Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive344

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

 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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Lugnuts what is a proxy link? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  @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)

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

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)

@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)

@CX Zoom Thank you for the help. Much appreciation. Troy26Castillo (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@CX Zoom okey then. I thought I made a mistake. Thanks again.Troy26Castillo (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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)
  • 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)
    • Moved, though for the record {{db-move}} is better than {{db-a10}} in these situations. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

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..."

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Endorse. One could see range of arguments from both sides so a 'no consensus' close could be recommendable. It needs to be noted that the RfC closure was reflecting the chain of events such as subsequent accusations of canvassing, ANI thread, accusation of racism, etc. and that's why it was a valid closure. Orientls (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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)

(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)

• 
  Status quo version, same as on historical versions
• 
  Alternate calligraphy, as in the version by Aziz bm

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

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

I've moved the article from Wikipedia:Kim Ku Lim to Kim Ku Lim (which has now been moved to Kim Kulim) and tagged User:Kim Kulim for deletion (per WP:U2). There are a couple redirects at Wikipedia:Kim Kulim and Wikipedia:Kim Ku-lim that should be deleted as well (they are redirects to User:Kim Kulim). -Niceguyedc (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I couldn't parse anything that was going on there. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi User:Fram,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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