Hi Star Mississippi, I noticed that you are a member of WP:Theatre and have worked on several art museum articles. I would appreciate your opinion on the article draft that I created for Carl Thoma, an art collector and businessman. Because of my COI, I do not want to publish the article myself; if you agree that it has potential, would you mind helping to have it ready for main space? Thank you very much! JBarTB (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JBarTB. I'm not able to review or work this in the immediate future. Rather than reaching out to individual editors it might be a better use of your time to just submit it to AfC. You're eligible to do so as an editor with a COI StarMississippi19:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ToBeFree @Netherzone. NZ, your timing is impeccable. I was just talking with a friend about our trip to Fushimi Inari which was somehow probably 20 years ago (might have been '06). I got tired of whack a sock, and the poor goats were getting tired. Have a good evening both of you. StarMississippi01:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of my most favorite places in the whole world! Be well, and don't let the socks get under your skin - toss em into the machine that loses socks. Have a wonderful weekend to the both of you. Netherzone (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the most incredible sacred sites I've ever seen! And I can't believe you also mentioned Miyajima...remember all those little crabs crawling around at low tide at Itsukushima Shrine! I have some good friends who are currently visiting Japan for the first time, and I mentioned to them that they must go to Fushimi Inari, Miyajima, and Nara. I absolutely loved Nara, spent a whole week there - the Shinto Shrine Kasuga-taisha, the botanical gardens, the Todai-ji Buddhist temple, all the friendly sacred deer all over the city, that huge park, and the road up the hill (can't remember the name, something like the road of 10,000 lanterns.)
Deers in a Japanese city! That's a sight I hadn't seen even on a photo yet. That's cool. I had seen images of the Itsukushima Shrine, but I wasn't aware of crabs! Kasuga-taisha and Tōdai-ji are beautiful but if I have seen them, it must have been in a movie. I should change this one day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have three colleagues going to Japan this month and I'm so jealous (in a benign, not mean way) of them because there is nothing like autumn in Japan. The road to Omiwa Shrine @Netherzone? Such solace. Loved Misen-san in Miyajima. I found it necessary after the pain that was Hiroshima.
@ToBeFree you should. The flight is long so plan a month if you can. Two weeks at a minimum unless you're doing one city. It's a nation of huge contrasts from the bustling built up cities to the quiet of the towns and even more rural areas. Even within the contrast of Nagoya and the Fuji Go Ko region just an hour from Tokyo. StarMississippi22:21, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I wondered if I could draw your attention to the following brief thread at WP:COIN, [1]. The user is a spam only account recently blocked on German Wikipedia who has transferred their activities to English Wikipedia. I think there is probably a strong case for a site block. Regards, Axad12 (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the time it may also be worth looking at this brief thread on a separate subject, started by user:Fram. It's about another user engaged solely in promotion and ignoring multiple warnings. Axad12 (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. I have some concerns about whether the article should exist or if it's BLP1E territory but don't have the on wiki time to dig into that right now. StarMississippi15:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry to bother you with a bit of drama....User:Gingeksace (from the Lerro/Empathism ANI) who is blocked continues to make legal attacks and personal attacks against me here and on Commons and my own talk page was vandalized a few days ago by one of their socks. I'm wondering if their talk page access should be restricted because now they are doing this on their own user talk. Netherzone (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Star for blocking access, and thank you @AntiCompositeNumber for your assistance on Commons. I did not know how or to whom to report the abuse. Good to meet you here. Let's hope things calm down soon! Netherzone (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Star Mississippi! May I ask you to restore text to my talk page? it contains useful discussion and research about the Aba genus, which I may use later. Norden1990 (talk) 15:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be closed when an administrator feels the discussion has concluded. They will then decide whether the page block continues to the article. StarMississippi15:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again.
I wondered if you might take a look at the following COIN thread [4].
Basically it seems to be a long term (10 year +) COI user who repeatedly creates article about themselves, family members, bosses, companies worked for, etc. etc. (all with questionable sourcing and notability).
The user continues to vehemently deny any COI, but they are clearly WP:NOTHERE and are involved in a great deal of promo activity.
Many thanks, Axad12 (talk) 13:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, the user was blocked in the end, which was the right result.
There's another COIN thread here [5] where a very clear UPE account is repeatedly denying COI on their talk page, repeatedly removing tags and even taking down a speedy deletion template. Personally I don't really see any possible outcome except for an indef as they have had several warnings, but would value your input as always. Axad12 (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Definitely wasn't intended and I reverted myself an dropped a note on the Talk.I wish we had a less mechanical system for logging. StarMississippi20:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me too! I resisted them entirely until I did some cleanup on a List article that was tables upon tables. I still find them challenging in ways wiki formatting really isn't. Thanks again for flagging it. StarMississippi21:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please make this Empathic troll go away and head back to its local Trollosphere? [6] It's little sock puppet's name is Garlif23. Thank you! Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We edit conflicted in the best possible way. Blocked, rev del'ed. So sorry you're still dealing with this. I don't know if there's an edit filter that would stop them. Let me know if you want your page semi'ed. Happy to do so. StarMississippi23:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably some English language issues with the guidelines. I wanted to help them, but we'd moved into DE territory which was made clearer with the unblock requests. I think they probably need to edit elsewhere as even if it's in mainspace, the tone isn't going to work. I'm not against an unblock but it doesn't seem likely StarMississippi12:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Star Mississippi, thanks for the welcome! I was indeed trying to edit the CitizenLab article/page because it contains wrong factual information. We're not called CitizenLab anymore and the name should be changed throughout the page. I also edited the website and the logo. I understand Wikipedia's caution to letting people edit articles where there could be a conflict of interest, but we should at least be able to correct mistakes on the page? :) I would really appreciate some help with updating the name of the page/moving it so it reflects our actual name. Sören3300 (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. You have yet to make the required declarations (WP:PAID) which you are required to do or you will be blocked.
I see you repeated your ask at the Teahouse, so someone will help you there they believe the sourcing is sufficient. (Google results are not necessarily a reason to do so) Please let me know if you need anything else. StarMississippi12:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do here about this article. You closed a DRV and restored this AFD-deleted article to Draft space but it has quickly been moved to main space and from my too-quick review, it looks like the only change is to add references about the coaching staff. Should it be re-draftified or tagged for CSD G4?
From my quick glance, it's not a G4. You (generic, not you personally) can make a case for a new AfD after two years. That was my logic in speedy closing the DRV. The close was fine but potentially no longer relevant since @Hameltion IDed new sources so might as well give them time to improve it. I have no objection to an AfD (or a G4 if you believe it is one). StarMississippi02:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I trust your judgment, SM. I just know I can get frustrated when I've restored a deleted article to Draft or User space and then it is immediately moved to main space. But I will pursue it no further. LizRead!Talk!05:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I didn't notice it until you flagged it @Liz. I feel that concern when it's a problematic article/subject, but this deserves another chance. If folks feel the sourcing still isn't there, it can be re-deleted. StarMississippi01:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the creator of the page the Sligo Wild Geese that was deleted a short while ago. I am likely to create it again, this time with a few more references. Though they are hard to come by for this time and place. However, its my fault i did not see the deletion flag as ive not been active on the Wiki for a while. The page might not have seemed impressive, but i can assure you the subject matter is important enough to warrant a mention in the wiki at least. I hope you will have no objections to its recreation. Kodai (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Apologies for the delay, I've been offline. I'm not able to dig into this right now as my on wiki time remains limited. Would you like me to revert? I'm happy to since it seems both should close in the same way and "your" MfD had a clear redirect consensus. StarMississippi01:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's all there is to it, there's nothing deeper. I think it would be "nice" to have them both closed with the same outcome, because it really was the same discussion with the exact same participants, and the consensus in the MfD you closed got obscured by the fact that the discussion was divided on two pages. Thanks, and hope you're enjoying the autumn colors. —Alalch E.09:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Star Mississippi. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is SPI. Message added 20:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Sent you an email about evidence of an SPI filing I am about to make. Looking for a second set of eyes and you had previous dealings so hopefully you guide me one way or the other. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It already states It is unclear whether the Keraites should be classified as Turkic or Mongol in origin. The names and titles of early Keraite leaders suggest that they were speakers of Turkic languages, but coalitions and incorporation of sub-clans may have led to Turco-Mongol amalgamation from an early time. So based on etymology, we shouldn't conclude it's Turkic or Mongol, since Other researchers also suggested that the Mongolian name Khereid may be an ancient totem name derived from the root Kheree (хэрээ) for "raven" since this example doesn't even mention that Turkic word raven has the same roots, and is even Turkic in origin. What is clear that this tribe had both elements. Wikitionary Proto-Turkic/kargaBeshogur (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Vofa. No one but admins is able to edit the page right now because you were both edit warring. Please make an edit request on the Talk page and an admin will assess and address it, if they feel it's needed. I am not able to weigh in on content in this subject area. StarMississippi11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hey. Are you able to check if this IP is related to this user that you subject blocked for COI? The IP has edited a related sandbox and the page that the original account is blocked from editing. It's a minor edit but I suspect block evasion. Thanks. DaHuzyBru (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it was just accidental/testing and have cautioned them as such. I'll keep an eye out for further. Thanks for your work cleaning up the article @DaHuzyBru and flagging this. StarMississippi11:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring SPA who does not respect the results of the COI edit request process
Hi,
I wondered if you might take a look at this COIN thread [8].
The SPA (on the issue of whether 2 companies are Chinese state-owned) edit warred on 2 articles before being encouraged to declare COI and to make COI edit requests. He then made the edits again rather than waiting for the edit requests to be approved and was told not to do so again.
A month later one request was turned down and the other remained outstanding, so the SPA returned to edit warring over the material at both articles.
I'd suggest that the user be blocked from editing the two articles. They are inexperienced and obviously have strong feelings on the matters involved, but they had previously been warned that a block might result.
Hi @Axad12. I'm not going to be able to give this far eyes for a few days, unfortunately. Please let me know early next week if it's still an issue and I've not come back to it/another admin hasn't addressed. StarMississippi16:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for UPE. I'm in favor of one page (or namespace) block, but when we get into multiple it's my opinion that the disruption will move. Of course if he convinces another admin, they're welcome to adjust the block. Sorry for the delay. StarMississippi01:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Star, would you mind expanding on your close rationale? From what I could gauge we have the nom; @Russ Woodroofe's "weak delete" that seems to at least partly be weak because of the possibility of NAUTHOR and the interview in NPR (which our policy lists as primary "depending on context", with the context not being particularly applicable in this case); a weak keep that can be discounted entirely since it's based on authorship that turned out not to exist; a weak keep where there is only one interview source the editor considers to have SIGCOV, which is not enough for GNG even if it had enough independent and secondary content; another weak keep that also hinges on the single interview source being counted for GNG; a keep that doesn't understand that GNG requires coverage, not just selection as an interview subject; and two detailed deletes that describe why the interviews fail to count towards GNG. I think given how recent @David Eppstein's !vote was it might have been preferable to relist so that other editors could respond?
Thanks, JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I think it was simplest to relist here especially as it had only been relisted once and seven additional days at AfD is likely to be more fruitful than the same time at DRV, should you have chosen to go that route. While I agree with some of your points and don't think I'd have voted to keep, I feel like community consensus is fuzzy w/r/t independence and N:AUTHOR/N:ACADEMIC, and we saw some of that here. Curious to see if a consensus firms up. StarMississippi17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering the same thing as JoelleJay, myself. As discussion was ongoing it looked like another relist could have been fruitful. Alternatively, it would have been possible (although obviously more controversial) to close this as delete citing the weakness of the keep !votes. I think the no-consensus close that you chose instead was the weakest of these three possibilities, and could well be turned over to a relist at DRV. As for your invocation of N:AUTHOR/N:ACADEMIC, there was no case made for N:ACADEMIC on the AfD whatsoever, and the one keep !vote based on N:AUTHOR turned out to be based on mistaken identity and should have been discounted. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome JoelleJay.
@David Eppstein While I'm not sure it would have been overturned to relist (vs. say re-nominate it in a shorter than typical window), there was definitely no need for DRV with an established editor in @JoelleJay asking for reconsideration (or you, had you been the one to come here first). Consensus is what we all want, regardless of what we think about a particular topic and 7 days at DRV+ a potential 7 at AfD again is a waste of community time and bandwidth. FWIW, I'd already relisted it about two hours before you commented here because I have no issue with more eyes.
Re: NACADEMIC, sorry to be clear that was my making the connection between the two where academic sources frequently aren't independent of the subject but as long as they back up citation/position, it generally results in a decision to retain. I see the same for author discussions although ideally all of the reviews are independent. The three of us know all too well that AfD isn't always the ideal world. StarMississippi20:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a newbie and I'm lost at the moment. I'm creating a page for Rick Sanjek. I just submitted a draft for review and it was declined for copyright violations. Where do I start to find the cause of the violation(s) so that I can correct it/them? Thanks
Hi @CyberDave9000 You are free to undo edits, but I'd recommend not doing so given their broader familiarity with how Wikipedia works. The only edits you may not remove are the AfC reviewers' notes. StarMississippi03:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your closure of the WP:ANI dispute. I think that you and I agree that a dispute should only be pending in one forum at a time, and that there are content forums and conduct forums, and it is better to handle a dispute that has both content and conduct aspects in a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was the Autographs subpage of the user page of Marine 69-71. Maybe I should have provided a little more information to a busy admin who deals with a lot of controversies. At least two people went after the subpage. One nominated it for MFD, which is a content forum, and one of them went to WP:ANI. Now we are also seeing a RFAR to desysop him. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes. There was nothing further that could have come out of ANI as, at that moment, Administrators' Recall didn't exist and personally I'm not convinced it would be suited to this type of situation. And no worries on the context, I probably should have had more coffee as well. StarMississippi02:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started a draft on this fellow a while back and would be happy to have some help with it. (Also posted this on Mississippi Wikiproject talk page). I hipe all is well. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the submission denial rationale for the submitted draft and I think she belongs in mainspace. Ripe for expansion no doubt. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that starting the AFD was what needed to be done. This was a clear case of gaming of titles, which is all too common, often with articles where the native form of the subject is a non-Latin writing system, which is a conduct issue. At the same time, if a conduct issue can be ignored by focusing on content, that is more likely to improve the encyclopedia. I have a difficult time assuming good faith when there is a name game, but a deletion discussion doesn't involve the conduct or good faith of the author. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and apologies for the delay @Robert McClenon. I wasn't sure if it was a title gaming situation or transliteration, but knew that the content issue was going to be better handled separately since it wasn't necessarily tied to the creator issue. I've been offline but will check in on how both are resolving soon. StarMississippi03:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Title gaming often takes advantage of the options of transliteration, but is still often title gaming. I have seen it more than once with Indian actors. After an article is deleted, another article is created with a different spelling. There is no need to change the spelling of a name unless the objective is to avoid seeing the deletion. With native English language names of people, the title is gamed either by adding or changing a disambiguator, or adding or removing a middle name or middle initial. Changes in the spelling of transliterated names are usually done on purpose. The good-faith approach is to argue over the primary spelling after notability is established, and create redirects for other spellings. This was a name game, which is conduct that can be ignored by addressing the content issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A huge problem about a user, who overrides the AfD result on an article
I just want to let you know that a user by the name of Tyamutz had overridden the AfD result on Fractured (miniseries) article, which you closed and redirected to an other article a few months back. I'm not sure how to stop that user since the user removed the redirect template, recreated, and updated a page instead of creating a new draft. JRGuevarra (talk) 06:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FTS initially used the facilities of the First Independent Church of Wilmington (later Faith Bible Presbyterian Church), pastored by Harold Laird.[1][3][2] FTS grew in size and moved to Huston Hall in Wilmington in 1941,[2] then to Lynnewood Hall (the former Widener estate) in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, in 1952.[1] Carl McIntire served as president from 1972 until 2002.
1. "The Design and History of Faith Theological Seminary". Faith Theological Seminary. Retrieved August 10, 2020.
2. Harden, Margaret G. (1967). A Brief History of the Bible Presbyterian Church and Its Agencies. Bible Presbyterian Church. pp. 45, 134. Retrieved August 11, 2020.
3. "Our History". Faith Presbyterian Church (PCA). Retrieved August 10, 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenhague (talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Star Mississippi.
I wonder if you might have time to take a look at the following COIN thread [9]. The user in question, Smatprt, has a conflict of interest in relation to the articles for Stephen Moorer and the Pacific Repertory Theatre plus several other related articles. The situation has been going on for many years.
Easily accessible off-wiki evidence has been noted by multiple editors at COIN and the user claimed (over a fortnight ago) that they are happy to answer any questions but have since gone silent.
They have actually previously revealed their identity on-wiki but it was many years ago and under circumstances that may not have been entirely regular (it was following an attempted outing), they have also done so at Commons.
However, the nature of the COI is pretty transparent from the username and is confirmed by the off wiki evidence. I'd be grateful if you could take action.
(Apologies for contacting you when you are offline, but it seems we are in rather disparate timezones and rarely online at the same time. However, these sorts of requests of mine are rarely urgent so I'm happy for your intervention just whenever you happen to be free).
Hi @Axad12. I never mind you reaching out at any time. I view Wikipedia as primarily asynchronous communication, where in real time is just an added bonus. So never hesitate to reach out. I'll try to let you know if I'm offline for longer than normal. All that said, I'm going to decline to engage further here. I believe there are more complex ties with an editor who I brought to ANI so I'd be Involved and it's a complex one that won't be resolved with a block either. I know there's a backlog at the paid / COI queue and SPI, but I think that's the best course of action here and it doesn't look like an SPI has been filed. cc @Graywalls, @Netherzone if there's anything I'm missing and thanks as always for flagging @Axad12. StarMississippi13:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @Axad12, I think in a case like this where there has been long term COI/UPE editing going on (as well as strong off-wiki and on-wiki evidence), it probably should have been taken to ANI rather than COIN.
ANI's charge is to deal with chronic, intractable behavioral problems whereas COIN's charge is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline. It was pretty clear from the get-go the editor has a strong financial COI over the years and has never disclosed or stopped editing directly (they are not complying with COI guidelines), so that was already determined (and supported by the discussion at COIN and the diffs presented).
ANI may have been a better venue since these are chronic, long-term issues with the editor. As far as sending in off-wiki evidence to the "paid" en WP email or the Arbs, whenever I have done that it does not seem to result in anything, and I've never, to my memory, gotten a response, so I wonder if anyone actually reads those emails. Regarding socking, while I wouldn't rule it out (they did sock in the past), I'm not convinced there is currently socking going on. Netherzone (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, but (with regards to COIN vs ANI) it wasn't me who started the thread.
My concern at present is where we go from here, as switching to ANI at this point doesn't seem practical.
My personal opinion is that Smatprt should be blocked in some way (if only topic banned). I appreciate that Star Mississippi had valid reasons for not applying that block themselves but I'm not sure how to take the matter forwards now towards a satisfactory resolution. Axad12 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sent all the personally identifying and compelling evidence to the functionary email but never got a response. Looking at Talk:17-Mile_Drive, it doesn't look like Smatprt is struggling with basic Wiki code, so it's a bit strange responses to allegations about Smartprt's COI behaviors are coming from IPs more than once, then saying "it was me" in a different response while logged in. I think meat puppetting is a fairly likely possibility given how close it was in timing of WP:LOUTSOCK occurrence at Talk:Edward_G._Kuster which complained about a redirect. There's likely off-Wiki private discussions. Ping to @Netherzone:. Graywalls (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axad12:, Going to ANI is quite likely time consuming, but you can if you'd like to. Some editors don't even like when other editors go to COI/N without having handled the matter on talk pages first. If Smatprt comes back to edit later, the lack of cooperation in COI/N certainly won't reflect good on them. Graywalls (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.
With regard to COIN/ANI: my personal feeling is that we all put a lot of work into uncovering UPE/COI and the reason we do that is to put a stop to it. As per previous discussions it is a fact that COIN "has no teeth", although it can often be observed that COI-lite users voluntarily stop their activities after they get reported there.
Echoing the comments by Netherzone above, where the behaviour is particularly ingrained (and where the user clearly knows that they have been operating outside of policies and guidelines for an extended period of time) then I feel that ANI is the correct arena for that problem to be aired - if only because otherwise it is demonstrably highly unlikely that admin action will be forthcoming, in which case what is the point in raising the issue at all? We all spend far too much of our time on these issues to allow that to be a common outcome.
Obviously it is unfortunate that admins do not patrol COIN with any regularity, and those who do don't seem to take action against clear abusers. There are also some admins who take the line that the only appropriate way to deal with off-wiki evidence is via the relevant email address (which, as has rightly been pointed out above, is a complete waste of time). Those admins will not take action against even the very worst UPE offenders (who are inevitably only ever identified by off-wiki evidence). That being the case, it seems that the only way to guarantee an appropriate admin response is to refer obvious sustained UPE/COI activity directly to ANI.
Apologies for the lengthy post, but there are too many threads at COIN which end up unresolved before being archived. Therefore I think we need to change tack and take the more serious cases directly to ANI. Please note that this suggestion is actually as per advice previously received from Star Mississippi.
Speaking briefly with my admin hat, but just as an opinion and definitely not policy. As to why admins don't monitor COIN (or Close Request, as discussed on AN re: a DRV that was lingering), there are too many boards. We as a community try to file things where they belong, which is good, but that means there are too many places that need following and action. I am personally not a fan of X report is in the wrong place, file it at Y" when I can action it-you see that from me personally a lot at DRV where the "correct" answer is REFUND but FFS, let's get it done without bureaucracy so the article can be improved.
There is nothing wrong with the COIN report, but it's not going to get the eyes an AN* thread would, which means the problem lingers. On the content side, we see this with merger discussions that ultimately land at AfD. Some folks dislike any course of action, unfortunately. When COIN was created, there was a need for a standalone place to report this type of issue because AN/ANI were overloaded. With fewer admins even with the recent elections, there are too many places to actively monitor. I never mind being pinged @Axad12 (or any of you), but I don't have the bandwidth to monitor COIN unfortunately. Maybe a request for more eyes at AN, especially when there's a backlog. Long form of no real answers, unfortunately. StarMississippi02:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts here.
With regard to the ineffective admin response on this case at COIN in the last few hours, my feeling is that it only goes to prove my point. It's clearly very disappointing for an admin to respond that this is an enthusiast with an interest in Shakespeare and theatrical productions when the easily accessible off-wiki reality demonstrates a far more profound COI. These sort of cases evidently need as many admin eyes as necessary so as to avoid a single response along the lines of "move along, nothing to see here", effectively facilitating further COI. Axad12 (talk) 04:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the Paid queue just expanded. I need to go find the threads. I reported something to ArbComm once and they looped in the paid queue, but I didn't need resolution from them since the editor in question worked themselves into a DE block regardless of other factors. It's not a longterm answer, but ping me when I can help in the interim @Axad12StarMississippi02:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Axad12:, have you noticed how they've been forgetting to cover unflattering things? One source already present in the article was essentially devoted to the organization, but it was used only for a minor fact verification and anything but what the article was about. There's enough in that article to possibly be worth doing an entire section for Graywalls (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graywalls. To be honest, as per my recent post [10] at COIN, it seems to me that those on one side of that overall argument (at PRT) are acting correctly and the other side are doing their best not to engage on the issues and instead to throw allegations about to generally obfuscate.
If there is unflattering press coverage in RS sources then obviously it should be in the article, but clearly the chances of that happening are presently zero while the impasse on current content continues.
It's currently about 4am where I am, and I don't feel at my best. I've looked through the titles of the 74 sources in the PRT article and I assume you refer to source 8 (which unfortunately I don't seem to be able to access). Axad12 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the level of detail that some users want to see in the PRT article, I assume that they would welcome WP:DUE coverage of that issue. I strongly suggest that you add an appropriate new section to both the PRT article and the article for Stephen Moorer.
I was somewhat surprised that at no point in the Monterey Now article was the rift alleged to relate to a vendetta in relation to Shakespeare authorship issues. Axad12 (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that I spotted that you had already added reference to those events to the PRT article. I have now added a slightly amended version to the Moorer article for good measure. There was no mention there of any events since he was appointed executive director in 2008, so I think this will be welcomed as a useful addition by all those of an inclusionist persuasion. Axad12 (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just digging out of the week. Anything you need me to look at @Axad12 @Graywalls? I know I owe you a look on the thread about routine activities, Gray, but haven't yet researched the situation. Thanks both! StarMississippi02:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
haha. I'm now tangled up over at Breyers ice frozen dessert. Trying to figure out how to do an RfC for it. I have only done two or three ever. Suggestions on which avenue I should pursue next? DRN or RfC? I already approached NPOV/N and got some useful input but I feel like another editor is not receptive. Graywalls (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's one way to get turned off eating dessert.
I think a Talk Page RfC is best with pointer at maybe a food & drink project. I know there's a way to get them broader attention, but not sure this rises to the level although it certainly seems intractable. Worth waiting for after the 11/21 decision StarMississippi03:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say it's more of food & dessert, or just company regardless of what it is? The biggest concern here is that the said editor was contacted via talk page and ping, by a representative of a public relations firm working on behalf of Unilever Corporation which owns Breyers and inserting rather promotional fluff, whiting out unflattering contents. The talk page archive might give some background context. This one is different from what I am used to be working with. I feel the public relations firm here is quite pushy. Graywalls (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hey man. I saw you deleted the article and closed the discussion. First, thank you for reviewing and closing. Secondly I'm a bit taken a back as to why the article was deleted. It seemed fine to me based of the vast plethora of sources I found, but strangely this wasn't enough. I'd like to know what was the rational in deleting it according to you if you wouldn't mind. Third I'd like to request you to kindly draftify the article(if possible still) If not can I at least get some form of viewing what the final form of the article was? I just feel I worked a lot on it to let it go, you know. But all in all I appreciate the month long discussion ended. Thanks. Rob. H. Brodie (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-read it and don't see another way I could have closed it. The primary issue that came up was source depth and whether it was about him, or the company. I'm happy to draftify if you think you can improve it. You'd then be welcome to return it to mainspace. If it's suitably different, it won't be subject to a speedy deletion but can always be brought back to another AFD. You can find the draft at Draft:Yashar Vafaei Mamaghani. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Hi. Can you restore deleted LeoCAD page to draft? Its true that sources on the web are scarce and its due to it being famous in the past, therefore there are possibly multiple physical book sources and research papers mentioning it that can be traced down. One example is this book and this research paper. VectorVoyager (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Star Mississippi,
If you have the opportunity I wonder if you might take a look at the following COIN thread [11] and let me know your thoughts. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the deletion review of Jairam Kumar Mahato should have been closed because the OP was blocked. There was a consensus among participants to restore this article to Draft space and there is always the possibility that this editor could be unblocked or someone else would like to work on this draft. Could you amend this closure? I'll happily restore the article to Draft space then. Thank you for considering this request. LizRead!Talk!07:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How cool! I didn't know about Inari and Fushimi Inari! Well, I may have seen the latter in a featured picture contest, but I never had an idea what it was about. Thank you very much, Star Mississippi and Netherzone! 
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
That's cool. I had seen images of the Itsukushima Shrine, but I wasn't aware of crabs! Kasuga-taisha and Tōdai-ji are beautiful but if I have seen them, it must have been in a movie. I should change this one day! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Done thanks as always for flagging @Axad12 Star Mississippi 13:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
