The designation 'Flemish painter' requires nuance. That term was later given to a tradition of painting, but the painter would never have identified himself as Flemish at the time. It is therefore better to talk about a Brabantine painter (or a painter from the Duchy of Brabant) who is considered part of Flemish painting. Therefore the request to adjust this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramon1974 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about how he self-identified, but about how he is described nowadays by reliable sources. Looking for his name plus Brabantine gives things like "Brabantine landscape", "Brabantine country"[1], while there are plenty of sources describing him (and the others you changed) as Flemish, a Flemish painter, or an example of Flemish painting[2]. E.g. the entry for Jan Brueghel in the Oxford Dictionary of Arts starts with "Flemish painter"[3]. As Wikipedia is a summary of what other reliable sources say (and English Wikipedia follows the customs in English-language sources preferably), we describe them as "Flemish painter" and not "Brabantine painters" or the like. Fram (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old issue; the local definition of "Flemish" was narrower than the one in English for centuries. Whatever he himself thought, his English contemporaries would very likely have thought of him as Flemish (the few that had heard of him), and probably found "Brabantine" as puzzling a descriptor as modern ones do. Very annoying for Belgians, but there we are. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've created a draft that I think is ready for the mainspace but I'm not sure, I know you have a high standard when it comes to wikipedia articles thanks to past experiences hence why I came here to ask you if you think Draft:Columbia (Oasis song) is ready for the mainspace yet or if it needs more work, thanks N1TH Music (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see it has already been moved to mainspace. Please don't include youtube links (or similar) unless you are very sure that the uploader actually has the right to do so (e.g. links to the bands' official channel, or the channels of the record company or the original broadcaster, can be presumed to be acceptable; normally, anything else is best to be avoided for recent music or recent performances. Recent meaning anything since WWII or so...). Fram (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright noted, so I can only use such a source as footage of a concert if it was officially uploaded or endorsed by either the band themselves or the record label, is that it? But now there's no citation to back up the claim, I was thinking at first of using this however setlistfm isn't a very reliable source, the setlist matches that of the video but the same website states that the same song was played at another Gig the previous October, which I'm skeptical of as the songwriter literally had only joined the band 2 months previously so I doubt it was even written yet. So I'm split on whether or not to use it as I think citing something is better than nothing and the claim is backed up by the video but the website while appearing to be correct is noticeably unreliable, I'm not sure, what do you think? N1TH Music (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a reliable, usable source for this, then it is best to simply omit the claim from the article altogether. Fram (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I’ll take note of that when working on Draft:Up In the Sky. Also I see you reverted one of my edits on a different article, I get that the edit summary was off but I think the removal of that Flatlist was a mistake as all the other ones are their, either they’re all there or they’re not why was just the one removed, I’ve got a reliable source to back up the claim if that’s your concern. N1TH Music (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, my concern is that your edit[4] was very, very sloppy. The first change, removing Faerschthaff, resulted in "the small settlements of , Bricherhaff, ", and the second part of your edit but a flatlist inside a header. That you don't even notice this after you have been reverted and think the issue was "I get that the edit summary was off" and not that the edit was just a total mess, doesn't really indicate that the issues which led to your block have significantly improved. Fram (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I can see now, I thought I’d removed Faerschthaff as it’s not listed officially as a Lieu-dit. I can tell now the edit is sloppy, I copied the wikitext incorrectly, I’ll be more careful in future. N1TH Music (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fram. I wanted to let you know I reverted your CSD G4 on Stephen Jacob Jimbangan. It was previously declined by User:Liz couple of hours ago! Jeraxmoira (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 4 § Art museums and galleries by year of (dis)establishment on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently mad my article about kazerum a draft article and justyfing it by saying that i dident check the source properly (more specificly that the swedes dident loose 100 men). but here the source clearly states that 100 men förlorades in Kazerum, but nerevtheless, ive removed all scentences wich state that 100 men perished. Could you just make it so that it is no longer a draft article, cause i dont now how to do it myself. Dencoolast33 (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find the instructions at WP:AFC. The page needs thorough checking, for e.g. spelling (you repeatedly mention "Joesf Puosette" who is "Josef Pousette" instead), but also, like I said, for sources which don't support the text. E.g. you use this, which doesn't seem to have anything on the 1913 battle? In fact, the only source for these battles and the role of Pousette seems to be a single genealogy website, [5], of unknown reliability. Josef Pousette hardly appears in other sources[6][7] and it is unclear where that genalogy site has gotten its information from. Is there any other sources about a 1913 Battle of Kazerum? Cause I can't find it... Fram (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, his name is actually Joesf. And in the Iranica article states that the Kashkuli clan did extract tolls on the road wich was the entire reason why the battle occured in the first place. While there is only one article wich goes in depth on the battles of kazerum, almost all other sources state that there was "bloody battles" in Kazerum. And i have sources listed that state that Joesf was the leader of the regiment in Shiraz [[Which was responsible for the saftey of the road that Joesf was guarding).

So please turn it back into a normal article. Dencoolast33 (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"First of all, his name is actually Joesf."??? Not even your own source seems to agree with this. Anyway, if 100 Swedes "perished" in 1913 in Persia in a battle, there have to be more sources for this than just a family history website surely? Fram (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After further inspection, his name is diffrent depending on the source. Ive seen some reffer to him as Joseph too. where i got joesf from was under a picture in the släkthistoria article, might be misspellet, ill change it just in case. "100 swedes perished" this is a point of tension between us, thats why i previosly stated that i would not include it so that you'd have a better time making it a normal article.

So, can you change it back? Dencoolast33 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ive even chaged the name from Joesf to josef and some spelling mistakes to, there's no longer a reason for it to be a draft. Dencoolast33 (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I won't move it back, and if someone else does and no better sources are provided, I'll probably start a deletion discussion about it. I don't know if you lack the necessary competence or don't understand English or what, but the article e.g. still has "In February 1913, Mohammed Ali and his forces made their first attack on the Swedish positions. The battle would last 14 hours and 100 gendarmes would perish, being one of, if not the bloodiest engagement in the Swedish intervention in Persia." sourced to this which supports nothing in these two sentences. It still claims "100 perished". It seems even the title is wrong, and that if the battle happened, it was at Kazerun, not Kazerum. But I see you also use this source[8], written by an actual historian. From that source, we learn that in total 4 Swedes died in Persia, none of them in 1913. No bloody battle at Kazerum or Kazerun is even mentioned. Fram (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I probably mixed up the iranica articles with eachother (i had two), but i took it away now anyways."It still claims 100 perished", no? And the Swedes reffered to the place as Kazerum so it isent wrong, but i can change it if you want to. "But I see you also use this source" he does mention it, Oscar ohlsson died there, and i never said that 100Swedes died, just 100 in total (and that isent even included in the article anymore, so we can just drop it).

And just becuase that source doesent mention the "bloody battles off kazerum", does that invalidate all of the other sources?

For example:

• https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sweden-ii
• https://slakthistoria.se/livet-forr/livsode/farmors-kusin-stred-i-persien
• https://web.archive.org/web/20170831160456/http://www.ashkdahlen.com/index.php?id=126

I just want my article up please Dencoolast33 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These 2 sources (apart from the slakthistoria family history one) judt mention in passing battles around Kalerun and other places, without any details at all. Fram (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but it proves the existance of the battle. Dencoolast33 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mention any of the persons or dates, so not much of a verification. Fram (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

släkthistoria though Dencoolast33 (talk) 06:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed that one already, it's a family history website, not by professional historians and not providing any sources for the claims. Basically, it's an unreliable source. Fram (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, its a history website with a gimmic. That being frowing familiy in the mix. Dencoolast33 (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your "no" is about. I hope you aren't denying that it is a family history website? Or that the author of the piece here isn't a professional historian? Or that there are no sources provided in the article? Fram (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

look at all of their other articles, there are all about history with the gimmic of talking about someones relative. But i am to tired of arguing, you can take the article down if you want to. Dencoolast33 (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

if you are an administrator i ask of you to lock the page it has suffered enough two users have been vandalizing it constantly one goes and removes everything calling it unsourced and the other kept putting his fake heraldry in it Gaius Khufus Caesar (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. Are your additions sourced? Fram (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, with humble respect, I want to tell you to allow me editing that page. I don't mean to disrespect you. I don't remove your RFD tag. It shows that I will agree with anything decided by the judging administrator. Btw, you will be the final winner as the RFD has more opinions supporting you than me. I will accept whether it's deleted or kept. But being a creator of and main contributor to the page and as a Wikipedian, I have some user right to edit, before its deletion. The template itself says, "Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed.". I hope you will not misunderstand me.

With respect! Regards! Haoreima (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OWN, I and everyone else has just as much right to edit the page as you have. Turning it into a redirect means that people don't "land" on that page (and thus see the AfD), but are redirected immediately to the target. There is no reason to do this now, when waiting for the result of the AfD is much better. You are free to suggest the redirect as your preferred outcome at the AfD discussion of course. Fram (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 26 § Category:Art museums and galleries established in 1506 on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Art museums and galleries by year has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 27 § Category:Art museums and galleries established in 1715 on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Legal terms has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 28 § Legal terms until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was restored via WP:RFU. I've started an AFD. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead & delete the Jazz–Nuggets rivalry article. I'm never going to get time to edit it, and apparently, it doesn't meet the criteria for general notability for a sports rivalry article to keep. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesaaronthompson: You were supposed to have put this as a vote on the AfD page. It means nothing on a talk page. — Smuckola(talk) 10:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 30 § Category:Art museums and galleries disestablished in 1552 on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1914 disestablishments in Brazil indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 3 § Category:Libraries by year of establishment on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1952 disestablishments in Russia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1680s economic history indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Emmanuel6103. I noticed that in this edit to Biafra Liberation Army, you redirect the page with no valid reason Please do not move or change the namespace of this page unreasonably as it has already been approved. Thanks Emmanuel6103 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just know whether you are less busy to report to sock investigation on the controls of this user and this user. Seeing both edits and removal to support each other really meant vandalism. I am very tired to do so, help out though.. Otuọcha (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been relentlessly vandalising so many articles page recently so don't get annoyed when you are told to stop. Emmanuel6103 (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse people of vandalism when they are just trying to apply the rules and policies to substandard pages. Fram (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please I'm referring to other article pages, the word accusation is not necessary. Thanks Emmanuel6103 (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even tell who you are accusing here (and yes, accusation is the exact right word), if you are talking about me then please tell me which pages I have vandalized. If it's not about me, please don't discuss it here. If you are convinced that someone is actually vandalizing and doesn't stop after warnings, you can report them at WP:AIV (for straightforward cases) or at WP:ANI (for more complex cases), but be aware that your edits will be looked at at the same time, and the conclusion may well be that the problem lies with you and not with whoever you want to report. Fram (talk) 14:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Otuọcha: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjupither. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Chris troutman. Otuọcha (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, I wonder why you have to reply accusations, you should just ignore since there wasn't any vandalism you had caused. A one word correction should be okay even. Otuọcha (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1950s disestablishments in Russia indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram Please look another time at the article Simple Simon over. I put in two more reliable sources. It is okay now? Could you remove the Notability tag? Or what else I have to do? Der Barbar (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User Kiwiz1338 has already removed the tags! Der Barbar (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 19 § Category:Museums established in 1596 on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For god's sake. I'm doing this manually and using the contextual redirects in each place. In case of linking from the boxes of East Flanders places, that's the most suitable one. When they're talking about Belgium as a whole, I use that one. The article title is a single choice (WP:NCGN), but the other redirects are WP:NOTBROKEN. Please don't create more work for me than is already necessary, will you? Thanks! --Joy (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why would you ever deliberately link through a redirect instead of directly to the target? Just use the Belgium one in each case (assuming that there is a good reason all of these have to be moved and Hamme couldn't just stay where it was in the first place). Fram (talk) 08:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the fine guideline at WP:NOTBROKEN. This is a very old guideline that makes sense and one that we're not supposed to be edit-warring about in 2024. You're arguing with another volunteer over something completely meaningless. Please do something more worthwhile than this, this is not the way. --Joy (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in that guideline warrants deliberately piping to a redirect instead of to the actual article. I have no idea why you insist on using the redirect in some cases, and the actual target in other ones, when it would be much easier for you as well to just use "Hamme, Belgium|Hamme" as the piped link in all cases. Fram (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can also introduce yet another one[9] for no benefit at all. Fram (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the benefit is obvious - the person there is described as Flemish, not Belgian, which is completely normal for a birth in 1855 when Belgium was formed in 1830-1839; the links simply follow from the article text, they do not intrude upon it. --Joy (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even read what you write? Belgium was formed in 1830, this person was born in 1855 (i.e. 25 years later), so the village should not be linked to as "Belgium"? Even if he was born a century earlier, the link would still bring readers to "Hamme, Belgium" anyway. Fram (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't expect this level of discourteousness. I meant exactly what I said - the country was pretty young at the time so it's normal to see references to the earlier name of the territory. --Joy (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier name of the territory was the Netherlands... Fram (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the text Hamme, Belgium, Flanders East Flanders or similar into the topical ones in several places. The redirects are normal and logically flow from the context of the texts mentioning the place already, and I don't see why we would ever need to squash WhatLinksHere output down to the "canonical" variant when it's actually not easier to do that - it's easier to follow the text and apply what is there already. --Joy (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic totally escapes me. In what way is it "easier" to not only check that the original link is about the right Hamme (and not e.g. the river), and then to check whether to use East Flanders, Flanders, Belgium, Europe, or anything else? You are introducing an extra step to make an invisible link more precise without any actual benefit to you or future readers. In which article would using the link "Hamme, Belgium|Hamme" actually be a problem, and why? Fram (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to explain it better than I already did - I went through the list of what-links-here, read the articles that linked there and applied the topical redirect. This was actually easier for me than to go through it with just one link in mind, because I guess that's how my mind works - I read the text, I apply the relevant link, and move on. The result is a what-links-here situation at the new article that shows a bit about the actual references themselves. As I said already, I consider this an actual benefit to me and any future readers of the same list, because it provides more organized information. --Joy (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See for example List of municipalities of the Flemish Region, all the other disambiguated ones already used the ", Belgium" format, but you introduced the unnecessary extra step of going through the ", Flanders" redirect to get the same end result anyway. Fram (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not even following your own logic, in the List of Belgian painters you use "Flanders", not "Belgium"???[10] Fram (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That one must have been a mistake, there's no particular reason to use that there. Whatever. The fact that you're going through the list of my edits here and second-guessing each of them is bizarre and borderline insulting. I'm going to disengage here because this strikes me as an unproductive discussion. --Joy (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you take away something more from this than just this, e.g. that by making things this complicated you only create more work and more errors, but somehow I doubt it. Fram (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 20 § Category:Educational organizations established in 1547 on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that you moved the article about "Lieven L. Litaer" to "Draft:Lieven L. Litaer", probably because Lieven translated most of this article from the german version (which I have created some years ago) himself. Well, Lieven is a well-known Klingonist, not only in Germany, the details inside the article all seem valid to me, but I'm not really familiar with the rules of English Wikipedia: What changes have to be made to bring the article back to its original location? Sebbelbabba (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk reader) @Sebbelbabba: Please remember that de-wiki has a different consensus than en-wiki, so how we enforce notability rules may differ. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. What the subject wrote doesn't make them notable. Sources that fail WP:SPS like the Klingon wiki and the subject's website aren't allowable. Outlets selling his books also don't contribute to notability. When you strip all of that out, you have little else left. Generally, most people are never notable and if they are, it happens after they die, which is what I recommend. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"it happens after they die, which is what I recommend.". Thanks for the suggestion, I'll see what I can do. -- Lieven (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges in relation to information which has been removed from Wikipedia's public records.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

---

Administrators: Information which has been oversighted was considered when this block was placed. Therefore the Oversight team or the Arbitration Committee must be consulted before this block can be removed. Administrators undoing oversight blocks without permission from an oversighter risk having their administrator rights removed by the Arbitration Committee (per this announcement).

 -- Primefac (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVOLVED much? Fram (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I especially like your "there is no COI with these edits", "yes there is, see here", "gotcha, now I can block you!". Fram (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, involved in a discussion with someone, make an incorrect statement, get corrected, block the other party, and then[11] continue to make a self-righteous answer which doesn't make much sense without the redacted parts. You didn't make any statement about how the edit I linked "appeared", you made some nonsensical distinction between "editing with a COI" and "COI editing", even though e.g. WP:COIEDIT and the remainder of that page treat the terms interchangeably. And now you make some lame attempt at self-justification where I conveniently can't answer any further, and where you have blocked me for an "infraction" of your own making. You are just making things look worse for yourself this way. Fram (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made my clarification because clearly there was a misunderstanding of my initial statement. However, that does not excuse continuing to post suppressible material. The OS team is aware of the block and are reviewing it per standard procedure. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what your clear WP:INVOLVED status? Are you going to block yourself for violating that policy as well? Or are you going to pretend that your commenting, hatting, replying, ... was all in a purely administrative manner and you weren't invested in the discussion? Piss-poor form. An no, there was no "misunderstanding" of your initial post, you made a non-existant and irrelevant distinction between two kinds of COI editing, and decided based on nothing that there was no issue with the edit I highlighted. But when your error was pointed out, you indef blocked me. Really a terrible block for you to make. Fram (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the circumstances around this block, I have said on the OS team list that I am happy to assume responsibility for this block if there are concerns over this block being made while INVOLVED. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the repercussions for Primefac making an obviously involved block are...? Zilch, nada, nothing? Feel free to surprise me. Fram (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, calling the blocking administrator "piss-poor form" is a classic mistake to avoid. I'll be honest here, despite what you might think, I don't actually want to see you blocked and I'm happy to get this block reviewed at whatever the most appropriate channel is (AE? An Arbcom case?) But if you attack the blocking administrator because you're in a (admittedly perfectly understandable) bad mood (and I've been blocked in the past, so I totally understand how you feel), you're not going to be able to edit Wikipedia again. (And yes, I found out about this block from that Wikipedia criticism site that some people don't like mentioning directly on here). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, please stay out of this if you try to paint "piss-poor form" as a description of a person and not of behaviour. What they did, what I described, was "piss-poor form", i.e. was "bad form". I don't need someone I clashed with in the past to "help" me by claiming that I made a personal attack when I did no such thing, as is clear from how "piss poor form" is normally used and interpreted. Fram (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about personal attacks, rather that your comments looked like this cliched unblock request which the essay / policy supplement linked to says usually results in a declined appeal : "Oh come on, the blocking administrator is stupid / arrogant / idiotic. Remove their administrator rights and block them! They blocked me for nothing!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses to this block have not been productive, so I have revoked your talk page access. You may appeal to the Arbitration Committee. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't agree with that at all. We generally allow blocked edits some leeway in venting about their block. Fram has not personally attacked anyone (he called the block "piss-poor", not Primefac). It's not as if he continued to post oversightable material on this page. Black Kite (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is an oversight block, Fram will need to appeal via email anyway, so there's no point in leaving talk page access. If you really feel that Fram should have access, feel free to undo my block. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"So there is no point in leaving talk page access"? That's not how the block policy works. What are you preventing by revoking TPA? Criticism of the block? Levivich (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I've restored TPA. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yeah, while I don't agree with the block, I can understand it (though not coming from Primefac); but this talk page access removal came completely out of the blue and the backtracking from "responses have not been productive" to "there's no point" shows that the admin had no leg to stand on (and no Ritchie, I'm not making a personal attack here). Still waiting to see if any of the people who think the rules are all important and justify this block (even though only obvious stuff was posted and with direct relevance to enwiki editing by a holder of one of our most trusted positions), will also think the rules are all important and blocks should be handed out when it comes to dealing with other infractions like involved blocks, poor talk page access removal, or years-long COI editing across multiple articles and with possible use of the tools included. Fram (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be nice if Primefac could specify if the block was discussed with the committee, or they made it unilaterally; they shouldn't have been the one to make the block at all given their comments in the thread, but it's certainly an even worse look if they made the choice singlehandedly to hand down an unremovable block. This is a clearly-involved block and it's staggering to me you're defending it, especially since the entire AN thread only became a dumpster fire because you and your colleagues have refused to take charge of the situation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made the block as an individual OSer. The OS team was already reviewing the first set of suppressed edits by Fram at the AN thread (which I asked for specifically because of my involvement), and after blocking I self-reported as per our policies and protocols. This is not an "unremovable" block, as the OS team absolutely has the ability to overrule me (which is exactly why we discuss all OS blocks). Primefac (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a newer administrator, so my experience in this area is less than most, but I tend to agree with David. It seems odd to justify a block where you admit you are involved by saying you self-reported afterwards. If the violation was so clear, could you not trust that another oversighter would make the block? To what extent are admins allowed to deliberately violate our policies, provided they admit it themselves? —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If material needs to be oversighted, then it needs to be oversighted by the first person to see it who can do so. If there is doubt about whether something should or should not be oversighted then it should be oversighted and then discussed. If the first oversighter to see content they believe should be oversighted is INVOLVED then they should oversight it and then seek review from other oversighters (which is exactly what happened here). In all cases when discussion determines that oversight is not required, then the content is restored (or the suppression is downgraded to revision deletion, making the content visible to admins but not non-admins). In this case the review of the first suppression was ongoing at the time of the block, but it was headed towards a consensus that it was an appropriate use of the tool. It's also worth noting what WP:INVOLVED actually says: in straightforward cases [...] the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. In this case read "oversighter" for "administrator", and there is a very strong consensus among oversighters that suppressing first and discussing second is the correct order, even when the consensus of the discussion is that suppression wasn't required.

All oversight blocks (other than short-term blocks of IPs) are reviewed on the Oversight list. In the significant majority of cases this amounts to a few comments along the lines of "good block" because it clearly was such (an example is a self-declared minor who repeatedly posted self-promotional content that included their date of birth and geographical location, even after being warned not to do so; without the private information aspect it would have been a routine NOTHERE block). Obviously this case is not as simple as that, so the review is still ongoing and it is too soon to say what the outcome will be. If Fram wishes to appeal the block they can do so by following the instructions in the block template. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the need to promptly oversight material which is in violation of policy. Does that extend to immediately blocking the user who posted it, even if the oversighter is involved? Primefac did not remove talk page access for Fram; I assume on that basis that Primefac did not fear that Fram might continue to post oversightable material unless they were blocked. Thanks for your detailed explanation of the questions to hand here, in any case. Basically, this case is a total mess because of the fundamental tension between our stance against COI editing and our stance against outing. Public discussions must be oblique, while private discussions (such as by ArbCom) are opaque, slow, and open only to a very select few. It brings to mind the years of frustration and conflict over User:Tenebrae, who was eventually community banned, but not before wasting thousands of hours of the community's time. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People mostly aren´t complaining because of involved oversighting, but because of involved blocking. Primefac could have oversighted the text but let someone else do the block independently, in which case there would have been at the very least less concern about their action. Instead, they knew they were involved, but still first posted a reply to my initial (still present) post acting as if there was obviously no problem with the link I posted. They could have not answered, or said that they didn´t see the issue and asked me to mail them/arbcom the issue with that edit: but instead they again tried to defend their fellow power user with some weird and irrelevant arguments, and then had an excuse to block me. Baiting first, making a heavily involved and heavyhanded block next. All to protect a coi editor who us now lying about his coi on his talk page. Priorities... Fram (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conflict of interest management and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my initial statement: This case should look at

• the years-long and quite recent COI editing by Nihonjoe on topics where they seem to have a clear personal and financial interest, and their apparent lies about it this week on their user talk page
• the outing by me, whether it was warranted or not (based on on the one hand the cat already being out of the bag anyway, some of the COI already acknowledged, the fact that they didn't make a secret of the association between Nihonjoe and the supposed RL identity elsewhere, and their eleveated position in the enwiki hierarchy), whether it was correct or not, and whether the block should have happened and should be immediately indefinite
• the involved role of Primefac, who after repeatedly trying to minimize the issues (including prematurely closing the thread) and after baiting me into an outing reply by pretending that some obvious severe COI editing was no such thing (and using some very weird interpretation of the COI guideline and the English language to support their comment), then made a clearly WP:INVOLVED and heavy-handed block, while still failing to address the actual issue of the COI editing to boot
• I guess the completely unnecessary and short-lived removal of talk page access by User:Ingenuity is peanuts in the light of all the above, but some acknowledgment that it was unwarranted and that talk page access shouldn't be removed on such a flimsy basis would be welcome as well

General discussion of COI vs. outing can happen as well of course, but for me the above is sufficient to keep me busy I guess. Fram (talk) 10:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown:: the issue I highlighted is neither of the two scenarii you outline[12], but a third one, where there is a clear personal and financial interest. I'll not elaborate here, for obvious reasons. Let's just say that if I'm right, the statements by Nihonjoe in User talk:Nihonjoe#D. J. Butler are not truthful. But that will be for Arbcom to determine during the case. Fram (talk) 11:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And Arb is where it should have gone to initially, not AN. I have the luxury of being able to use my real name and location, but most people do not, so I'm protective of that privacy. I get it. We have to err on the side of protecting editor privacy, because we can always delete an article, we can't delete outing, and we can't prejudge every situation. I haven't seen the text that you were blocked for, but that isn't the cause for the case, which should have been handled privately to begin with. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Maxim:, please ask the oversighters to send you the oversighted material, I assume you wouldn't then claim "As far as the questions as to Nihonjoe's COI edits, I think he has been responsive to the concerns raised in the AN thread. If his responses were wholly inadequate, we would have ended up with a case request much faster." Note that his outright denial of these facts only happened yesterday, after I was blocked: that we didn't end up with a case any sooner was due to a) the time given to Nihonjoe to "come clean", and b) the inappropriate protective actions taken by some, including Primefac. I'm quite baffled that you can look at this case and decide already that Nihonjoe has been responsive, as the oversight has been about cases which were more recent and more egregious. Well, perhaps not more egregious than some things they did 15 years ago or so, but those are only relevant to show that inappropriate COI editing has been his MO for many many years, just like some off-wiki evidence only is used to show that he isn't shy of using his Wikipedia handle elsewhere, and that trying to promote his stuff as if he was uninvolved isn't restricted to enwiki. The COI confession they already made, coupled with the use of his enwiki handle elsewhere, make claims of the "damage" outing in this case might do very theoretical and honestly self-inflicted.

Oh wait, you are an oversighter, so you have seen the oversighted material, and still you believe that their response at User talk:Nihonjoe#D. J. Butler is not only resposive but adequate, and not, er, a bald-faced lie? If you need an explanation of why that is, I'll email you, but it shouldn't be hard to see this for yourself. Fram (talk) 15:12, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may send us a detailed report to arbcom-en-bwikimedia.org, as clearly you've done the research already. That would be more productive than making oblique references on-wiki in what was presumably an attempt to stay within the bounds of WP:OUTING. Maxim (talk) 15:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent. And yes, the obliqueness was indeed to avoid getting my talk page access yanked again. Anyway, feel free to reply (preferably here, or by email if necessary) if you have further questions. Fram (talk) 16:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting we received your email... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fram (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:: the involvement of Primefac in that discussion was more than an attempt to close it and the "so what" (though those would be enough to be considered involved in my view), they replied directly to me[13], to which I answered with the oversighted material, after which they blocked and continued to reply about the actual matter. Basic rule of WP:INVOLVED is that you can't both discuss the merits, the contents, and use the admin tools: either you join the discussion and become an editor without extra powers (for that discussion), or you don't join the discussion and can "clerk" it neutrally. Once Primefac started discussing the merits or lack of provided diffs and whether an edit was COI editing or not (never mind the very weird distinction between "COI editing" and "Editing with a COI" they tried to make), they should have refrained from using the admin tools about that discussion and certainly against someone they were in a discussion with (and who happened to contradict their previous nothing-to-see-here position). Oh, and for the record, I did not repost any oversighted material. Fram (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more general comments. I'm disappointed, though not surprised, that people don't want to discuss the actions of Primefac (using the tools in a discussion they were involved in to protect their own position in that discussion, and to protect the reputation or rights of a colleague at the same time, while making frankly quite ridiculous statements about COI while doing this), or the very heavy-handed block (immediate indef? Acting as this was some random outing, a narrative still maintained by some at the case, and not an "Arbcom and the like have the facts, but proceed to ignore them and close the discussion, while the COI is obvious for all to see" situation where only the continued pressure has lead to anything so far? No, let's give the lowly editor the harshest possible punishment according to the letter of the law, never mind all the circumstances leading to the posting of the material, and let's on the other hand ignore the oversighter protecting the paid editor because we can wikilawyer our way out).

I see claims like "the underlying behavioural problem of editors acting as though a years-old COI (which could have been addressed by an email to Arbcom) was more important than the safety and well-being of another user and their family." which shows the all-too-familiar tendency of people wanting to get their word in about situations they are not fully aware of apparently. It's not a "years-old COI" in the sense that it stopped in 2019 or so, it was ongoing, cross-wiki COI and paid editing, with blatant COI edits going back at least 15 years and continuing until at least last year. Nihonjoe was not trying to hide the connection or in any way concerned about their well-being or that of their family (well, they were concerned about it, by trying to give more exposure to their company, not by trying to hide anything). If someone makes Wikidata items about themselves, their company, employees of their company, products of their company, and the people who have contributed to these products, then it is a bit rich to claim that pointing this out will somehow jeopardise their safety and the problem lies with those exposing the issue, not with the one creating it in the first place. It's not some kid who needs protection from their own stupidity, this is someone who should know the rules the best of all of us, but who has been doing this kind of stuff for 15+ years, and who has been doing the same on other sites as well (reviewing your own products without disclosure? Very, er, professional). I don't get why anyone would want to defend this behaviour or pretend that it's not fully their own responsability. Fram (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter:: "I see people clearly saying here that this is paid editing however." The claim is that the most recent cases of COI editing were Nihonjoe editing about the products made by his own company, not a company he just works for (although there seems to be evidence that he also worked for the marketing team of a previous employer, which makes those edits more likely to be considered "paid editing" as well IMO). Fram (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:, the block note says to contact arbcom for an unblock, you say contact oversight... Anyway, the much simpler solution apparently is just to say "It was a lapse of judgement, plain and simple, and getting the right result through the wrong means does not excuse it. I will strive to do better in the future." and instead of an indef you get a "tsk tsk" and nothing else. Even though my intentions were to get people to take some action against this blatant COI / Paid editing which was being ignored by arbcom, while Primefac's intention seemed solely to be to stifle all criticism of a fellow bureaucrat (because, well, we only have 18 burocrats, and then you see one of them using admin tools to defend a second one, and a third one rushing to the talk page of the first to support that action without expressing even the slightest concern about the behaviour of his fellow bureaucrats). It really looks as if ArbCom is doing everything they can to protect other functionaries (with you at least trying something to improve the situation) and to get rid of this with some "see, it wasn't so bad" semblance. The statement by Maxim (hey, another fellow bureaucrat) of 21:21, 29 February 2024 completely ignores that Nihonjoe was already given this opportunity, and lied about it on his talk page and in his case statement ("Since it was nigh on a decade ago, I don't have any way to recall what was going through my mind at the time, but I should have declared my COI at that time. I'm human and I make mistakes, and I try to learn from them. " flies in the face of the continued COI and Paid violations throughout his career and well into 2023, which they at least should have realised after the questions on his talk page. Fram (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion here. ArbCom has recently move to push most block appeals onwiki. How to handle oversight appeals was secondary to CU appeals because we receive so few OS appeals (I believe the number was about 1 a year). What I was intending was for you to use the unblock template, but that is obviously confusing and there's no need to stand on ceremony. @Dreamy Jazz I'm inclined to accept the appeal, (it was a lapse of judgement, plain and simple, and getting the right result through the wrong means does not excuse it. I will strive to do better in the future., but per procedure welcome your thoughts on the appeal as the blocking admin. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought I'm the wrong person to accept this appeal while Fram and Primefac remain potential parties at the case. So while I support someone accepting it, I leave it to someone elses's judgement about whether it is or not. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Thanks. If you want the appeal more completely: I will stop posting WP:OUTING material and send it to ArbCom instead. That's a general commitment, not just about Nihonjoe, obviously. Fram (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]