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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Not an admin however wondering about the Lordi article and it being mentioned here. Why is this tiny article even being mentioned? If JIP is editing many articles incorrectly naming only one makes very little sense.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think we should be looking at revoking somebody's admin bit if they're not abusing the tools. Yes, WP:ADMINCOND does talk about consistent or egregious poor judgment even in the context of non-admin edits, but I don't think we're there yet. I'm going to WP:AGF that JIP has taken a wake-up call about how they have not kept up with our evolving policies over the years. They have already stated that they will get up to speed with the expectations. I suggest we take them at their word on that, close this thread, and see how things go. If there's further problems, we can pick this up again.

I will note that we've got an arbcom this year which has clearly demonstrated that they won't give a free ride to legacy admins who have failed to keep up. And if there's one key takeaway from the three cases early this year, it's that the "Failure to communicate" clause of WP:ADMINACCT is on everybody's hot button. You can get away with almost any mistake if you respond to questions when asked about it. Ignoring queries is a quick path to an arbcom case which ends badly. By the same token, asking questions when you're not sure is always a good plan, and WP:Noticeboards lists the appropriate places for various types of questions. If you prefer, I'm sure any of the admins who have participated in this thread would be happy to answer questions off-wiki if you email them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith, did you see the fact that within minutes of saying they'd get up to speed, they added yet another terribly-sourced translation from fi.wiki? Like 10 minutes after saying that, up went Harri Hylje. So, no, I don't think we can take them at their word. And this person is not responding to pings from AN. They were pinged four days ago and still haven't responded. So... valereee (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• And now, following the last, we now have Main Guard Post, Helsinki. The first source is offline and I do not have immediate access to it (nor can I read Finnish), but the second source is a blog, and the third seems only (as best as I can tell from machine translation) to mention the building in brief passing. I don't see any reason to believe that it clears notability, nor that any reasonable editor, let alone an administrator, would have thought that it does. JJP has stated that he will undertake to bring himself up to speed on the English Wikipedia's policies, yet seems to have just carried on doing the exact same thing without any effort to do so. With any other editor, who carried on creating inappropriate articles despite assurances that they would stop that and familiarize themself with policy first, I would very likely block them until the matter could be satisfactorily resolved. JIP, can you offer any reason why that shouldn't happen here? Because if anything, we should hold admins to a higher standard, and I don't see you meeting that here at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I haven't replied here for a while. I am still trying to both improve my conduct and improve Wikipedia. I am not acting on bad faith here, at least not intentionally. Not all of my translations from the Finnish Wikipedia have been problematic but some have. The Finnish Wikipedia has quite many articles that are poorly sourced. I would like to have translated fi:viinakortti (a card that used to be required in Finland to be able to buy alcohol) or fi:Vadelmavenepakolainen (a book about a Finnish boy who wants to be Swedish), but the former has only two sources, one of which seems to be only a passing mention, and the latter is not sourced at all. I myself put an "unreferenced" template in the article. I try to pick articles that are long enough and well enough sourced. The deletion discussion about Main Guard Post, Helsinki seems to have some "keep" votes as the building is notable, but that still does not make the article well enough sourced at this point. There are further sources listed at the deletion discussion, I can make use of them to improve on the article. JIP | Talk 18:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    No one is saying that none of the creations are notable. They're saying you aren't bothering to support that notability and seem to be struggling even with the concept here.

    @JIP, I have no doubt that you are well-intentioned. But you are not qualified to be working as an admin, and you should voluntarily set down tools. IMO that is a minimum for you getting back to editing. You don't need adminship to translate from fi.wiki or to learn policy.

    You also need to start using AfC to submit articles you translate until you have learned what does and doesn't represent adequate sourcing. With some work you should be able to get your AfCs up to snuff, and then maybe you can start creating in main space yourself again. You also need to commit to responding promptly to concerns expressed on your user talk and when pinged to other discussions of your work. This is a minimum for being an actual good editor rather than just a well-intentioned one. valereee (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from issues understanding notability, has there been any issues with JIP's use of the tools? If not, then I don't think there is any real disruption here that warrants relinquishing them; they shouldn't be closing deletion discussions, and they should be sending articles through AfC, but there are plenty of unrelated admin tasks that need to be completed, and looking at their logs they do perform those tasks. BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  considering they used their tools to recreate/restore deleted content against consensus and also decline speedies as an admin, yeah I'd say it involves their tool use. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, see the following proposal; given the issues are restricted to article creation and deletion, I believe a topic ban is a suitable remedy - I also note that them resigning the tools won't address most of the issues, as it won't prevent them from creating problematic articles. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban Proposal

To address the issues raised in the previous discussion: JIP is topic-banned by the community from closing or relisting deletion discussions, from declining speedy deletes, from restoring deleted articles, and from creating new articles in mainspace or moving articles to mainspace; they are permitted to submit articles to Articles for Creation for review by an independent editor. This restriction can be appealed in six months.

• Support as proposer. This editor has some mild competence issues with regards to their understanding of notability which is causing disruption in the narrow area of article creation and deletion. This topic ban will address that disruption without requiring that we lose another otherwise-productive admin. In regards to appealing, I would recommend that they do not do so until they can demonstrate that AfC is consistently approving the articles they create. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And do we think they have the policy knowledge to make other judgement calls w/re tool use? Also this proposal isn't addressing communication issues.

We might as well just admit it: this community is simply unwilling to consider the idea of whether an admin simply shouldn't be an admin. valereee (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The community might be unwilling, but whether they are willing or not isn't relevant; only ArbCom can remove an admins tools, and I don't think they would do so in this case - I think this is more similar to the recent Timwi case than the Geschichte or Jonathunder cases.

As for general policy knowledge, we don't know if JIP has enough to make other judgement calls; if it is discovered that they don't, and they are still unwilling to relinquish the tools, then that can be presented as evidence in an ArbCom case, but for now I believe the most we should do is use the tools we have available to prevent further disruption of the type currently seen. BilledMammal (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you believe the solution isn't suitable, I'm happy to withdraw it; I was looking for a way that we could resolve the situation without them needing to give up the tools, but if this isn't it then it's just a distraction from the broader conversation. BilledMammal (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is basically a community desysop in all but name. There is no way that an admin the community doesn't trust to close AfDs, respond to CSDs, or create articles, will be an admin for much longer. Having said that, my reading of the discussion above is that JIP has readily admitted to making mistakes and is trying to get back up to speed with enwiki policies, and that appetite for sanctioning him is at best mixed, so I don't see how this is a productive proposal at this point. – Joe (talk) 11:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Joe Roe, how are you reading this as 'at best mixed'? I am not seeing anyone saying no action is needed; the closest I'm seeing is a couple people changing their minds once they've actually been made aware of the entire discussion. What are you seeing as 'at best mixed' in anyone's comments here?

  And what are you seeing as sincerely and competently trying to get up to speed? JIP, after having promised to do so and then creating another poorly sourced article ten minutes later, continues to explain they try to pick articles that are 'long enough and well-sourced' but their understanding of that seems to be 'has multiple sources listed' with no recognition that 10 bad sources are not a reason to choose an article to create here. And once again they're editing without responding to a ping here. They shouldn't have to be pinged here, it should be their responsibility to keep up with this discussion and respond when someone addresses them directly. This is IMO evidence of ignoring something in hopes it will go away. That is not operating in good faith. This is an admin doing these things. By which I mean "if this were not an admin someone would have blocked them days ago." valereee (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes but, conversely, only you and Prax have explicitly called for immediate action. Hence 'mixed'.

  Clearly there is a difference of opinion here in terms of what counts as a good enough article to translate. That JIP has not immediately swung round to your point of view does not mean that he's not listening. Nor does not responding to every single comment here and on his talk page make him unresponsive. Kusma has already pointed out that these articles would have been fine 10 years ago. In my RfA five years ago, I got a bit of flak for doing exactly the same thing as JIP with Novoarkhanhelsk, but nobody opposed because of it. So while yes, our standards evolve and JIP should try to get up to speed, I don't think it's changed so much that translating imperfect articles is grounds for a desysop. The argument that a poorly-sourced translation is a better starting point for a good article than a red link is still within the wiki-Overton window, I think. – Joe (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I am really not enjoying being the loud one here, but just to clarify, you seem to be saying that when multiple people are expressing a valid concern about your competence to edit, either at your talk or at a noticeboard, it's fine if you keep making the same kinds of incompetent edits (ten minutes after promising not to) and it's also fine if you just don't respond to those concerns, over and over and over again, by either archiving the posts unanswered or by ignoring noticeboard discussions for days at a time? Because I am finding this very surprising. I would have thought that most admins would be saying the opposite. valereee (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm saying that JIP probably doesn't see his edits as incompetent and that, after acknowledging and saying he'll act on the criticisms he's received here, it's reasonable if he wants to busy himself with other things. For me, personally, that isn't conduct that screams out for sanctions, though I absolutely see why you brought this here in the first place. – Joe (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  My "sigh" comment, and the subsequent clarification notwithstanding, I don't believe any action is needed at this time. JIP has been around for 17 years. I'm not saying that makes him WP:UNBLOCKABLE, but let's give him some time to absorb what people are saying without feeling backed into a corner. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Because admins need more time than non-admins to be able to absorb what people are saying without being backed into a corner. Ok. valereee (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• JIP this morning archived unreplied this edit from a few hours ago, which was made in response to the notification of this AfD, which mentions that the nominator tried to discuss the Pizzataxi article with JIP, but their post on JIP's talk was archived without response. valereee (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly, they've given up on all those pages and are archive-and-forgetting...? I haven't read the material in this thread closely, but I agree that such a broad TBAN is not really suitable for admins. If a desysop is warranted, which it may well be, it should happen at WP:RFAR. Additional sanctions, such as the aforementioned TBAN could follow that (imposed by ARBCOM), or brought up to the community separately.

I'm just not sure immediate action by way of this thread/proposal is that feasible. I think the issue of JIP's advanced permissions ought to be tackled first. In my view, it would reflect poorly on the project to have a sysop who'd be unable to do what virtually every other user could. This isn't like the (now-expired) TBAN of admin Mzajac (whom I sanctioned) from Kyiv — again, it is very broad. El_C 18:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They this morning archived the post which was made this morning after the AfD notification had been posted this morning and someone responded this morning.

The AfD which was posted this morning included an explanation that, six weeks ago, the person making the nom had tried to contact JIP about the article being poorly sourced and JIP didn't bother to respond.

As has happened multiple times before, JIP just let the orginal post from six weeks ago expressing concern get archived. Then this morning, they very quickly archived posts about it. So, no. This wasn't because they're archiving and forgetting. This is an ongoing problem that happened again this morning.

I keep thinking I should stop responding. But I feel like I have to respond to what seems like a misunderstanding. This isn't archiving-and-forgetting. This is happening in real time, now, after over two weeks of discussion, much of which JIP hasn't bothered to respond to. valereee (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, either they're done, or they're not. I don't know which it is. But if they gave up on those pages (and creating ones like them), then they don't really need to do anything. Granted, it's poor form not to say anything (and to leave us guessing as to the meaning of their recent archiving), especially after the broken promises, but in my view, that action still wouldn't be sanctionable yet. Yours and others' mileage may vary, though. And as noted, mine was just a passing comment. I don't know a great deal about this case to be able to remark on it with confidence, so FWIW. El_C 21:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just this morning, I received thirty notices that VR train templates I had originally created in 2007 were nominated for deletion because they were unused and obsolete. I routinely archive my talk page once it goes past thirty topics, so the previous discussions got archived in the process. I was not the only editor who got multiple notices about obsolete VR train templates. I intend to take this matter up on some forum later, that could it be possible to prevent so many mass notices in one go. JIP | Talk 22:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have now manually moved the Pizzataxi deletion discussion notification back to my active talk page and replied to it. JIP | Talk 22:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, per RoySmith. If this wasn't an admin, we wouldn't be rushing to sanction, we would mentor, or have this discussion and give it a chance to sink in. Admin don't need special treatment, but let's give him equal treatment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm only commenting on one small piece of this (and not even hinting anything more than that) which is new/imported article creation which is much-discussed above. In NPP work I've looked at about 1,000 new articles in the last month (including maybe 200 imported ones). Creating new articles without including GNG-establishing sourcing (where wp:notability looks like at least a plausible possibility), while it makes our NPP life hell, and while I would advocate draftifying to lean on the creator to add such sources, is a common practice and not a conduct problem. Even more so for creating a new article with other flaws in it......such can be considered merely an article that needs work / development. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

  @PRAXIDICAE: I agree with you. I just mentioned that as a sidebar. My only real points were very narrow: 1. That those particular poor practices that I mentioned are not a mis-conduct issue. 2. That other flaws in an article are common, not a misconduct issue. I agree that something should be done. North8000 (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any case at all being made for most of this.
  "Closing and relisting deletion discussions": Which deletion discussions has he closed or relisted improperly? Really, what deletion discussions has he recently closed or relisted at all? The only ones he's even edited this year that I see are WP:Articles for deletion/Cultural differences between Kazakhstan and Malaysia, WP:Articles for deletion/Lordi's Rocktaurant (2nd nomination) (for an article he started), and several discussions on WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17.
  "from declining speedy deletes": There's no evidence of this being a problem in general, only for his removal of the db-g4 from Hotel Korpilampi, an article he created. That one case, though, is deeply problematic. JIP, we block people for that, when repeated after a warning. It happens often enough that we have specific warning templates for it, {{uw-speedy1}}-{{uw-speedy4}}. It's especially bad when it's an administrator or other very experienced editor that does it, since it looks like a "Rules for thee, not for me" kind of situation. You screwed up, we've warned you, don't do it again. That should be the end of it.
  "Restoring deleted articles": No reason's been put forward why this is a problem, except when combined with the fourth arm,...
  "from creating new articles in mainspace or moving articles to mainspace": This is the only part with any kind of evidence of a broad problem here. Like Dennis Brown, though, I don't think we'd be topic banning a non-administrator editor here yet. Removing autopatrolled? Yes, in a heartbeat. But JIP's not autopatrolled. —Cryptic 23:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This pile-on looks more like general skepticism of legacy admins than any solid case for action. The involved removal of the CSD tag was an obvious error which JIP admitted. Trout for that. They probably should be more communicative for their own good, if nothing else. That was their other major error -- not knowing (or not fully appreciating) that if you don't respond very promptly when people raise problems, then things will go badly for you at AN/ANI (especially if you're an admin ... why don't we have more of those again?). Looks like some of their articles are being merged, some kept, some edited, etc. I'm just not sold that there are egregious problems here that call for dumping a ton of bricks on them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to note, if anyone is wondering, I did not create the original version of the article Hotel Korpilampi, it was created by another user. I only created the second version, after the original version had been deleted. The reason the versions are so similar is that they had been translated from the same article on the Finnish Wikipedia. I did not use my admin tools to recreate the article but instead created it by hand. JIP | Talk 08:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. I hate to play devil's advocate, but it seems that this is their only warning, so I think they should get their WP:ROPE. If their behavior doesn't stop, I support this, but for now, I don't support this. CLYDE (TALK) @PING ME! 03:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per WP:ADMINACCT, only the Arbitration Committee has the prerogative to sanction or de-sysop an admin in this manner.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 11:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe your technicality depends on how one interprets Administrators ... may be sanctioned or have their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee from that section; to me, that reads as "may be sanctioned" OR "have their rights removed by the Arbitration Committee"; ArbCom definitely has the sole ability (at current) to remove rights, but I do not feel that we are the only ones who can even give regular sanctions to admins. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It might well be an issue of wording. If the intent of that statement is to allow admins to be sanctioned by their peers, it might be worth clarifying that to prevent future Wiki-lawyering. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely a fair point, and likely something to discuss in a separate thread. I will note that in March 2021 an admin was successfully topic-banned at ANI, so there is a small precedent. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My reading of WP:ADMINACCT is that only arbcom can sanction an admin's use of the admin tools. It's rare that arbcom imposes any sanction short of being desysopped but it does happen; I had to go back to 2017 to find an example: Magioladitis is restricted from unblocking their own bot when it has been blocked by another administrator (although, they did get a full desysop not long after that). And, WaltCip, it's not an admin's peers that can impose sanctions. Arbcom is not a peer, they're a supervisor. The topic ban being discussed here would cover:

  • closing or relisting deletion discussions
  • declining speedy deletes
  • restoring deleted articles
  • creating new articles in mainspace
  • moving articles to mainspace

  Of those, only the "restoring deleted articles" item requires the use of admin tools, so I would think that's something the community cannot do, but all the others are within scope of WP:CBAN.

  I'm not saying we should do any of those things. I'm just responding to the narrow question of what a CBAN can cover vs what requires arbcom action. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  it's not an admin's peers that can impose sanctions. Arbcom is not a peer That is my argument, that regular admins can't sanction other admins; only Arbcom can. That differs from your reading, of course, which is that they can so long as it's not prohibiting admin actions.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I won't challenge this non-admin close, even though the nonadmin closer User:Objective3000 is an involved editor ([5], but it does irk me, since I had already spent an hour compiling diffs to request DS- US politics- boomerang block against User:Thinker78 to prevent future harassment. I reserve option of using this history if I make such a filing in the future. @Thinker78, The goal is prevention not punishment. Please review WP:CIR as you contemplate "prevention not punishment" being the goal of our block policy. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that per WP:CLOSE, SPECIFICO should not have closed a discussion they were participating in. Or if they thought the discussion violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines, they should not have posted to it, but just closed it.

Personally, I believe that closing was correct because of the tone of the original editor. When judges err in law, we do not say they acted unconstitutionally, unless they knowingly did so. And labelling mainstream opinion "left-wing" gives a false equivalency to fringe right-wing views, which is not how weight is determined. The article on Trump should be mostly negative, because that is how he is covered in reliable sources. But many of these types of articles are more negative than the source material and should be corrected.

I have never seen objections to closings brought to ANI and suggest it be dealt with on the talk page. If no progress is made there, then it could be taken to a content noticeboard. But make sure that the objection is based on policy or guidelines and is phrased in a neutral, non-combative tone.

TFD (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note that Thinker78 did follow the advice of an info page when they posted to this forum. However, Thinker78 may not be aware that "information pages" are comparable to essays, and just reflect the opinions of someone-or-other, but they're not formal WP:Policies and guidelines. Personally, I don't care what forum in indicated. But whatever forum that may be, the info page should be verified or modified to say so clearly, to help the next person who wants to challenge a closure. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think you ask a valuable procedural question, viz-a-viz, what is the "proper" way to challenge a closure? And though we have often butted heads, I applaud your research and following the available info and posting here, just as the info page instructs. HOWEVER... FYI, "information" pages have the same wikilawyer "validity" as essays which is to say..... not a hell of a lot, unless the community has been thundering about them for a long time, which in this case they have not. So in short, I am also confused as to the correct forum for such conversations, and I'm hopeful that one constructive result of this debate is a clarification in our much more heavy-hitting WP:P&G NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A few editors are telling me to bring this closure discussion to the article talk page, but Per WP:TALK#TOPIC, under "How to use article talk pages", "Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article" and "No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace." Thinker78 (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy, WP:Close may be an information page but it provides guidance that I didn't find contradicted elsewhere. In addition, it is cited by the consensus policy WP:DETCON.--Thinker78 (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a closure of an WP:RfC, WP:AfD or the like. A discussion was hatted. You could have then made a suggestion to improve the article on the TP; instead of attempting to bring in an administrator. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O3000, Ret. That's your interpretation, but my interpretation is that WP:CLOSE (Wikipedia:Closing discussions), is precisely that, a guide to close discussions. A discussion was closed, then I based my challenge to the closure on the guidance provided by Wikipedia:Closing discussions. In addition, I cited Wikipedia guidance, whereas you just closed the above without citing any single Wikipedia guidance, just your subjective, arbitrary, threatening opinion. Although Im not sure if you intended to threaten/warn me or you were trying, in your view, to prevent me getting in trouble by other editors. Btw, what is TP? Thinker78 (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day, who freaking cares, you are picking the most ridiculously-small molehill and building Mt. Everest out of it. In all this rules-citing and such, have you by chance come across WP:NOTBURO yet? It is kinda applicable here. Zaathras (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zaathras, per WP:NOTBURO, "Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected." "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles." I did consider the principles of the guidance I cited in my challenge. An editor, SandRand97, may have worked a couple of hours in an edit, was mercilessly reverted, and the discussion where they wanted to discuss the issue was even closed in a matter of hours. I don't think that is an adequate practice to follow. If their long work was reverted, at least properly discuss it to try to reach consensus in a reasonable length of time, not in a few hours. Granted, now I see that SandRand97 bailed out, but we need to see that they were probably frustrated their edit was reverted. So in my opinion it was time for the community to keep discussing whether the reverted text, part of it or a form of it could be included in the article. Thinker78 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Thinker78: if an editor works 2 hours on something that is fundamentally against our content policies that's on them not us. But also, 2 hours or not, allowing them to waste even more of their time, and our time, discussing something that has no chance in hell of being implemented isn't helping anyone in any way. Nil Einne (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne Well, you think that, evidently that other editor didn't think that. The issue is that there are quite a few editors who are too prone to try to quash as soon as possible those who don't think like them. That's one reason why it's a good idea to respect the regular time to determine consensus of at least 7 days. Not thinking about anyone in particular, but in general many times some editors even resort to phony accusations to try to shut down debate, like tendentious editing, disruptive editing, not getting the point, and the like. Not saying that these kind of edits don't happen, but the point is that such accusations are used sometimes in an illegitimate and dishonest way to silence others, specially editors who are not in the mainstream line of narrative. For some reason, some don't like the idea of free flow of information and debate to determine consensus in a reasonable manner. And this is actually a reflection of life outside of Wikipedia and attitudes of people with one another. Thinker78 (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thinker78: You wrote Well, you think that, evidently that other editor didn't think that. - Could you clarify what you mean by "that" and who you mean by "that other editor" about whom you claim there's evidence of their view? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 18:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO "Well, you think that", referring to the opinion of Nil Einne; "evidently that other editor didn't think that", referring to SandRand97, who in my opinion didn't think according to Nil Einne's aforementioned opinion. Why work knowingly for 2 hours against policies and guidelines? Evidently the editor didn't share the opinion they was working "fundamentally against our content policies". Thinker78 (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Non-administrator comment)DS-Alerted editor[6] on a mission, e.g. ..I do want to see more accommodation according to Wikipedia's guidance to seemingly conservative posts and critiques..[7]. Well that's fine, but to my knowledge in this specific dispute they have not discussed any sources much less suggested any of their own, much less shown any unreasonable bias against such sources.... even though several of us have invited their input at article talk, and pointed out they can start a new thread for this constructive purpose at any time. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Final words

Can some administrators provide some final words to this discussion before it gets archived? I know most editors think this discussion is focusing too much on process, but I believe that sometimes focusing on the details provides higher quality and better guidance. Evidently the consensus seems to point out that editors agree with the close, but it is my opinion that most of their basis are erroneous. For example, an editor may have said that WP:CLOSE, which I used as a basis to file in this noticeboard, is only an information page, but there is no other guidance I found on this matter that would contradict WP:CLOSE or that would supersede it. Other editors, including the editor who closed the initial discussion, indicated I should have posted this challenge in the article talk page, but per WP:TALK#TOPIC, no meta should be discussed there and I didn't find myself welcome in the talk page of the editor I challenged. ValarianB stated, "It was just a whinge by a drive-by new user", but actually the user (User talk:SandRand97) was not a new user and was not a drive-by, it was seemingly anywhere from 20 minutes to a couple hours worth of work, even taking the time to write in the talk page to challenge the revert. Finally, NewsAndEvent said I was on a mission and that may be true. I am against undue bias and undue censorship. I'd like to see more openness, proper reception of criticism by editors, even fans of Trump, and answers without hostility and trying to respond in an adequate and welcoming manner to concerns, to try to dispel the notion that Wikipedia is a biased project with a political agenda. Thinker78 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original post was 100% WP:OR and contained zero RS citations. Thus it was not "proper criticism" but SOAP and closed per the TPG. Worse, despite multiple invites to make "proper criticism" with RS and suggested text about Trump's legacy........ which you could do at any time...........we're all still waiting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you edit this page, you receive the following admonition: "This noticeboard is for issues affecting administrators generally – announcements, notifications, information, and other matters of general administrator interest." As no admin has added to this thread, it would seem it is not an issue affecting administrators generally. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O3000, Ret. I would appreciate at least guidance to an alternative procedure to challenge talk page discussion closures after no consensus is reached when contacting a closer (keep in mind that WP:TALK#TOPIC says no meta discussions in article talk page). I followed the steps found in WP:CLOSE, because it says "closing discussions". I'm surprised administrators wouldn't even step in to guide me. I am disappointed. Thinker78 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy I was focused on this challenge and if the discussion was reopened I was planning on checking it out. But I will gladly open a new thread in the article talk page to discuss. Thinker78 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that you are trying to use WP:CLOSECHALLENGE as a guide. But, this wasn’t a "close" in that sense. Close generally refers to page deletions, moves, merges, splits, RfCs, and other major forms of discussion which normally have suggested minimum time periods. What you are challenging is a simple hatting. As has been suggested by multiple folk, you can handle this at the article talk page by asking why it was hatted or by suggesting a resolution – like alternative text. In any case, this is something the community handles, not administrators (in their admin role); unless the hatting is part of disruptive behavior, which could be handled at WP:ANI or some other drama board. (This is not a suggestion to visit ANI.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As others have said, you're encouraged to begin a fresh thread on the article talk page, addressing the problems that several editors pointed out before the thread was hatted. Bear in mind that Wikipedia is not like Bitcoin mining, where you get rewarded for "work". Here, we create value by sticking to the Policies and Guidelines, again as several editors have explained. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 14:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O3000, Ret., I guess I will open a new thread in a talk page to look for clarification about WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, because when I read "closing discussions" I interpret it to mean every discussion according to the categories listed therein. When I type wp:hatting in the Wikipedia search box, I am redirected to Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Marking a closed discussion, where it states, "Closing a discussion means putting a box around it for the purpose of discouraging further contributions to that discussion". Regarding your advise to challenge the closure of the discussion—or the hatting—in the article talk page, I think WP:TALK#TOPIC advises not to, unless I am not understanding the guideline properly. It states, "No meta: Extended meta-discussions about editing belong on noticeboards, in Wikipedia-talk, or in User-talk namespaces, not in Article-talk namespace." Can you tell me your opinion about this latter guideline and its relevancy to the closure of the hatting discussion in the article talk page? Thinker78 (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not answer that question because this is boring everyone. Just do what everyone advises. And do so with fewer words. Unlike what some are taught in schools at various levels; 'Brevity is the soul of wit' O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ADMIN GUY COMMENT - We generally do not review closures of informal discussion. It isn't a function of administrators nor the community on the whole. Hatted comments can be reverted for cause, or you can start a new conversation. However, it often does good to read why they hatted it, as they may be right. Administrative review of closures is generally reserved only for formal discussions, like AFD, RFC or (rarely) when there is some kind of abuse or conduct issue at stake in someone archiving/hatting/closing an informal discussion. This doesn't seem to be the case. This IS an admin board, which means we try to stay uninvolved with content disputes and focus only on procedure and behavior. There isn't any hard and fast rules for closing or not closing an informal discussion. This is particularly true in this case, as all SPECIFICO did was hat a discussion he felt was straying into a WP:FORUM violation. It could be argued that it really wasn't, but that alone isn't a reason for an admin to get involved. Closing the discussion above was correct, in my view, and SPECIFICO hatting was questionable, but your options for dealing with it don't include admin intervention at this stage. ie: it isn't a big deal, revert, or don't, and move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Request to be unbanned

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

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

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

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

• Endorse Unblock per Girth Summit, Cullen328, and Dennis Brown above. Appealable-in-six-months TBan from Syria-related topics, agreement to stick to one account. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Lift ban, unblock with Syria topic ban and one account restriction as suggested by others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CRP: Ghazaalch has been edit-warring their preferred version into this article non-stop: Content 1: ([8]-[9]-[10]-[11]-[12]) and Content 2: ([13]-[14]-[15]-[16])

• WP:NPOV. Ghazaalch  does this while removing other content (from the same sources) without proper explanation: ([17]-[18]-[19]-[20]-[21]-[22])

• Many warnings (at first they appear to have self-reverted, but now they seem to have lost any regard for policy): ([23]-[24]-[25]-[26])

• Ghazaalch's other disruption: tampering RFCs ([27]-[28]-[29]), not giving explanations in the talk page when asked to explain reverts ([30]-[31]), making false narratives ([32]), stonewalling ([33]-[34]), and other forms of WP:GAMING (such as WP:BADFAITHNEG [35]). There is also WP:Tag-teaming, all of which can be discussed if anybody wants, but the above may be the worst of it since at this point Ghazaalch seems to have lost any regard for policy (particularly WP:CRP). ~~~~

Iraniangal777 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Iraniangal777 This probably belongs at WP:ANI. I would encourage you to move the discussion. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not look at the diffs, nor am I planning to take any position on this, but I just wanted to note that since this is WP:ARBIRP-related (see also here a month ago) the proper venue for this would rather be WP:AE. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Apaugasma and Ad Orientem. I will try at WP:AE to see if anyone is willing to look at the diffs there. Iraniangal777 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i wish to add a wikiproject header for this article, but can't because the creation is restricted to admins.

the code would be {{WikiProject Musicians |class=start |importance=low |living=yes}} . thank you in advance! lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The name is blacklisted. A relevant thread is just above: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unlocking page for Kobi Arad. Probably it should come off the blacklist? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, @Malcolmxl5! (also, your edit summary made me look like i reported it on the dramaboard, lol.) lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 12:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I forgot where I was (never mind!). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is an unconfirmed editor (with no page) with a self-admitted conflict of interest, continually removing valid information and vandalizing a controversial Wikipedia page, Sexy Vegan. The editor is Kristin carlicci. I am not sure how to stop this, as reasonable talks with them and attempts to refer them to Wikipedia standards (also from another member, Hey man im josh, who had to revert several of their edits) has not deterred them. PetSematary182 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]

Wow, that article is a dumpster fire, there are BLPvios all over the place, horrible sourcing and it's just generally bad. There's currently edit warring over if they're an amatuer musician and "informal political candidate," whatever that is. Kristin carlicci's behavior is bad, but no one is covered in glory here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my question: Are they even notable enough for an article? RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, but no one wants to deal with the fanpeople footwork of an AFD PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just watch me. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to start looking and removing, so I guess we'll see? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll openly admit to being covered in not-glory. I try to avoid BLP altogether, but like you said, I saw a lot of room for improvement, mostly through deletion. I tempered my approach and tried to only axe what I was sure was problematic but I'm still inexperienced in BLP. I apologized if I caused any issues. If I made any big mistakes, please let me know. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, if you see something that looks like a problem, feel free to reach out at WP:BLPN for assistance. There's normally a pretty quick turn-around for getting assistance with BLP issues there from editors who are familiar with the sourcing requirements around BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you didn't notify them of this thread, which is required. I have left them the required notice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted 3 of Kristin carlicci's edits. They are continuing to ignore the warnings on their talk page (including two of my own) and inserting unsourced material into the Sexy Vegan article. For the mean time I've requested EC page protection for the article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, User:Kristin carlicci is a likely sockpuppet of User:Dantebish. Both are SPA's dedicated to promoting the same individual (Sexy Vegan) across multiple different pages, and continuously edit warring to get their preferred revisions of pages restored. I have filed a report at SPI here because of this. JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Dantebish" is most likely Sexy Vegan himself. Sexy Vegan as "Hanz DeBartolo" wrote a book called After Death through an Amazon vanity press (CreateSpace); the main character's name is, I kid you not, "Dante Bish". I don't want to say for certain (it could just be a fan of Vegan's), but if you see this editor or any sockpuppets, it is probably Vegan himself, or a fan/supporter of his. PetSematary182 (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not shed light on events. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. He's paying people off to delete Wikipedia articles. Somehow though, after all this nonsense today with that Kristin carlicci person (BTW as far as I know that name is of another fictional character from one of Vegan's self-published books), I'm really not at all surprised. 🙄 PetSematary182 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does he really think an administrator will jeopardize his position for $10? Donald Albury 22:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an admin who badgered the article into deletion. Kristin carlicci is an unconfirmed user whose only editing history is of the one Sexy Vegan page now slated for deletion. I can't imagine any seasoned Wikipedia editor/administrator who would have stooped to that level themselves. PetSematary182 (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely indeed. If such a job were to take place, it would mean severe consequences for both the poster of the job and the admin who took it. JIP | Talk 23:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In full disclosure I'm the person who nominated the article for deletion. Had this never come to AN, I'd likely never come across the article. However, since it was visible it is to be blunt, an absolute mess of an article about someone that isn't really notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it an absolute mess might be putting it lightly. I'm glad it's looking like WP:SNOW even if I'm unhappy they're going to succeed at paying to get their way. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is going to get deleted anyway because of WP:SNOW, so if the subject of the article did not get to pay anyone to delete it for them, no harm will be done. JIP | Talk 01:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not replying to your comment to argue, but to state to other editors the procedural fact that all Spinger Nature books are peer-reviewed, with the same standards found in Nature, see https://www.springernature.com/gp/policies/book-publishing-policies (look under books). This is particularly applicable to mathematics books. Limit-theorem (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In these two edits, two comments were added to a closed RM. Both users are relatively new (one is a new account from earlier this year, the other has just over 500 edits), so I don’t want to “bite the newbie”. Also I was an “involved” party in the RM. Please could an admin advise on the right action to take? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was also involved, but it was an archived discussion so I just moved those comments to outside of the archived area. nableezy - 09:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since all you were doing was clerking the discussion without changing the words, I don't think "involved" is at issue. And moving them outside the closed discussion is exactly what I would have done, so anyone looking at it later would understand they weren't included in the final decision. That's the least drama causing solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resovled at IANB. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Moved to WP:IANB (diff)

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

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

I wish to review Draft:Raphael Gomes; please could someone restore it as a draft, or to my user space, or email me the markup? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't WP:RFUD be more appropriate to request this than AN? PRAXIDICAE🌈 13:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restored, Pigsonthewing. But as above, WP:REFUND is probably the best place for requests of this kind. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This draft is a hoax created by LTA LiliaMiller2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This thing was already explained in the edit summary [37], all I said is to paraphrase things rather than add what exactly the source says. Also the lead section source of Top 10 best John Cena's matches says how significant and historic it was but ItsKesha keeps removing that their 2014 match was the end of their historic rivalry even tho source 1 and 22 implies that and I just paraphrased it. Dilbaggg (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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