feel it is not fair to blame him and call him "a serial abuser." In fact he says previous year he hired another person again but this person disclosed that he was a paid editor, but the page unfairly got declined because all admins seem to be against paid editors. There seems to be an unfair prejudice against paid editors. I am trying to do it fairly based on the rules and it is not fair to me or Kobi to decline us based on other's abuse of the system. And in addition, he has now won an HMMA award, this is one of the biggest awards for those that make music for films in Hollywood, so just based on that he meets the qualification guidelines.

If u wish to discourage / uproot hired editing, the way to do that is through appealing for new rules in Wikipedia, and not by bullying editors who follow the allowed rules. There is civil way to do everything. Dwnloda (talk) 03:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be possible to write an article on Arad, but it should be done by somebody who is thoroughly familiar with the biographies of living persons policy and understands what are suitable sources of material, and which will avoid the article getting deleted as before. On that note, I see we have over 1,750 unreferenced biographies, any of all of which could contain libel. That is what paid editors should be doing - cleaning up the bits of the encyclopedia that nobody else wants to do, but which somebody needs to. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's pointless, Arad is not notable. Not in Hebrew and not in English.חוקרת (Researcher) (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the arguments, blacklists, etc would prevent the OP Dwnloda from creating a draft at User:Dwnloda/sandbox that would allow the OP to argue for removing the blocks and/or blacklists with a completed article to move into main space. While the history has created a difficult challenge, rather then arguing the potential of an article to meet criteria, write the article in your sandbox. Jeepday (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@חוקרת As a beginner editor myself, and seeing you've been around only 4 months: I suggest we trust admins with decisions such as that. However, upon reading, I've learned that winning two notable awards, as my client did, establishes notability. Please check the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. Dwnloda (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwnloda: to be blunt here, the experience you describe is useless when it comes to creating an article suitable for Wikipedia. In fact, I'd go further than that and say it's actively harmful. Knowing how to create a personal website for someone does not help you make a suitable encyclopaedic article. Personal websites are not intended to be neutral or balanced, and don't generally require reliable sources or anything like that, and heck even when there are similarities they're still likely to be quite different (for example primary sources or links to places that sell albums may be preferred on a personal website but they are not here). Instead they're expected to be puffy and promotional. So if your experience is in that area, you probably even more likely to do that than the average inexperienced paid editor who may do it because they think it's what the client wants but at least may not be experienced in doing it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne @Ritchie333 @Jeepday @Cryptic @Deepfriedokra @EdJohnston The issue here is not whether my writing will be fit or not. That can be fixed if it is an issue. I have also been a Wikipedia reader since 2000s and I have familiarized myself to the style of writing on Wikipedia before I took on this task. I have been studying all the guidelines for several weeks now.  I was going to do an AFC, so if the writing is bad it can be declined, but just to decline even the chance to make this draft is not fair to Kobi Arad who is an award winning musician. The issue is that Kobi is not being given any chance to try it. I don't appreciate that I am getting attacked for being a new user. I am trying to learn. I have also been looking at many AFC submissions, and 90% look crap and trust me I can write much better, so please do not insult my intelligence. I am college educated with a degree from a respectable US university.  So are you basically saying no new user should attempt to make pages? Let's get to the bottom of this. I already made the draft here in my userpage User:Dwnloda/sandbox, so I would appreciate any feedback . Again if there are any issues with the writing or if it sounds promotional, just let me know and I will fix it. But if we were going to base the decision on WP:MUSICBIO then Kobi Arad is notable to have a page. Dwnloda (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dwnloda: I did not say that. You wrote, "not fair to Kobi Arad." That implies your purpose is to help your client, not to build Wikipedia. It is not an attack to say you lack the needed experience. We all start new, we all need to learn. Article creation is hard. You might want to gain more experience before trying to start a new article. And you might want to not write your first article about a subject that seems desperate to an an encyclopedia article about them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra When I said "not fair" I meant it in a global way - just being humanly sensitive. Arad, if qualifies (and according to WP... he does), deserves a page. Due to sock puppetry, promo issues and prior lack of evidence his attempts were not given a go. But as you said - those past mistakes should not affect the approval of a new article. I already agreed, as hired editor to do this. And prepared an article, which seems in my eyes as legit according to what I read. Please give it a fair chance and review it.  All we want is to have his name unblocked so we can submit to AFC. Whether I personally am experienced or not, should not have any bearing on this and should not be the reason the request gets pushed away.  Being an experienced editor or not is not a reason to push away someone from trying to have a page. At least you should give them the chance to submit an AFC. You can check the draft now and tell me what you think. If you think it does not have a good quality, we can hire an experienced Wikipedia editor to improve it,  someone that is known to comply with the disclosure policies and has a history of pages getting accepted. Dwnloda (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'd find much agreement that someone who, at most, barely passes our notability requirements "deserves a page" or at least that it's a good way to think of things. And I'd emphasise the 'at most' bit a lot. The interaction between WP:GNG and subject notability guidelines has recently received a lot of attention in the are of WP:NSPORTS, although at least in that case the vast majority of these came from volunteers. Even before then, many of us are naturally suspicious when a subject is allegedly notable under some WP:SNG, but there's no ability to demonstrate WP:GNG despite extensive efforts as we can assume you've done here, especially in the case where the specific area of the subject is one where we'd expected decent coverage (a musician involved in mainstream generally popular Western and often specifically American music). The SNG do make it clear "conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion."

Anyway back to my earlier point when you say stuff like that "deserve" bit, you're heading in the direction of editors who are creating problems for the subject you represent. You need to cut out any sense of entitlement if you want to engage productively with editors here. I'm going to AGF that this entitlement is only coming from you and not the subject despite the strong evidence to the contrary from the history, however if I'm AGFing too far, you need to convey the same message to them.

If someone passes our notability requirements, then we will generally keep an article if someone creates one that demonstrates that it meets the requirements; and it's of acceptable quality that it can appear in main space. Speaking of them "deserving" a page is at best unhelpful and at worse misunderstands the purpose of Wikipedia and our notability guidelines. The quality part is a big issue here since articles created by paid editors are rarely suitable for main space being too promotional, lacking of sources etc.

There are plenty of subjects, including people, with significantly clearer notability, many of these in areas which we have poor coverage of who are far more "deserving" of an article, who volunteer editors are likely to be far more interested in spending their time on, than helping out a paid editor create an article on a subject we've already wasted way too much volunteer time on. Especially a paid editor who thinks we owe something to their client. Our lack of coverage in these areas, as far more unfair from the PoV of I expect nearly everyone here.

Further, as others have already said, there are plenty of existing articles which are a big mess, including many on living persons, which volunteers would much rather spend their time on. This includes unsourced controversies and other major problems which are far more unfair, in many cases where the subject never wanted an article. (Which is not to say it's fair to punish a subject by keeping a mess just because they helped create it.)

Another key point arises from this. As a WP:BLP/N regular I have ample experience on how articles on people who barely meet our notability guidelines are a maintenance mess especially when no volunteer is interested in creating one. (As that suggest no one volunteer is likely to maintain it, which is not to say articles created by volunteers have no problems just that the percentages are probably better.) In the case where these came from paid editors, either they stick around often unfairly removing content they shouldn't while continually adding promotional stuff, or they don't.

The later may seem great and it can be fine if nothing major happens and some troll doesn't come across the article. But every so often the subject gets into some mess/controversy. If we're lucky no decent sources cover it, then we just have to keep out editors trying to add this, which can be a problem if no one is paying attention. If we're unlucky decent sources do. And we then have to decide how to handle the situation where we have almost no coverage of the subject in decent sources other than whatever mess they got themselves in to. One common result of this is we end up deleting the article, which the subject if they're still around tends to now be very happy about.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne I thank you for your response. Although, you have neither agreed or disagreed if Kobi's name can be unblocked, which is the main issue. Again, my inexperience should have nothing to do with whether his name gets unblocked or not. All I am asking is to unblock his name so I can submit the page to AFC and someone can decide if its good. Rather than spending 10 minutes writing this long response, you could have simply just viewed the draft that I already posted in my Sandbox User:Dwnloda/sandbox and then tell us what you think about it. So would you mind to take 5 minutes and review it and then tell me if you can vote to unblock his name so we can submit an AFC? Dwnloda (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne Also, Check this list of paid editors who have many pages approved:

User:BC1278, User:SBCornelius. User:Toa Nidhiki05 (Work), User:16912 Rhiannon, User:CorporateM

So obviously they did quality work, so it is not right to attack paid editors or claim they do poor work. If it turns out my work is poor, we can hire one of these guys, so again Kobi should not be pushed away just because a paid editor is involved, which seems to be most of the opposing arguments above. It appears that everyone here hates paid editors so there is prejudice going on. I am automatically considered a low quality editor, without anyone even checking the draft that I made and posting any issues with it. Dwnloda (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors rightfully have a low tolerance for undisclosed paid editing, and an even lower one for sockpuppeting and attempts to ignore or bypass policy. If you're not coming here with the purpose of building an encyclopedia - even as a paid editor - you're doing it wrong. Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) I am not an undisclosed paid editor. Just like you I have disclosed my paid editing. As a new editor I am willing to put in further time to edit more of the wikipedia and I promise that. However, again I feel like am personally being attacked. This decision of unblocking Kobi's name should not be because I am inexperienced. If I am the issue, then we can hire someone like you. I would appreciate if you can review the draft I posted in my user space User:Dwnloda/sandbox and tell me what you think. Do you think there are any issues with it? Dwnloda (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Thanks Lugnuts for fixing this. I can’t help but imagine this is problematic in general though — couldn’t any vandal target a page with proxy links, remove them in their edit along with their vandalism, and make it really hard for anyone to revert them? Endwise (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Short answer - yes. Although this is the first time (that I can recall) ever seeing this in all the years I've been here, so hopefully not a big problem (famous last words)... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You can often revert stuff like this with the rollback button, even if a standard edit or undo won't allow it. Unless they have gotten around to fixing that undocumented feature. MrOllie (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've encountered it once, and looking at the search results for the various proxy addresses it seems that the use of these links is quite common - which is a problem beyond the issues it causes when a vandal removes them. However, it seems that some of these links can be converted to functional links through a replicable process; perhaps a task for a bot? BilledMammal (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked the editor who made the change. The sum total of their edits so far are to break DAB pages by turning them into redirects and other nonsenese. All have been reverted. Whether it is perpetual innocent mistakes (WP:CIR) or intentional, I have no idea, but their editing is disrupting the rest of the encyclopedia, thus an indef block is warranted until they convince another admin they can edit without doing so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dennis Brown: See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bowei Huang 2. It's probably a LTA with at least one confirmed sock. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good find. I've tagged as such. No need for a SPI case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'll note that this editor started editing several hours ago and has edited as recently as an hour ago. I'd opened this here because I thought it might be a kinder place to handle what surely couldn't be intentional misbehavior, but now I'm wondering if I should move it to ANI. Would anyone object to that move? valereee (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think AN is probably more appropriate given it's about admin "powers" and the next step would be arbcom. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• It is not my intention to vandalise Wikipedia but to improve it. The articles come from the Finnish Wikipedia where they usually have been edited and reviewed for years so the Finnish Wikipedia seems to have accepted them. Apparently the English Wikipedia has stricter rules for article contents. Some of the Finnish articles do have quite little in the way of sources so I try to pick articles that are long enough and have enough sources. I admit I should not be removing deletion notices from articles I have created myself, but otherwise I don't see why this is such a huge issue. Also I don't see how this counts as an abuse of admin powers when I haven't even used my admin powers in creating these articles. JIP | Talk 16:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No-one has mentioned vandalism. WP:ADMINCOND does not just cover admin actions but also policy knowledge, and it is concerning that you only now seem to be aware that apparently the English Wikipedia has stricter rules for article contents. Also, if you have not been responding to valereee's concerns, then that would raises issues of WP:ADMINACCT as well. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You created an article which had been g4'd, recreated it and then declined the deletion tag. That is involved to the nth degree, among other issues. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not to mention it shouldn't take multiple editors and an AN thread discussing potentially taking this to arbcom to get you to comply with WP:ADMINACCT PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It has already been established that the article I created about Hotel Korpilampi was not substantially identical to the deleted version, being over two and a half times as long as the deleted version. Still I must admit I acted wrongly in removing the speedy deletion notice straight away, I should have discussed it on your talk page first. Anyway, what happened with this one article should not have much negative impact on other translations from the Finnish Wikipedia, they should be viewed as articles on their own. JIP | Talk 22:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  You're still wildly missing the point and haven't begun to address the crux of the problem. PRAXIDICAE🌈 23:09, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• JIP, you've been an admin for 17 years, and you're essentially admitting to not understanding basic content policies, basic deletion policies, and a basic understanding of WP:INVOLVED. Is this really the path you want to go down? This is somewhat concerning. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 01:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  JIP, I would have to echo Scottywong's concerns here. None of us admin are specialists in all areas, but there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of our most basic content policies, as well as WP:INVOLVED and WP:ADMINCOND, as well as WP:ADMINACCT, even if the tools aren't being used. The community has been very aggressive in policing admin who are out of touch with basic conduct expectations, and a number of admin have found it in their best interest (and the best interest of enwp) to simply resign the bit and be a non-admin editor. Is this one of those cases, or are you saying you are going to devote all your time to get up to speed with expectations that are placed on EVERY admin here? There really isn't a third option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I wish to remain an admin and to get up to speed with the expectations. I will continue my work here as normal but also take greater care of Wikipedia policies and admin accountability. JIP | Talk 23:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @JIP: There is a page for admins becoming more involved after a period of reduced activity or absence: Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  JIP, you literally created Harri Hylje yesterday with an edit summary of "this is now ready to be moved into article namespace". As far as I can tell not a single one of those sources is okay. valereee (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  @JIP, you can't go and just directly translate articles from the Finnish Wikipedia without checking their sources. Many of the sources used for this article are dead. Apparently your source for your articles is the Finnish Wikipedia, which is a wiki, hence not a reliable source. Sure, most of the time, wikis get it right, but to produce something truly reliable, we need to check what we are doing. (I know and remember from my own translations that things were different ten years ago, but we try to be much better and verifiably correct these days). —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

'''def translate(text):'''
  lat=tuple(i for i in "a b v h g d ž z i j k ł m n o p r s t u ŭ f ch c č š y e i A B V H G D Ž Z I J K Ł M N O P R S T U Ŭ F Ch C Č Š Y E I".split())
  for count,karacter in enumerate((i for i in "абвгґджзійклмнопрстуўфхцчшыэиАБВГҐДЖЗІЙКЛМНОПРСТУЎФХЦЧШЫЭИ")):
    text=text.replace(karacter, lat[count])
  jed=tuple(i for i in "ć ń ś ź le lo lu la l li Ć Ń Ś Ź Le Lo Lu La L Li Ć Ń Ś Ź LE LO LU LA L LI šč Šč".split())
  for count,karacter in enumerate((i for i in "cь nь sь zь łе łё łю łя łь łi Cь Nь Sь Zь Łе Łё Łю Łя Łь Łi CЬ NЬ SЬ ZЬ ŁЕ ŁЁ ŁЮ ŁЯ ŁЬ ŁI щ Щ".split())):
    text=text.replace(karacter,jed[count])
  for j,vowel in enumerate(("е", "ё", "ю", "я", "Е", "Ё", "Ю", "Я")):
    while text.count(vowel)>0:
      co0=text.find(vowel)
      if co0==0 or text[co0-1] not in 'bcfghkmnpsvzBCFGHKMNPSVZ': tr=("je", "jo", "ju", "ja", "Je", "Jo", "Ju", "Ja")
      else: tr=("ie", "io", "iu", "ia", "IE", "IO", "IU", "IA")
      text=text.replace(text[:co0+1], text[:co0]+tr[j])
  text=text.replace("'", '')
  text=text.replace("ъ", '')
  text=text.replace('ь', 'i')
  return text

<nav id="p-variants" class="mw-portlet mw-portlet-variants vector-menu-dropdown-noicon vector-menu vector-menu-dropdown" aria-labelledby="p-variants-label" role="navigation"  >
 <input type="checkbox"
  id="p-variants-checkbox"
  role="button"
  aria-haspopup="true"
  data-event-name="ui.dropdown-p-variants"
  class="vector-menu-checkbox"
  aria-labelledby="p-variants-label"
 />
 <label
  id="p-variants-label"
   aria-label="Til variantini oʻzgartirish"
  class="vector-menu-heading "
 >
  <span class="vector-menu-heading-label">łacinka/кірыліца</span>
 </label>
 <div class="vector-menu-content">
  
  <ul class="vector-menu-content-list"><li id="ca-varlang-0" class="selected ca-variants-be-tarask mw-list-item"><a href="/w/index.php?title=Джэксан_Полак&variant=be-tarask" lang="be-tarask" hreflang="be-tarask"><span>łacinka/кірыліца</span></a></li><li id="ca-varlang-1" class="ca-variants-be-tarask-Latn mw-list-item"><a href="/w/index.php?title=Джэксан_Полак&variant=be-tarask-latn" lang="be-tarask-Latn" hreflang="be-tarask-Latn"><span>łacinka</span></a></li><li id="ca-varlang-2" class="ca-variants-be-tarask-Cyrl mw-list-item"><a href="/w/index.php?title=Джэксан_Полак&variant=be-tarask-cyrl" lang="be-tarask-Cyrl" hreflang="be-tarask-Cyrl"><span>кірыліца</span></a></li></ul>
  
 </div>
</nav>

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

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

Request to be unbanned

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

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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

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

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]

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
• 
  Alternate calligraphy, as in the version by Aziz bm

Two duplicate articles of Pakistan Premier League

• 2021 Pakistan Premier League, created with wrong title on 15 October 2020

• 2021–22 Pakistan Premier League, created with correct title on 28 January 2022. 103.141.159.231 (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2021–22 Pakistan Premier League was copied from 2021 Pakistan Premier League; I've tagged it for speedy deletion, and then we can move the older article to the correct title. BilledMammal (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Moved, though for the record {{db-move}} is better than {{db-a10}} in these situations. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]