Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. If opening a close appeal, use {{RfC closure review}} When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	6	7	13
TfD	0	0	1	6	7
MfD	0	0	1	4	5
FfD	0	0	1	1	2
RfD	0	0	0	48	48
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

• 14 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 5 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 70 sockpuppet investigations
• 4 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 22 Fully protected edit requests
• 2 Candidates for history merging
• 15 requests for RD1 redaction
• 42 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 37 requested closures
• 109 requests for unblock
• 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 11 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (31 out of 8441 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Anti-pedophile activism 2024-09-23 03:35 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry: per RFPP Daniel Case Attacks on religious sites during the Israeli invasion of Gaza 2024-09-23 03:25 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Desmond is Amazing 2024-09-23 03:18 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case Talk:2024 Lebanon pager explosions 2024-09-23 03:07 2024-09-30 03:07 edit,move Arbitration enforcement: per RFPP Daniel Case Parihar (clan) 2024-09-22 23:21 2024-12-22 23:21 edit,move WP:GS/CASTE Elli Pratihar Gurjars 2024-09-22 23:20 2024-12-22 23:20 edit,move WP:GS/CASTE-related disruption; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Zana ambush 2024-09-22 23:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Qatar and the Israel–Hamas war 2024-09-22 23:10 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Israeli public diplomacy in the Israel–Hamas war 2024-09-22 23:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Hamama School bombing 2024-09-22 23:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Khadija School airstrike 2024-09-22 23:09 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement: WP:CT/A-I; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Harper Steele 2024-09-21 21:28 indefinite edit,move Violations of the biographies of living persons policy: per RFPP; will also log as CTOPS action Daniel Case R. C. Majumdar 2024-09-21 21:16 2024-10-21 02:05 edit Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP; increasing to ECP for duration Daniel Case Noohani 2024-09-21 21:06 indefinite edit,move Enforcement for WP:GS/CASTE; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan Template:Non-diffusing parent category 2024-09-21 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3312 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/nationality/innercore 2024-09-21 14:29 indefinite edit,move Reduce protection level following this RfPP request Favonian Revolutionary Communist International 2024-09-21 14:12 2024-10-21 14:12 edit Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts Star Mississippi Ibrahim Aqil (Hezbollah) 2024-09-21 11:03 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/A-I -- requested at WP:RFPP Favonian Jitendra Dhaka 2024-09-21 04:55 indefinite create I didn't mean to change this Liz Basem Al-Shayeb 2024-09-21 01:17 2025-09-21 01:17 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:BLPCT ToBeFree Template:Inflation/IN/dataset 2024-09-20 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2568 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:ESPNscrum 2024-09-20 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2884 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Assassination of Ibrahim Aqil 2024-09-20 15:27 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights 2024-09-20 15:25 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish Nyan Boateng 2024-09-20 01:28 2024-09-27 01:28 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Star Mississippi User talk:Lots O' Numbers 2024-09-19 23:38 2024-10-19 23:38 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry 331dot Mark Robinson (American politician) 2024-09-19 21:34 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement per CTOP AP Given recent reports in the media. Will log at WP:AEL Ad Orientem Won't Be Around 2024-09-19 20:09 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Ponyo Paul Oluikpe 2024-09-19 17:31 2025-03-19 17:31 create Repeatedly recreated: force to go through AfC, after persistent attempts to move draft here OwenX Old Balinese 2024-09-19 07:40 2024-12-19 07:40 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry Daniel Quinlan Balinese language 2024-09-19 07:38 2024-12-19 07:38 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; requested at WP:RfPP Daniel Quinlan

Topic ban review/revisiting/appeal

• SecretName101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Original ANI discussion
• Talk-page discussion
• Earlier appeal

It has been over five months since @El C: put in place a topic ban on my account. I would like to appeal now for a revisiting/lifting of the topic ban. El C has advised that, due to time limitations at the moment making it difficult for them to provide me with a timely verdict in reviewing the topic ban, I appeal to a user board such as this instead of to them alone.

I would like to first apologize for any and all pain or damage poor judgement on my part brought on Wikipedia. I better understand now that, particularly in editing articles pertaining to living subjects, there is a high level of caution that needs to be measured. I much better understand that, if a draft article that feels limited in scope an appears to paint a overly-negative picture, it is best for it to either go unpublished in the article space, or at least first go through other hands for review and revision first. I much better understand that, when such an article deals with someone who skirts the line between sufficient notability and inadequate notability for this project, it is best to practice particularly great caution.
___________

Months ago, I believe, El_C told me something along the lines of the best way to demonstrate that I contribute to the project with good faith was being that I proceed to make positive edits where I can.

Some of the work I have done over the past several months includes the following:

In related edits, I improved Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Efforts to impeach Andrew Johnson, and spun-off/expanded Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson and Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson.

In related edits, I improved William McAndrew, expanded 1927 Chicago mayoral election, created William Hale Thompson 1927 mayoral campaign and Administrative hearing of William McAndrew, and made minor improvements to other related articles. William McAndrew was elevated to a "good article" by me.

I enhanced and created a number of other articles related to educators.

I improved Thomas Menino, and created the spun-off article Mayoralty of Thomas Menino.

I have made less major improvements to the articles of a number of long-deceased judges and politicians.

I made improvements to other articles.

I published new articles such as Michael Cassius McDonald, Benjamin Willis (educator), Unbuilt Rosemont personal rapid transit system.

In other edits, I undertook an ambitious change to the categorization of articles and categories related to United States constitutional officers and United States constitutional officer elections. I also made similar improvements for other United States election sub-categorization. I also created many redirects for election races described in sub-sections of larger articles. I also improved the category keys on many election articles. These involved thousands of edits.

I made other categorization-related edits as well.

I began work on drafts such as Draft:Impeachment inquiries in the United States.

___________
I hope the community will give consideration to this. If there are any questions or requests they have for me to help you in reaching a decision, I urge them to feel free to ask me.

SecretName101 (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• Note: Permalink to relevant AN thread. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• I too happened across this and wondered what on earth was actually being appealed here, which led me to this lengthy talk-page discussion on it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• SecretName101, You mentioned the Thomas Menino article, so I took a quick look. How are this edit concerning Robert Kraft and this edit regarding Elizabeth Warren not violations of a topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed"? That's as far forward from the topic ban as I looked, because I came across these as soon as I started to look and wanted to stop there and ask this question first, before any further examination, in case I'm misinterpreting something. Begoon 13:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

It’s been months, so I do not have a clear memory of every edit. But I suppose I must have seen those passing mentions as integral to a full biographic picture of Menino in their respective subsections. But seen them as merely biographical of Menino, not Kraft or Warren. Since it was a BLP ban, I figure I must have thought a passing mention that was necessitated to paint an integral fact on a diseased individual’s bio was not an biographical edit on on either Kraft or Warren. Neither changed a bit the narrative how Wikipedia portrays their bios across the project, I must have figured. I suppose I felt it problematic not to include his support or opposition of stadium construction, as that was a key development in its subsection. And Menino’s endorsement of Warren was well stated in other articles (such as 2012 United States Senate election in Massachusetts), so it was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretName101 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

So you thought it was ok, while topic banned from all edits concerning living persons, broadly construed, to edit about living persons anyway if you could mentally excuse it? Or you thought the topic ban was too broad? Or you didn't understand the topic ban? Or you just didn't take enough care? Sorry to be so inquisitorial, but I'm struggling to understand if you knew you were violating the ban, somehow thought it was up to you to decide if a very clear ban applied depending on your own flawed interpretation, didn't think about it at all, or thought nobody would notice? If you could clarify that it would be helpful in case I decide to look at any more of your edits. Thanks. Begoon 15:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not a photographic memory of every moment of my life, so asking me to recap my exact in-the-moment thinking on everything I have done in five months is an ask I cannot oblige. But I had, during my ban, asked for clarity before on what it covers, and how to navigate it, and been given very little guidance in return. I have attempted to navigate confusion over this. A moments, there have been edits where I went “shit, was the the wrong conclusion?” After I hit publish. SecretName101 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so you're basically saying you violated the ban but it wasn't your fault because nobody explained what "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" meant (despite the linked conversations above)? There's a viewpoint that would say - "Well, ok, nobody pulled him up for this as he went along." There's also one which says "Why on earth should we? it was very, very clear and we don't have time to police every sanctioned user who wants to edit outside a clearly defined ban. We can only really look when they appeal the ban and we discover they didn't comply with it, unless something is spotted in the meantime". Where do you stand on that? Begoon 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There have been small edits I have made after being un-fresh in my memory on the topic ban outline, and that I later (upon refreshing myself) went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. But they had already been published by that. Which has me paranoid here (and hesitant to appeal) out of fear I’ll be attributed intent to deceive or violate, rather than being understood to have practiced misjudgment or poor memory of how to interpret the topic ban. It’s been five months. Early into the topic ban, I was figuring it out. And later into it, my memory of how it works subsided or got foggy. So there are a few changes I would not go back and make, for sure. But I did not intent to sneak them in unnoticed or deceive anyone. It’s tricky to adjust to a topic ban’s outlines, and tricky not to have your memory of its rules fade amid five-months of drama-filled life. I apologize for mistaken edits, and would request leniency/understanding, instead of the usual rush-to-judgement and condemnation I feel I have been repeatedly met with in these months. The point of these bans is to negate damage to the project, not inflict pain or punishment upon the user, as I understand, so the question should be whether I have been or will be causing harm to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Let me ask you a couple of questions then:

• Why can't you indent your replies properly (half-kidding, but it's really quite annoying that you expect others to clean up after you - I've had to fix your posts 4 or 5 times now... If you wanted to show willing you could do something with the random snippet you plonked, unindented, below this while I was typing it - I have no idea what, if anything, it responds to... struck, because they finally did do that...)
• What did you do that led to the ban? Here I want you to describe what happened in great detail: why it was wrong, why you did it, what you think about it now, etc..
• How would you handle the same situation now - again, in great detail, please? Begoon 15:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The word concern had thrown me off at moments. “Concern” generally means “be about” “scrutinize” “analyze”, all which implies principal involvement and not passing relation. Passages like those you mentioned were about Menino, not the others. The sentences were about Menino what Menino did and how he acted, not the others. I am sure that my understanding at the moment was that those were not as clear a violation of the spirit or letter as you currently see it. SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

For the question of what led to my ban: I created an article on an individual I believed surpassed the notability threshold for their business exploits (having established a nationally notable music club/bar and received accolades for it). In retrospect, since the article was an incomplete picture that leaned negative, and since the individual's notability was so-marginally above the threshold, I would have not published the article if I could do it over. Instead, if I desired to see it removed from the draft-space to the article space, I could have requested other users review it, modify it, and balance it out to the best of their abilities. I should have certainly asked for further eyes on it. More ideally, I would have instead created an article focused on the bar/club for which they were notable for running, and only had a redirect under their name unless I could create a more adequate article in the future. SecretName101 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think that the article indeed was poorly-considered. It painted too negative a picture on a figure that do I believe is notable, but I also believe threads the line between sufficient and insufficient notability for this project.

I think I would have done a faster about-face to the community, instead of wasting time focusing on arguing with those who were attempting to prescribe malicious intent to my creation of the article.

The article was foolish, but was in no way an effort to defame the individual. The primary content that painted a negative picture was sourced to a reliable newspaper, and was not a smear. However, that still does not excuse that the article painted an unbalanced portrait on someone who did not urgently necessitate an article on the project. It would have been better to leave there being no article on the subject than an unbalanced one. SecretName101 (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I also mistakenly did not take a closer look at one online source I used. It was not reliable. However, it was not a source that led to the unbalance of the article. Nevertheless, it was a giant f-up to include that as a source. SecretName101 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

These are almost encouraging answers. You still seem to think there are scenarios in which creating the article might have been a good idea though? Could you expand on that? Begoon 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think if the article had been far more balanced, and more thorough, there would have indeed been a case to make that it had a place in the article-space. The subject of the article indeed (in sources) appears to be an (at least regional) celebrity who founded a quite notable business venture. The subject also generated more recent headlines for more recent actions (such as fundraising for, I think it was, police carrying AEDs), a promised upcoming biography with headline-generating claims about their relationship with their ex-spouse, and other actions/ventures. There are grounds that this was indeed a notable figure. A balanced article on the individual certainly could warrant a place on this project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No. It really would not. I'm very concerned that you still profess to think that. Begoon 18:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Elaborate? SecretName101 (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A topic ban is not to be given to someone simply because you disagree with the notability of a potential article subject. That's to be resolved in deletion discussions.

A topic ban is for someone who has given tremendous detriment to the project.

I myself have disagreed with the notability of articles the Wikipedia community has decided to keep. It is quite possible I am wrong to think there could be enough notability behind this subject, but that is not a heinous sin. But I would urge you not to render a verdict on your absolutist stance that there is no potential argument for this individual having been notable enough. SecretName101 (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct that this isn't the place to debate whether a totally hypothetical article could be justified, as opposed to the "...speedy deleted shady attack page of a subject whose marginal notability would qualify him having his bio deleted as a courtesy anyway" which we had, so, yes, let's not get carried away with that speculation. My apologies for the tangent. Begoon 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, disagreeing about whether a single individual has just-enough notability for Wikipedia or not is not a cardinal sin that should bar anyone from being allowed to edit parts of Wikipedia. So that should not be the crux of your judgement at all. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to say that "edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" was unclear because of the word "concern"? I don't, quite honestly, think that's a sensible thing to say to the generally intelligent people who will be reading this. Some of the things you are saying are close to plausible, but that is not one of them, and reeks of desperation. That's not how you'll get a topic ban removed. If you weren't sure then why didn't you ask? If I look at later edits will I find more cases of you ignoring the ban because you thought it was subject to your own interpretation rather than seeking clarification? It was very clear, regardless of your apparent intention to skirt it by the "letter" or "spirit". There was nothing open to interpretation however much you might like to wikilawyer it now. Begoon 17:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Concern" is the operative word. I never made any intent to ignore the ban. But I indeed have stated there are moments I am retrospectively worried were unwise edits with the ban, but at the moment had judged to be fine, either through fading of my memory of the language of the ban (which indeed happens over months) before I refreshed myself, or due to lack of initial clarity on what the ban entails. I am confident that a phishing expedition will find cases in which you will question my edits out of the 8,000 or so edits I have made in these months. If you want to make your vote punative based off of these, it is your prerogative to. But I urge you to instead judge on the principle premise: is my editing malicious and harmful to the project. SecretName101 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Phishing expedition" (sic), "punative" (sic) - wow - any more ridiculous knee-jerk responses you want to utterly fail to understand then, for good luck, amusingly spell wrong and baselessly fling in my direction?

I don't think you are intentionally malicious, but I do think you lack BLP competence and nothing you've said here has really made me reconsider that opinion yet.

What, to you, is the most important consideration when we edit articles about living people? And how did you let us down?

Anyway, I'm conscious that I've already said more than I ought to in one discussion, so I'm going to make this my last comment and let the consensus form. Good luck. Begoon 18:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Most important consideratio? I mean, for the survival of the project, not getting a defamation lawsuit seems a major concern.

But in general having accurate well-sourced content that paints a proper (as-balanced-as-possible) portrait is the benchmark. SecretName101 (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I mean, there are several “good articles” and b-class artices that I am the primary contributor of that are BLPs, so I do not think I am incompetent with BLPs SecretName101 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully this "competence" now encompasses an understanding of why "Subject is an American businessman and convicted fraudster" is not an advisable first sentence for an article on a person of no real notability, which would be the first google result for their name. Begoon 00:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

It has been acknowledged that the article was ill conceived. That point has been run into the ground by me. To characterize one misconceived article as representative of my editing on BLP versus the totality of my previous contribution to it is simply unfair.

I have explained how I had seen similar (perhaps equally wrong) intros on articles of more notable subjects, and made the wrong conclusion that this was standard practice for articles on convicted individuals. I had not regularly created articles on subjects convicted of past crimes, so that was new territory, and I made a major misstep.

I have repeatedly owned that that article was badly conceived, have I not?

have owned that the article was badly conceived . Have I not? SecretName101 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What I'm still struggling to understand here, though, is that you claim general BLP competence, yet profess inability to properly understand an extremely clear topic ban "from editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons (WP:ARBBLP), broadly construed" because your "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy". Can you see how that might be a concern? Begoon 13:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, I explained that the operative word "concern" is one that gave me trouble. "Concern" typically implies principal relation to something. SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I really don't appreciate that your first reason for voting against lifting is that you believe I denied "obvious" motivation for creating that article. I resent that users have been attempting to force a false-"confession" of malicious intent. I had no malicious intent, and I will not lie that I did. It is a sad state of affairs that the rule-of-thumb of assuming good faith on Wikipedia is being so blatantly violated, and I have been repeatedly reprimanded for not agreeing to make a false confession. I made a mistake, and I have admitted that repeatedly. I urge others to take that at face value please. SecretName101 (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal of topic ban. The question is whether the BLP topic ban is still needed to prevent disruption to the project. Secret's statements indicate he understands what he did wrong and what to do (or not do) in the future. As he is a 12-year editor with >80k edits and an otherwise clean block/restriction log, I believe the block can be lifted without harming the project. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think they indicate that at all. I'm still unclear that the editor understands what they did wrong, and I'm concerned that they appear to have treated the topic ban as an inconvenience to be wikilawyered around, rather than a restriction to be complied with - but I'm going to wait until they clarify that and answer the questions, rather than !voting prematurely. Tentatively, I'm thinking that now that they seem to retrospectively be beginning to understand the problem and sanction we should let them comply for a few months more with that understanding, and then judge the results again, but let's see how it pans out... Begoon 17:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support lifting topic ban given their answers, it's unlikely that they will repeat the inappropriate behavior that got them sanctioned initially. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I'm not convinced that someone who created basically an attack BLP, and cannot, apparently, properly understand the extraordinarily simple parameters of the resultant topic ban is an editor we should extend BLP editing rights to. The parameters for BLP editing are simple and clear - we do no harm. An editor so prone to wikilawyering on the edges of rules and restrictions is not suited to the role. If they can't understand a perfectly clear, black and white, topic ban to the extent that they insist on wikilawyering it in their appeal and explain their misunderstanding as being because their "memory of how it works subsided or got foggy" then I have no real confidence that they will be able to respect the BLP policy itself, going forwards. And that could impact real people, again. They should give this serious consideration and perhaps appeal again later when their understanding is clearer. Begoon 13:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal of topic ban. If ever there is a clear cut case, I would think this would be a fine exemplar. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
• With regret, I also oppose for now. This was an arbitration enforcement sanction, in response to the creation of an article that was speedy deleted as an attack. I revisited the discussion and the previous appeal, in which I made a statement, and am struck by SecretName101's responses to Begoon above, which do not show an understanding of why the article was inappropriate: the at best marginal notability of the subject, coupled with the wholly inappropriate emphasis in how it was written. Moreover, they show the editor has several times violated the topic ban, which forbade edits concerning living people "broadly construed". I appreciate that SecretName101 has found this a severely constricting topic ban given their interest in politics. I appreciate that they did ask for clarification, but editing pages or otherwise making edits that concern living or recently deceased persons  ..., broadly construed is very clear: SecretName's responses above, and the edits given as examples by Begoon, show that they did in fact understand, they just didn't want to believe it could possibly be that broad a ban: There have been small edits I have made ... that I later ... went “oh, probably not allowed, do not repeat”. I am not imputing to the editor an intent to deceive or violate; but they should have reverted those edits when the realization hit, and tried harder to keep within their topic ban. [I]t was not a new addition to the project, but rather a duplication of a fact already included in Wikipedia is neither here nor there. This editor was under a topic ban imposed for something rather grave and had already appealed once without success. They knew their next appeal would be evaluated in part on how well they'd honored it. But they violated it repeatedly, it appears, and hoped no one would notice, or that it didn't really matter. I'd like to give them full credit for continuing to write and improve articles, even though looking at the examples they cite, I still find their writing clumsy, stringing together bits from the sources. But maybe they dislike my writing style, too; this time I resisted the temptation to meddle. What matters, unfortunately, is that they still are unable to recognize the gravity of the problem with the Stevenson article, and they have not been able to adhere to the topic ban. So in my view, there is no basis for lifting the topic ban yet. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. I was extremely unimpressed by the original issue and the fact that the OP tried to deny what was very obvious in their motivation for writing that article, and I am equally unconvinced by the further evasive answers to Begoon and the fact that they still don't appear to understand the problem. Also, they're not even keeping to the topic ban anyway, as per the examples above - and also a number of edits like this. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The OP does not get why they were topic banned in the first place --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support he apologized and admitted his mistake. This editor has done far more positive things for the project than this one screw-up, so why prevent and disincentivize overall productive editors from doing more good work? It looks to me like he got the message loud and clear, he's not a vandal, or purposely seeking trouble, and I'm not seeing any signs that he is/would be a repeat offender. Atsme 💬 📧 02:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC) ^{Adding 14:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC):} I just read the ANI discussion, and 100% agree that notability is not inherited, and that the sources sucked to the point that in-text attribution would not suffice; the redirect should prevent future mishaps. Having said that, I'm still of the mind that El C's t-ban, coupled with admin & community reprimands (and unnecessary interrogation by a few), sent home a strong enough message to this established editor; ROPE is a good safety precaution when applied as originally intended. I also very much appreciate admins like El C who have a low tolerance for noncompliance with WP:BLP, and will take appropriate action. As for NPP, we now have the ability to add autopatrolled mainstream articles to our queue if we see a problem. It probably isn't enough considering we lack trained volunteers and admins. We need more energetic editors to sign-up for the courses offered at WP:NPPSCHOOL, especially in light of the outstanding admins who were once active leaders at NPP. We consider it the next step up to adminship. Atsme 💬 📧

COI edits attempting to scrub/delete Monica Gandhi Wikipedia entry

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

---

The Monica Gandhi article has been repeatedly altered in the last few days by sockpuppets from University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), which is where Gandhi works. They have been deleting cited passages. In addition, one of the sockpuppets added the deletion template to the article a few hours ago after protection on the page lapsed:

• Monica Gandhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Monica_Gandhi (AfD discussion)

Accounts in question:

• Wikiscientist578
• 128.218.42.66 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.191 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.215 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.189 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 128.218.42.107 (confirmed as UCSF)
• 69.181.180.133

Asking for extended page protection and intervention with the sockpuppets. Thank you.

TheNewMinistry (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems like it would be better suited to WP:COIN rather than AN. CUPIDICAE💕 19:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The unregistered editors all had their last edits before User:Wikiscientist578 was created, so I see no sockpuppetry here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

ECP protection seems to be unwarranted at the moment. Furthermore, while COI-edits are likely and a concerns, TheNewMinistry's ascribing those edits to the subject herself as in this section title, and in edit-summaries, is a BLP-violation, as are comments such as this one and this one. Abecedare (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I've redacted one of the BLPvios on the talk page. TheNewMinistry, you may want to self redact the others. BLP applies to talk space as well as article space. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I blocked Wikiscientist578 indefinitely. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• I ran into this by RfPP patrol chance, but it seems like Monica Gandhi (whom I've never heard of prior to that) has some enemies. Perhaps deservedly, perhaps not, but it'd be best if whatever is going on there is kept away from Wikipedia. And who is TheNewMinistry (an account created a couple of weeks ago), a user who erroneously thinks that the point of the protection was to retain that addition, like, by fiat (what, because the original RfPP requestor labled that removal as "whitewashing"?). I have argued in detail that that this addition is WP:UNDUE, an argument which TheNewMinistry, upon reverting, did not respond to substantively. This is weird stuff and it makes me uneasy. El_C 22:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  My account was created over 16 years ago.TheNewMinistry (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  In which case you should have been fully aware of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  I stand corrected. Still, weirdly unsubstantive. El_C 22:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  User:FlightTime asked the now-blocked user on the talk page to wait for concensus before removal, but you went ahead and removed it anyway without allowing discussion. I was completely in the right to revert your edit, especially since you were playing the "I'm an admin but this isn't an admin edit" game.TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  They can ask whatever they like, but WP:ONUS is still a thing. And I wasn't playing. After adding Ds/talk notice|topic=covid an hour earlier, I thought it was worth mentioning. El_C 23:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

  And I could have invoked WP:BLP or WP:COVIDDS as an admin to remove that addition (at least until consensus for inclusion was clearly demonstrated), but I chose not to. Perhaps I was too naïve about the prospects of a reasoned and... substantive engagement. So maybe I should have done that. But it looks like more WP:BATTLEGROUND, either way. El_C 23:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• There's an emerging consensus against it, so I've removed it until there is consensus to include. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  • It is a recent contested addition that is obviously BLP-sensitive, so it should at least wait until there's a clear consensus to include, yeah. --Aquillion (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Just to emphasise what Phil Bridger said above, there's nothing wrong with an editor editing from IPs then deciding to register an account and only using that single account, actually it's very normal state of affairs and is definitely not sockpuppetry. Also editing without ever having registered an account is still something we allow, and this includes when using dynamic IPs. Again it's not sockpuppetry. The only exception would be if an editor uses the multiple IPs in such a way that they imply they are multiple people e.g. if they participate in a discussion and say I agree with the other IP even though the other IP is them. If an editor has an account and still edits without logging in, or edits from multiple accounts, that gets even more complicated but from what I can tell, there's no evidence that happened here. Since the account was blocked, if another account appears, or editing from those IPs resumes that would be a problem if they are indeed the same person. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I saw just now an edit summary where someone removed something for being "NPOV". People get the terminology mixed up, which really does not help. Ironically, it's "conflict of interest" in the section heading above. I edited without an account a long time before registering an account, too. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
• And I now see Special:Diff/1077745306 and Special:Diff/1077922015 to Ashish Jha, which casts Talk:Monica Gandhi and Special:Diff/1083326240 in a different light. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

TheNewMinistry is clearly and unambiguously using biographies of living persons to promote a conspiracy theory: see Talk:Monica Gandhi, where this is made explicit. I can think of no reason at this point why at minimum a topic ban wouldn't be appropriate. To my mind, the only question is as to the scope. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's important for people looking up media talking heads on Wikipedia to know they may have ulterior motives. Otherwise this is just LinkedIn. Gandhi only has a page here because a user who has created thousands of profiles for arguably non-notable physicians authored Gandhi's page in July 2020 and then announced it on Twitter like she had completed a paid gig. I have a problem with that, and anyone concerned with the site's integrity should too.TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever read the Law of holes article? If not, I'd recommend doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're the one issuing threats, I'm just explaining myself. No hard feelings, friend. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not 'issuing threats'. I'm making suggestions as to the appropriate response to someone who seems unable to understand even the basic principles of fundamental Wikipedia policies, and seems intent on self-destruction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I want to run a hypothetical by you. You know, since anything I say is a conspiracy now. Let's say, hypothetically, Emily Oster, leading advocate that kids don't get sick with COVID and that schools should never close, has been proven to be funded by billionaires Charles Koch and Peter Thiel. Let's say, hypothetically, that connection was reported at this link. Wouldn't it be prudent, since COVID cases are rising again, to include that disclosure as part of Oster's Wikipedia page? Wouldn't parents want to think twice about her dozens of op-eds claiming that masking children is akin to violence? Couldn't including that information on Wikipedia, in turn, save lives? TheNewMinistry (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what's prudent. What matters is what reliable secondary sources say, taking into account WP:BLP, WP:DUE weight and WP:NPOV in considering what we mention, which will entail considering things like the number and quality of sources. If you're here to WP:right great wrongs, you're at the wrong place. Start a blog or something. Nil Einne (talk) 10:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

TheNewMinistry is now using this noticeboard as a platform for multiple WP:BLP violations

See their posts in the section immediately above this one (and those at Talk:Monica Gandhi for further evidence). At this point, a topic ban, as I suggested earlier, may well not be sufficient. Wikipedia is not a platform for conspiracy theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You implied I was a communist on Talk:Monica Gandhi and now are trying to silence me when I nicely ask you to discuss a reliable source whose topic raises a larger question. Same as it ever was. TheNewMinistry (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And for the record, AndyTheGrump admitted that he isn't neutral and always sides with the subject of articles regarding BLP matters when he was recently disciplined:

"And frankly, going off-topic slightly, I'd show a little more concern for Wikipedia's insistence on civility between contributors if Wikipedia wasn't routinely obnoxious to outsiders who get featured in e.g. biographies they haven't asked for, and complain, only to be showered with waffle about 'conflicts of interest' (which doesn't actually mean what Wikipedia thinks it does), and generally treated like something the dog dragged in for complaining that we've got things wrong. There are double standards involved, and they really don't cast Wikipedia in a good light."

I don't think anyone with this view should be addressing BLP matters and should recuse himself. TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I stand by everything I wrote in that comment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And I am asking you to recuse yourself. You have two dozen blocks on your account, so it seems like you don't know when to quit. I don't want any trouble, just a fair shake from someone without bias. Thank you. TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

'Recuse myself'? What the hell is that supposed to mean? This isn't ArbCom... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're trying to punish me for my political leanings - please do the proper thing and hand the case off to your contemporaries so you don't let emotions influence your conduct. Since you've been the only admin keeping this conversation going for the better part of 6 hours, I'd say you might alone in that pursuit. Can we be friends now? TheNewMinistry (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I've never claimed to be an admin. I'm just someone who "sides with the subject of articles regarding BLP matters" when Wikipedia contributors abuse their editing privileges and violate fundamental Wikipedia policies to push their own agendas. And no, I'm not 'friends' with such people. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Topic-banned: I have, as a discretionary sanction under WP:ARBBLP, topic-banned TheNewMinistry from making BLP-related edits because over the course of this multiple-day discussion (here and at Talk:Monica Gandhi) they have demonstrated no understanding of the BLP policy or an intent to follow it. A longer explanation is available in the sanction notice. Abecedare (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  (subst:AN-notice) template was never left on my talk page to inform me I was subject of discussion on the administrator's noticeboard per Wikipedia policy - AndyTheGrump misrepresented himself as an administrator and started new heading about my conduct without properly notifying me. TheNewMinistry (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

  • You started the discussion. You could have left yourself a message if that made you feel better. Subsections of existing discussions don't require new notices to be sent out (only if they include previously unaware editors). Furthermore, you were aware of this new subsection, you replied 9 minutes after it was opened. If you are trying to get a block in addition to your topic ban, feel free to continue with this wiki-lawyering. Otherwise, it might be wiser to drop this line of discussion completely. Fram (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    @TheNewMinistry: can you provide evidence AndyTheGrump has ever misrepresented themselves as an admin? Every editor who isn't restricted from doing so is welcome to participate at AN, so if you assumed that AndyTheGrump's comments meant they were an admin, sorry but that's your own fault. (There's virtual nowhere on Wikipedia which is restricted to admins with the exception admin sections on WP:A/R/E but non admins can still participate there just under a different section.) They definitely aren't the only non admin participant here besides yourself, there's me and others I won't bother to name since it's irrelevant. As for the rest, what Fram said. Since we analyse every participant's behaviour at ANI if you start a discussion you need to pay attention to it, no one is likely to inform you if we start discussing a boomerang. It doesn't matter whether we discuss it under the main thread or a subsection since that's simply a way of better segmenting or managing things, this discussion is still clearly part of the thread you started. Further you quickly became aware of it anyway so your complaint is just silly. Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    I requested admins address an issue I had on the Administrators' noticeboard regarding COI. The situation was addressed and I thought it was a closed topic. But then I kept getting notifications from the Administrators' noticeboard yesterday, and like an admin confirmed to me last night, AndyTheGrump is just some random person who likes to backseat moderate and cheerlead. He has more edits on talk pages than he has actually contributing content to the encyclopedia. If I knew he was just some random person and not an actual admin waving his dick around (like I thought he was based on the way he was talking / threatening sanctions on my account) I never would have escalated/continued my conversation with him. I apologize to the admins - to the rest of you pretending to have authority...I don't know what purpose you serve here and ask that you stop confusing people. TheNewMinistry (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

    You may want to lay off commenting on someone's edit ratio when they still have more mainspace edits than you have total edits. The ratios can be misleading, like my own. I've answered near on 10,000 edit requests, so I have a huge number of talk space edits.

    As for authority, Wikipedia runs on consensus, so for the most part admins just have additional buttons, not much additional authority. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

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

New(ish) edit non-admin closing AfDs - queries being ignored on Talk page

KevinNov3's account was created on 22nd January 2022 and immediately set about making gnomish edits on templates. Strange editing behaviour for a "new" editor. Their most recent bout of edits involved closing AfDs as a non-admin closer. This resulted in a number of editors questioning the rationale on KevinNov3's Talk page, including me. So far, the queries have been ignored even though this editor has made contributions since some of the queries were posted. I've looked through some of the AfDs including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Makers (2nd nomination) which I commented on and a non-admin should not be closing these AfDs (and in my opinion, many of the close decisions are wrong). I'm not sure what the solution is but I think the AfD closes should be reverted and perhaps an admin might advise/warn this editor to keep away from AfDs at this time? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:02, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, between 0712 and 0720 UTC today they closed seven AfDs in eight minutes. Even if they are correct in their close, that's not much assessment going into it. It's not as if any of them were snow/speedy, with 20 !votes all saying keep, that hardly needs examination at all. But these are nuanced. Having said that, they do seem to have started at the back of the queue, which makes a change  :) SN54129 18:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Huh. Well they`ve certainly found the gadgets preference page. It`s however disconcerting that they do not respond to any comments on their talk page. Oz\^InterAct 18:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I am still on the first page of their contributions and I have reverted three AfD closes so far. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirill Sinitsyn (closed as Keep despite a 6-3 Delete count) is a shocker - especially when you look at the Keep voters. I am going to keep combing through these and may partial block the editor from Wikipedia space if there are any more really egregious closes. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I see you, like me, considered Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hippogonal an OK close  :) but then, even a blind pig can find a mushroom in the dark... SN54129 18:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a couple are fine. I've since found two more that were wrong, though, so I've partial blocked the editor from Wikipedia space until they respond. They don't appear to be using a mobile device so they should be seeing their messages. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you also revert the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Makers (2nd nomination) please so that I may respond to the latest comment? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Keep in mind that any experienced editor, or anyone for that matter, can revert an obvious case of a WP:BADNAC close. You certainly don't need to be an admin to do that. :) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Apologies @HighKing, I just saw this request. I'll revert my close. Wasn't aware of this thread at the time. Star Mississippi 02:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A short block, partial or no, may get their attention. Looking at the contribs, I am not entirely sure this editor is acting in bad faith. They`ve just dived into actions better left for more experienced editors or admins. I also found on their talk page one word response to one notice, so at least they have responded to something. The user page indicates they are from the Philippines, so due to a possible language barrier, they may not understand completely what they`re doing. Oz\^InterAct 18:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's more than just disconcerting that they do not respond to any comments on their talk page. WP:ADMINACCT requires that you explain your actions when questioned. Failure to do so led to three desysoppings by arbcom earlier this year. When you're performing a WP:NAC, you're acting in an administrative role, so this applies to NACs just as it applies to admin closes. The pblock from project space which was imposed seems entirely justified. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Black Kite, I think that was the right call. Yesterday, I had to revert a particularly ambitious close they made at TFD that I wouldn't have attempted myself! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a shame we can't do partial blocks from e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/*, because this does mean that KevinNov3 can't participate in this discussion. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is - I did mention in the block notice that they should respond on their talk page, but to be honest the unblock request that you just declined does not fill me with hope anyway. Black Kite (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment AfD is tremendously important, because it is the (almost) final arbiter of what material we have in Wikipedia. It's not logical that we permit anyone to close an AfD while we're very fussy about who carries out AfC reviewing, despite the fact that (1) AfC's criteria for acceptance defer to AfD (see WP:AFCPURPOSE), (2) anyone can bypass AfC at any stage, and (3) when this happens, it's AfD that makes the decision on whether the article stays. To create a practical example, if Joe Bloggs creates an account jbloggs and edits an article about Joe Bloggs (amazing person) and gets it declined at AfC, all he needs to do is move it to main space himself, wait for the nomination to AfD, create a suitable sock and close the AfD discussion as "No Consensus" despite all the sensible people saying "delete". The only way out is then to come to ANI, or start a sock-puppet investigation and all these time-consuming things. Wouldn't it be better if all AfD's were closed by trusted individuals who've demonstrated adequate knowledge and skills to do the job fairly? I appreciate that this isn't in keeping with Wikipedia's philosophy that all editors are equal; but we've already abandoned that philosophy in AfC, so shouldn't we also abandon it in the - more influential - AfD? Elemimele (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better if all AfD's were closed by trusted individuals who've demonstrated adequate knowledge and skills to do the job fairly?

It would be lovely, but there just aren't enough people willing to do the job for it to work that way. The backlog would become insane rather quickly. It's better to leave it open for non-admins to close the easy ones, and just deal with the occasional problem like this one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced we don't have enough admin willing to do the job. Some AfD discussions linger, because they're hard ones, but there are certainly more admins who close AfD discussions than any other XfD I'm aware of. Instead I see a fair amount of non-admins, as here, who jump at chances to close discussions rather than doing it because there's truly some backlog or need. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I used to quite regularly visit WP:AFD to tidy up old AfDs which were lingering, but in recent times backlogs have been minor and quite often (indeed, today is an example) there have been none to do at all. Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I thought Black Kite's pblock to force discussion was a good action and anticipated that this discussion would end with some sort of topic ban from closing discussions (given Liz's comments about problems extending beyond AfD). However given their unblock attempts, the idea that a Wikipedia pblock might actually be what's necessary after all is increasing. Their inability to understand what was being asked of them - to communicate here - or even what the problem is suggests that they perhaps don't have the competence to do project space work. Hopefully they can still turn that around. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• They appear to lack the competence to edit here. I'm not sure whether it's a language or maturity issue. Star Mississippi 19:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it appears to be both. I think that they are on the way to a CIR indef. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Closing AFDs

A good question has been raised, which maybe should be moved to Village Pump Policy, and that is who should be closing AFD discussions:

• 1. Admins only.
• 2. A subset of all editors or of all extended-confirmed editors, as is the case for AFC and for NPP.
• 3. Any autoconfirmed editor, or any extended-confirmed editor.

It is currently any editor. Usually it works well enough, just as almost everything in Wikipedia usually works. Sometimes there are issues.

My own thought, to bounce around, maybe here, maybe at VPP, is:

• A. Define a privilege for the closing of AFDs.
• B. Establish that editors having this privilege may close an AFD as Keep, No Consensus, Delete, or any other closure, and that non-admins may tag the article as G6.

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• WP:CREEP. As you say, usually it works just fine, and it's easy enough to correct when it doesn't. We need fewer rules, not more. I can barely keep up with the mountain of new policies over the last decade. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for closure

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

---

Hi

I ask and admin or an experienced user to close Talk:Eastern_Ukraine_offensive#Requested_move_18_March_2022. There are consensus to move to Donbas offensive.--Panam2014 (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Closure requests go to WP:ANRFC. Primefac (talk) 11:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Changes to the functionary team

Following a request to the committee, the CheckUser and Oversight permissions of Ks0stm are restored.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 19:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Changes to the functionary team

67.53.214.86 and WP:BLP again

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#67.53.214.86 and WP:BLP.

---

The same 67.53.214.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) IP editor after 3 month block is still adding information to WP:BLPs that is sourced to definitely not reliable sources, such as compromat.ru for example, with concerning BLP implications: example, i.e. continuing the same destructive edits as Jayjg and Ymblanter noted before. --Xunks (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

•  Done. Blocked for 1 year. --Jayron32 12:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

How can I fix interwiki links when Wikidata does not allow me to

Permission to speak freely. I am sorely piffed. There's a page Fiano (grape) and a corresponding page on the Italian wikipedia, Fiano (vitigno). However the enwiki page does not link to the Italian one on the interwiki links. The problem is that the interwiki links are supplied through that expletive of a thing called "Wikidata". I have tried to fix this by clicking on "Edit links" and trying to add the "Fiano (vitigno)" from the Italian wiki to the Wikidata item, but ran into a problem (apparenly that article is already assigned a different Wikidata entry, so a merge is needed.)

I have absolutely no desire to participate in Wikidata.

So how can I improve Wikipedia, by linking to the appropriate article in a different-language Wikipedia, without dealing with that expletive Wikidata?

-- 2001:16B8:1E93:E600:8DF1:2D28:36CD:CB85 (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you can. I've gone ahead and merged the two items on Wikidata. Rather fond of the project myself, but your mileage varies. Mackensen (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks! It's great there are helpful folks around this (and related) project(s). (And apologies for the rather Unparliamentary language above.) -- 2001:16B8:1E76:1100:8DF1:2D28:36CD:CB85 (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Had a Wikidata merge not been possible here, putting a plug in for {{interwiki extra}}. I've used it on a number of pages where enwiki covers "Death of John Doe" but not "John Doe", while other wikis do it the opposite way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 02:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Washington shooting

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

---

Just as a heads up: these edits at Edmund Burke School are by an account Raymond Spencer that shares a name with the suspect, as noted by the Washington Post. Possibly no action is needed but a few eyes could be of value. Abecedare (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• The account should be blocked per WP:IMPERSONATE, and unblocked if they can confirm who they are - in which case a PBLOCK from that article may be appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

The account's first edit was on April 12th, making impersonation seem rather unlikely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Confirming that the Functionaries team and WMF staff have been alerted to this situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Looks like account has been renamed, new username has been suppressed etc. Probably nothing more for AN to do. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

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

When a source removes information

If a source has been edited to remove information (such as a birthdate) do we remove it from our article or do we use web archive to "recover" the earlier version of the source to keep the information in our article? I find WP:BLPPRIVACY lacking guidance about this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context. I would certainly treat removing a birth date from a publication as a red flag, possibly a sign of misinformation or a correction or some other good reason, and look at removing it here. I think BLP would probably say something about strong sourcing, which this doesn't sound like, in general. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz I get the impression that online biographies, such as about key executives or academics, are these days leaving off such details due to concerns about identity theft and other personal online security concerns - issues that were not so prominent some years ago.

The example I found that prompted me to come here is a "professor profile" on a university website. It did state the subject's DOB when our article was originally written a decade ago but has since been edited to remove it. We have two options; dig up and cite the old version of the professor profile to maintain verifiability of the DOB, or else remove the DOB from our article.

Where does the balance lie between preserving key biographical detail, or respecting the privacy of a BLP subject by ommiting it? We could, in theory at least, wait until the subject dies and then use obituaries to reinsert the DOB, if following the current source by removing it (while the subject is alive) is the preferred option. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

In that particular case, I'd say if you can't dig up an archived version, it should go. If you can, and that is the only usable ref, it's up to local consensus, personally I'd say remove. As a middleground, you could use the archive to cite YOB and leave out DOB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Getting a general idea of the age of an individual is probably more important/useful than the exact age, so if the exact DOB has been pulled, I'd say it's reasonable to re-add the YOB with the archived ref. Primefac (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. In some cultures many people don't even know the exact day when they were born - the celebration of birthdays is far from universal. For many subjects it is encyclopedic to know when they were born to within a few years, to place them in the right context, but the exact date is unimportant. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

We have a whole Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard that specializes in this sort of question, note. Non-administrators deal in this stuff, too. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Football-related AFDs

Could an uninvolved admin please review the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Campbell (footballer) (and other open AFDs in the ). I closed the linked discussion with consensus to keep the article, but I am concerned about the decorum of some of the comments at that page. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• no notifications sent User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I see we're still dealing with people making arguments of "played XX game/tournament/ect" as a Keep argument. Are these editors aware that that has been completely deprecated as a valid argument for keeping a sports biography article? It looks like in this specific case, GNG was indeed shown, but any AfD that has people only making claims based on games played should have the closing admin completely disregard all votes, arguments, and editors making such claims. Silverseren^C 21:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

That wasn't the keep argument, User:Silver seren. The keep argument was GNG and no less than 27 references (some meeting GNG) were added to Jeff Campbell (footballer) since the AFD. The 16 international caps over a decade was that it isinconceivable that an All-Whites player with that many caps over a decade would not have received GNG coverage. Sure, we need referenced articles - but that doesn't mean that people should be bringing easily fixed, obviously notable, articles to AFD rather than applying WP:BEFORE. If only we had some guidelines which might draw some clear lines of when articles were likely to be notable, which would give editors pause, before creating an AFD. 07:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs)

@Dlthewave: complained on my talk page. I will not revert the "no consensus" closes. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Your close arguments here and here seem inappropriate. By your claims there, you would have closed those discussions (and any NFOOTY-connected AfD discussion) as No Consensus because "the policy is uncertain" regardless of anything that happened in the AfD discussions themselves. Which, again, seems inappropriate and incorrect. Silverseren^C 00:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

If you disagree with my assessment of consensus, WP:DRV is over there. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not certain why you closed them at all; they were relisted on the 22nd, and Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer) had seen two !votes since then. They should have been left open for the full week. BilledMammal (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah this seems really indefensible. Also rudely telling one editor to come to AN and then rudely telling other editors at AN to go somewhere else is ... a thing. --JBL (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

How is notifying everyone, with some humour, that there's a discussion about the issue going on at AN, "rude". Especially compared to your uncivil personal attack on him (which he quotes below)? Nfitz (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

To clarify: the "uncivil personal attack" was in response to Joseph2302 saying You don't have to reply and complain at everyone that votes a way you dislike- this is clear WP:HOUNDING. There are 32 sources, and seems to meet WP:GNG, no matter how much you shout at and harass people who say it passes GNG. - it was not in response to power.

Between the two, Joseph's comment appears less appropriate, both for being uncivil and for casting WP:ASPERSIONS. BilledMammal (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how JBL responding "Fuck Off" was less more appropriate. The first doesn't seem to be out of line - there are other examples of JBL being uncivil today. Though perhaps not as blatant. Simply (though bluntly) saying what they think someone is doing is neither uncivil nor a personal attack, if it's true. Though it's past my bedtime, so I'll leave the question of if there is a previous history of JBL's uncivility, and if Joseph's comment was not correct to others. If it's a one-off thing; admonish and move on. Nfitz (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

力 You pinged me and mentioned the request I made on your talk page. Is there something about it that you'd like to discuss? –dlthewave ☎ 01:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

@JayBeeEll: Nothing I have done is harassing or hounding anyone, let alone yelling — and I haven’t even !voted. So you can fuck right off, thanks. —JBL (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC) - how is *that* defensible? You don't get a license to harass voters simply by not using a bolded comment. I request that JayBeeEll be blocked for 19 days. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 01:00, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this...trolling? The specific phrasing of your last sentence there seems like trolling. Silverseren^C 01:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

All the highly experienced editors involved in this conversation are reminded that squabbling and bickering is not the sort of behavior that is expected on a collaborative project. WP:NFOOTY no longer exists, so AfD closures should be based only on providing or failing to provide evidence that the GNG has been met. That applies to Association football (soccer), and to the American and Canadian forms of Gridiron football and Australian rules football. It is worth noting, that for some reason, these disputes rarely arise in our coverage American and Canadian gridiron football, and maybe some PhD student in sociology could write a thesis on that. I do not recall disputes about the Australian version, but I imagine that there have been a few. So, my final comment is to advise all these editors to follow the current policies and guidelines, and lay off arguing for the sake of an argument. Cullen328 (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

"Fuck off"? Oh, yes, this is a barroom epithet, isn't it? 02:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeenAroundAWhile (talk • contribs)

Thanks for reminding me why I very rarely have a drink in a bar, BeenAroundAWhile. Please remember to sign your comments. Cullen328 (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Next round is on me! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess we can add "starting a conversation about the behavior of another editor at AN without doing the mandatory notification" to the list of questionable behavior by the OP. --JBL (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Deletion reviews for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mervat Rashwan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl-Erik Nilsson (footballer) have been opened at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 April 24. –dlthewave ☎ 01:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hang on User:Dlthewave - you knew that the discussion had gone to AN, but you then chose to open two other discussions elsewhere? How is that not a WP:FORUMSHOP failure? Nfitz (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The correct place to review deletion discussions is WP:DRV, and the editor who closed the discussions, and opened this discussions, states above If you disagree with my assessment of consensus, WP:DRV is over there. BilledMammal (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It would have been correct to discuss them there, if they weren't already been discussed here. That User:力 would suggest that, only shows that he doesn't understand the processes; obviously a non-Admin closing those AFDs, and overriding User:Fenix down is not acceptable - even if Fenix appeared to be supervoting. I note that no one notified him about this AN discussion on an issue that he is very much involved. At the very minimum the DRV nomination should have mentioned the ongoing discussion here. Nfitz (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It's reasonable to have both threads. DRV reviews deletion decisions and, to that extent, has jurisdiction over content; it doesn't review conduct. AN doesn't make content decisions but does consider complaints about conduct. So here is the right place to talk about the sweary people in the AfD and what to do about them.—S Marshall T/C 07:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Reading the start of the thread again, User:S Marshall, yes, you are correct. It started out about the insults, but most of the discussion has been about the close itself. Which means the DRVs are entirely appropriate. My apologies Nfitz (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that telling people to f off isn't appropriate conduct. What I was saying was correct anyway- they shouldn't be replying to every single person that they disagree with, as it was clear bludgeoning. Fine to disagree with people, but talk about content not editors. The about of bad civility in sports AFDs at the moment, by a number of editors on both "sides" (by "sides" I mean generally pro-delete and generally pro-keep editors) is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What you were saying was uncivil, battleground behavior:

• "someone who wants to delete all sports articles ... Listed things at not reliable sources because they're offline/you don't know thinks about them is bullshit ... an attempt to propaganda people"
• "no matter how many time the anti-sports deletionists shout delete at it"
• "no matter how much you shout at and harass people who say it passes GNG"
• "people are being harassed for not being able to find online sources for a pre-Internet player from a non-English speaking country"

This comments are indicative of the insults and baseless accusations of bad faith you've been making since the NSPORTS RFC. Because of this, I don't care that someone told you to "f off".

Stop with this uncivil, battleground behavior. Levivich 16:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Right. Wanting to delete single-sentence stubs with no substantial sourcing is the same as wanting to delete AAAALLL the sports article on Wikipedia. Yeesh. It's funny how the people doing all the shouting and harassing are also the ones accusing others of that. Reyk _YO! 04:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. JBL (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. Polite, reasonable requests for sources and reminders about current guidelines are being met with open hostility. –dlthewave ☎ 15:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The Jeff Campbell article was always going to be a keep, I did plenty of different google search strings there and saw there was an abundance of citations. The delete arguments for it were fatally floored, as I don't believe those editors have truly analysed the multitude of results. Every mention helps, it all builds a picture. It goes to show that in such a short period that many of the citations found went straight into the article. And there are more online that could easily be included. Simply analysing what's on an wikipedia article and saying, "ye that a delete", seems to be happening a lot now. It's even worse for historic sports men and women, when the majority are mentions in books with no references online. There is a heavily bias there. It shames me this whole conversation is here. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Power, if that's how you're gonna close AFDs and respond to close challenges, then you shouldn't close AFDs. Do it right or not at all please. You know better than to make up new rules (no consensus because policy is "unclear"?), close right after a relist while it's still being actively voted on, and then refuse to discuss the close. This will end with your closes being overturned, which you should have been able to predict before you started this thread. Both sides will vote to overturn this. No one will agree with you. You're wasting a lot of editor time here, and frankly that's not like you to do. I really don't know what you were thinking with those closes (3 obviously bad ones at DRV so far, I hope there aren't more), the responses on your talk page, and opening this thread. Levivich 14:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Why, there is clear consensus among editors that WP:GNG has been met. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Not according to the three DRVs underway. Levivich 16:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Campbell obviously meets GNG, the other two should be relisted. Black Kite (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
        • What is the purpose in posting a comment here asserting that one of these articles meets GNG? Obviously I don't think it does, and saying it does is obviously not going to change my mind (or anyone else's who doesn't think it meets GNG). If you're actually trying to persuade people who disagree, do it by posting two GNG sources (I've only seen one). And do it in the DRV in support fo your endorse !votes or, if it's relisted, in the AFD. Levivich 16:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
          • As I alluded to below, the purpose is to try and cut down on the amount of time that is being wasted on these AfDs and DRVs by editors who should probably step back and do something more constructive instead. I am in no way an inclusionist, but some of the arguments that are being presented in these AfDs (both by people !voting Keep and Delete) are frankly nonsensical. Black Kite (talk) 16:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
            • I agree. Every "keep" vote, in every AfD, should be discounted unless it comes with links to two GNG sources (or references another !vote with two GNG sources). Every delete !vote should be discounted unless it specifically says what is wrong with one or both of the sources (or points out that no one has yet presented two sources). After two sources have been presented and responded to, every subsequent !vote should be discounted unless it directly addresses the arguments pro/con the two proposed GNG sources (or adds a third). If AFD closers regularly and openly discounted votes like this, it would "teach" (Pavlovian style) AFD voters to keep their comments focused on two GNG sources. That in turn will lead to increased civility and better quality discussions, when everyone learns that their vote will be ignored if it isn't about "the two GNG sources" (pro or con). Levivich 17:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
              • I pushed repeatedly for people to cite 2 sources for Gonzalo Lira (AfD discussion), but there was instead a barrage of comments that want to keep the article because the subject is currently in the news for not having things known about xem, and repeated handwaves. Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
            • What delete arguments are nonsensical? Most of them are just enforcing what the guideline (GNG) requires (multiple SIGCOV sources) and disputing that a single piece of SIGCOV is acceptable. Meanwhile the majority of keeps are based entirely on a deprecated subguideline that never even conferred notability anyway, and the few that aren't just assert GNG is met without demonstrating there is SIGCOV in multiple RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
              • • For the record, NSPORTS was revised per the RFC so that Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources was added to WP:SPORTBASIC. There's no firm rule that there has to be more than one GNG source. Though I think we've more than achieved that for the article in question - which is what one would expect for a play with almost a decade of All-White caps. Nfitz (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
                  • There's no firm rule that there has to be two GNG sources. WP:GNG says There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. I guess that's not a firm rule? Levivich 18:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
                    • I've clarified my comment above User:Levivich - I apologize that I wasn't clear. There's no firm rule that there has to be more than one GNG source. Nfitz (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• I've just commented on the DRVs, but apart from that I think there are a few editors here (on both "sides") that probably need to step away from these sports AfDs for a while, because it would be not be a good outcome for otherwise productive editors to get blocked over something so trivial. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• I am glad that the conduct comments are getting some discussion upthread. But I want to echo what several at DRV have said and what Levivich is saying here about power's closes themselves. I think these were poor candidates for non-admin closes, for reasons DRV participants are saying pretty uniformly, and to the extent that they were going to be closed by a non-admin that these were not done well. Power has posted a delayed retirement message on their user talk - saying they're going to retire next weekend - so perhaps they are operating in a bit of a DGAF mode. Whether or not that's true, these closes were not done well and are serving as a strain on the community's time in a contentious area. Personally I think power needs to seriously consider stepping back from closing all AfDs based on the actions displayed here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Though not required. I'd recommend only administrators be the ones to close AFDs. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Something needs to happen to resolve this chaotic mess about sports AFDs, but I have no clue what. The only thing I know for sure is that the argument "all articles must meet GNG regardless of whether they meet a SNG" is nonsense, because otherwise SNGs would be otiose. Stifle (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you think nonexistent SNGs should trump GNG? Avilich (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

GNG is the ultimate test; the SNGs only act as a guide as to which kind of articles might meet GNG. GiantSnowman 18:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Indeed back when I had a bit more involvement in the area (perhaps ~2010), I thought all SNGs as well as the GNG itself made it clear that ultimately articles needed to meet GNG. SNGs were intended as useful guideline for when articles almost definitely meet GNG but perhaps no one had found the sources yet because they were offline, in limited libraries etc especially in cases where systemic bias applied like developing countries or particularly non English speaking developing countries. It seemed a reasonable idea that often worked, although the question of what to do do when an article meet some SNG but editor/s said they'd made an effort but didn't find sources and it was unlikely they existed, wasn't always clear and did sometimes lead to dispute. (My memory was in cricket articles.) I was surprised when read a few years ago this was no longer clearly the case and some SNGs were seen as sufficient in an of themselves and there was no requirement the article must eventually been shown to meet GNG. Nil Einne (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

You keep repeating that "SNGs would be otiose" line every time this comes up, but this makes no sense as half of all SNGs do ultimately require GNG (or equivalent) sourcing. And in this case, the SNG in question (NSPORT) doesn't even have guidance on the footballers in question, so your comment is just totally out of touch and irrelevant. JoelleJay (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A well written SNG is not otiose, because it will prove, over time, to be a highly useful tool for separating articles very likely to pass the GNG from those much less likely to pass the GNG, allowing editors to focus their limited time on assessing the notability of the second group of articles. Failed and deprecated SNGs like PORNBIO and NFOOTY were written in a way too lenient fashion, enabling fan editors to write way to many poorly referenced articles about essentially non-notable people. We always hear these arguments about offline sources from the pre-internet era. OK, find them. Go to a brick and mortar library in the subject's home town, or the city where they played professionally. The professional librarians will be delighted to help you search for sources. Go to a newspaper archive and learn how to use a microfiche reader. Search online bookstores and actually buy and read the books and cite them. Do not claim that sources must exist. Actually find a few solid sources, cite them, and save the article that way. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to fund the plane fare User:Cullen328; I'm yet to ever encounter an AFD where accessing a local library/microfilms/newspaper archive would be of assistance; mostly because in this city, hundreds of years of local newspapers are available, scanned and indexed, through the local library (which I use very frequently). Few have ever said that articles should be kept forever because there must be sources somewhere. People have suggested that there is WP:NORUSH and no harm in waiting until ultimately all paper and microfilmed material is available. There's no firm rule that says we must delete articles for subjects that we can verify, but can't find a GNG-quality reference. Nfitz (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Plane fare? You must be kidding me. Nfitz, the answer is no. I am not willing to donate any of my own money to help editors who claim that reliable sources must exist but are not able to spend the money or the time or the interlibrary loan effort to uncover the sources. I spend money to improve and save articles that I care about. I have driven many miles a day and gone out of my way to take photos of notable topics, and track down and cite reliable sources. I have purchased many books to help provide references to improve Wikipedia articles. I have one such book sitting on my bedside table right now and expect to reference it in days and weeks to come. So, when I look at the many books that I have purchased since 2009 to help improve this encyclopedia, then I am proud. But please do not try to tax me to support editors unprepared to put their own money where their own mouths are. Cullen328 (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

What about air miles? Nfitz (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you not know what the words "interlibrary loan" in Cullen's post mean? JBL (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

SNGs are meant to balance the desire to have articles that have a good chance to be notable to be worked on in an open wiki environment, against the desired around WP:NOT to only have articles that show significant coverage and have been expanded to reasonable encyclopedic size. Its why all SNGs and the GNG work on the idea that they are rebuttable presumptions - we default to allowing standalone articles to be created as long as reasonably low bars that suggest notability will ultimately be met are there, so that editors have the time and help from all Wikipedians to expand. So the balance in this AFDs should be that if there has been reasonable demonstration by those seeking deletion that they have reasonable exhausted all possible sources, and those seeking retention that (assuming a claim that all possible sources were exhausted) to find additional sources. When we are talking foreign athletes like those in Asia and Africa, this is where I doubt either can be done easily, even with ILLoans. Hence why both sides of such AFDs should be careful because again, we're looking at SNGs that act as a type of middle ground, and not absolutes. --Masem (t) 12:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

As Cullen says! I just stood in line for two hours on Saturday to buy some books at the local Friends of the Library sale that I hope to use for improving various articles. I ocassionally spend time at the public library searching reference books, and have used ILL to access books I can't justifying buying and are not in my local library. I realize that not everybody has even that level of access to potential sources, but I believe that users should not be trying to add material about a particular subject to Wikipedia if they do not have access to reliable sources. Donald Albury 16:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

To return to discussing conduct, one of the issues I have with that discussion is that rather than focusing on whether the subject is notable several editors are casting WP:ASPERSIONS, accusing editors of failing to conduct WP:BEFORE searches. This can be seen in the Jeff Campbell AFD, where editors who themselves couldn't find significant coverage cast that aspersion, as well as in articles where no one could find significant coverage, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mervat Rashwan. This isn't a new issue, but it is becoming much more frequent and editors need to remember that if they wish to make such accusations they need to do so with evidence, and they need to do so in the appropriate location - either the editors talk page, or WP:ANI. BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you not, yourself, casting WP:ASPERSIONS about User:GiantSnowman, who first raise BEFORE at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mervat Rashwan? Presumably this is more of a reference to a string of AFDs from User:Ficaia, where there was no evidence of BEFORE. Nfitz (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Also your "source evaluation" on Jeff Campbell AFD was just calling almost every source questionably reliable, with no justifications. Which is why it needed to be called out, because it could have had some weight in discussing the outcome (GNG is met, no matter how much you want to say otherwise). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The source evaluation by BilledMammal in the AfD is pretty spot on. Alvaldi (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No it wasn't it listed things as unreliable because they couldn't access them. And listed a national newspaper (the Fiji Sun) as questionably reliable. Which wasn't correct at all. But unsurprising that someone committed to deletions is using all the tools available to vote delete everywhere. Considering the two months of sports discussion, most of which seems to end with massive arguments, is it any surprise that the level of tolerance has gone down? And I'm not in either camp- I've voted delete for many sportspeople but also keep for some others 9[1], but I think there are groups of editors who come and vote keep or delete at every single AFD. And that cannot be a policy-based approach. Combined with the fact that some other users nominate loads of articles in a short space of time with no WP:BEFORE ever done, this whole thing is way out of hand. Yes, the sports notability has been depreciated, but that doesn't mean that all these articles need to be immediately put up for AFD. The sheer volumes of AFDs is ridiculous at the moment, and that's what is leading to editors being frustrated at each other in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

You misread the source evaluation. The only source I couldn't access was listed as both reliable and independent, but of unknown significance (it was later found to not be significant). The Fiji Sun source was listed as unknown reliability - I did not spend the time determining whether it was reliable or not because it did not contain WP:SIGCOV and thus does not count towards GNG either way. BilledMammal (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Only source User:BilledMammal? As far as I can see, there are 13 references listed in your assessment in the AFD, but 32 references listed in Jeff Campbell (footballer). Or are we talking about a different AFD? Nfitz (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

When I created the table at 05:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC), there were only 13 references in the article. If the article is relisted, I will assess the references that were added after that time. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Many days passed after that you didn't update it, despite not revisiting your "vote". With the DRV in process, perhaps that is the time to update the table! Though given that the keep looks to be endorsed, despite how blatantly wrong the close was, there's probably no point.

• It looks to me like nobody is interested in discussing the sweary behaviour at AfD. I can't see anything else for admins to do here. Shall we move this thread or close it?—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Well that's no surprise (because they came in response to some clear personal attacks, albeit not-sweary). Personally, I would like to see the discussion of Joseph2302's behavior develop (ideally into a stern warning from an administrator). --JBL (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't believe I've done anything wrong, other than call people out when I believe that they're wrong. People are entitled to disagree, and I don't believe I've violated WP:CIVIL, although uninvolved admins are of course allowed to disagree. JBL: you were replying to every person that disagreed with you, and that is bludgeoning the AFD thread. It's also ridiculous to single me out for anything when the whole area of sports AFDs has been a civility minefield in the last few weeks, and my comments were tame and out of frustration, no malicious intentions. Referring to people who vote delete in almost 100% of AFDs as "deletionists" is not an attack. And nor is asking nominators to actually do a WP:BEFORE, or questioning source evaluations that don't seem correct. FYI, this is exactly why I'm trying to take a wikibreak, because I'm fed up by the sheer volume and uncollaboration of these AFDs. But when I'm getting accused of stuff like this, of course I will reply. Maybe people should spend more time trying to improve articles, because the amount of decent sports article content being added is probably lower right now because of all this AFD hype. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
      • I can tell you're very passionate about this Joseph2302, but when I see you criticising others for bludgeoning, I can only admire your unselfconsciousness.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
      • Referring to people as "deletionists" very much is an attack. I coined Wikipedia's answer to Godwin's Law in 2009, on the next-door noticeboard: The only times that people use "deletionist" and "inclusionist" is to call other editors names. Their use has never improved a discussion. Any editor who resorts to such name calling is indicating that xe has run out of proper, valid, arguments to make. The whole sorry history, that experts outwith Wikipedia have clearly not read the edit histories or the mailing list discussions to find, is at User:Uncle G/The "dirty '-ista's". These were name-calling devices and solely name-calling devices right from the start. They have never been anything else. You, Joseph2302, like any one else using these, are name-calling. Uncle G (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
        • Referring to people as "deletionists" very much is an attack. That was not my intention, and I was only trying to use it as a comparison of the two "sides" to all these sports debates. Because these discussion always seem to be massively polarised. There are people who vote keep to almost everything (often not in line with policies) and there are some people who vote delete to almost everything (again, not always in line with policy), and I was trying to just refer to people by groups. I have been to real-life Wiki meetups where people refer to themselves as inclusionists or deletionists, so I don't consider these terms as offensive/attacks. If that is the way Wikipedians on-wiki interpret these terms, I will refrain from using them in future. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
          • User:Uncle G, I've referred to myself as an inclusionist. Obviously though not everything is worth including - but like most things, it's not black and white, but different people are on different places on the spectrum. I do vote delete - though far less often, mostly because my prime belief is one should thoroughly research something if they are too vote; and it's a lot less effort to do so when there are sources. But if I put a lot of energy into something, and it's very clearly a delete, I'll say so. We have people who cast many delete votes in a day, often about one every minute or so; I have difficulty even reading an article in that time - let alone do a basic search and reading the article. We even have people who will cast 500 delete votes in a row, with nothing else - not even a redirect. Nfitz (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions block appeal

Please see the copy-pasted block appeal by 71.190.206.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) below:

The blocking seems unjustified, as I updated Silvio Scaglia Haart while conforming 100 % to avoid using unreliable sources, as per the administrative warning that I achieved by priory updating Elite Model Management (EMM) and then only linking the info in pertaining section in the former to the appropriate section in the latter & other links only and no sources. There is a lot of confusion between similar sounding Elite World SA (1999) and Elite World Group (2011) and their relation to EMM. I have just sorted them out where the most confusion and then clarified in the former w/o using unreliable sources, as not using any is 100 % avoiding using, as warned. Right?--71.190.206.215 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Note, I am the blocking admin. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock This IP editor added the following highly promotional and unreferenced content Scaglia's stake is controlled through Elite World Group (EWG) owned by his Freedom Holding. In the years immediately following its acquisition by Scaglia, Elite World SA saw a significant boost in its business: with a new focus on digital marketing strategies and strategic acquisitions, the company was well-positioned for growth. It was the first international network of modeling agencies to open an office in China, in Shanghai, in 2012. In 2013, Elite World SA launched The Society Management New York. In that same year, it acquired Women Management in both New York and Paris and defended this overtly promotional content in recent hours. The editor seems to think (incorrectly) that refraining from using overtly unreliable sources excuses them from the requirements of the core content policy Verifiability to provide reliable sources for content likely to be challenged, and the core content policy requiring a rigorously neutral writing style. If this editor thinks that advertising copy is encyclopedic writing, then they are not competent to edit this encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• Although the block seems to be within discretion, it's not clear to me why it was implemented as a discretionary sanctions action. The addition of unsourced content to a BLP in spite of a warning is a matter that we routinely resolve with an ordinary block. Using the BLP DS regime seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—the consequence is that the appeal is forced to come to this noticeboard where it could have been a routine unblock request decline on the user talk page. Mz7 (talk) 08:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Had this been a standard block, I would have declined the unblock request. I don't believe this editor understands the necessity to properly and reliably source content and I believe the appeal is a case of WP:SNOWBALL. --Yamla (talk) 11:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll opt for standard blocks in the future if this type of situation arises again. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

CV revdel on sandbox

I found a copyvio, and had it revdelled, then checked their contribs to see if there was any other copyvios. Found one from the sandbox. I'm not sure how we go about getting cv revdels on the sandbox so I have had a go and used the CV Revdel template and added {{nobots}} to it as well, to stop the sandbox from being cleared before the revdel can be done. If this isn't how this is done, my apologies. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. That's probably worth a try if an admin happens to be passing and you're going to keep an eye on it, but the sandbox is a chaotic place. Poking an admin might usually work better, and linking the request might also help. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the advice. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

ＬＯＣＡＬ５８ＴＶ

Please create this {{R from stylisation}} to Local 58, as used in video titles (example). 1234qwer1234qwer4 09:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. (The message for blacklisted titles points people here, but it's actually something any template editor or page mover can do.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 09:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

OMG me fan boy! El_C 11:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of Pop Drunk Snot Bread

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

---

I put db-g4 on Pop Drunk Snot Bread, which was removed due to lack of Snowball consensus, which is irrelevant. The current article has one reference, and is very short. Please delete or redirect page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You should have notified Sdrqaz, who declined your tag. Indeed, you should have discussed the issue before coming here.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

It didn't even have a consensus for deletion at AFD, so why would it be deleted now? The album has since been released and has further coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

^^ This. It came out two days ago, and there's plenty of reviews of it already. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Reply - Article now has only one review, is short, and has no indication of notability. I just filed a move request. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop. You're not supposed to be adding speedy delete tags multiple times. In theory, the correct avenue would be to send to AFD again or have a merge discussion on the talk page, though I don't recommend either, as I'm finding sourcing out there that would lead to a "keep" result at either avenue. Sergecross73 msg me 14:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Bbb. I appreciate that G4 is very different to other criteria, but I have never seen a G4 based on a non-delete AfD – I've seen incorrect tags based on PRODs and soft deletes, but you need a positive consensus for deletion for it to be used. As G4 is built on consensus, being told that "clear consensus is besides the point" is worrying. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. To cite an AFD with zero delete !votes as a rationale to speedy delete an article is ridiculous. I don't particularly believe it's a misunderstanding - we cross paths in the music subject area and it isn't uncommon to see Jax double down on weird decisions like this. It's only not a problem because he generally yields to a consensus when it's established, and it's pretty easy to get a consensus against bad ideas like this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Close needed

Anyone want to take a crack at closing Wikipedia:Move_review#The_In_Between_(2022_film)? It's been open for seven weeks now and has been listed at WP:CR for a month. Calidum 14:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

An appeal

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

---

Regarding Multi-stage fitness test: content should be back, removing it is vandalism and impoverishing Wikipedia.

I am appealing the apalling decision to block me partially from editing Multi-stage fitness test by User:Cullen328.

What's happening with that entry is pure vandalism removing valuable content that has been there from the very beginning in 2006, a bunch of users through collusion are nixing the content under false pretexts, as it was sourced material being the source the beep test audio itself.

I would also like to bring to your attention that is a discussion that had already taken place back in 2020 with the result being that the content was back.(Talk:Multi-stage fitness test) Why? Because it's useful, informative, belongs to the wikipedia and despite what they might say it is sourced by the beep test audio itself.

Kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodersb (talk • contribs) 01:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Rodersb - If you think that removing the content from the article was vandalism, why are you reporting it here rather than the vandalism noticeboard? Maybe you are just yelling vandalim to "win" a content dispute. Inappropriate charges of vandalism are a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Rodersb, I tried to clean up this awful mess you made here. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. Rodersb (talk) 02:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• I don't see anything like a consensus for including that content on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• This is a rant, not an appeal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • The notion that the test results generated by the topic of an article can be a reference to include challenged content within that article is bizarre and ludicrous. When I asked for an actual published reliable independent source, the OP called me Dumbo, which was obviously intended as an insult. I believe that elephants are morally superior to humans although the males have a serious testosterone problem. Plus, what is wrong with big ears? So, I contest the insult, although its intent is obvious and indicative of an unwillingness on the part of the OP to collaborate. Cullen328 (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Having seen the inflammatory edit summaries used by the OP, a real block for several days is in order. Insulting edit summaries are especially serious because they can only be erased by administrative redaction. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
• Not only is this appeal not going to succeed but if Rodersb keeps up this behaviour then they aren't going to be here for much longer. This is a collaborative project, if your approach to any kind of disagreement is to insult people, edit war and refuse to listen to the advice you're given about how this place works then you'll just be blocked indefinitely. That wouldn't be an unreasonable action to take now. Hut 8.5 07:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding clerk terms

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee procedures is amended to add a new section "Clerks" (level 2) and a subsection entitled "Terms" with the following text:

Trainee clerks will have a term of up to 1 year after their appointment as a trainee to be promoted to full clerk. This term may be extended by the Committee.

Full clerks will be asked to confirm their desire to stay a clerk every 2 years, from the date they were appointed as a full clerk. There are no term limits for full clerks.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding clerk terms

Arbitration motion regarding St Christopher

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case ("Single-purpose accounts restrained") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with this remedy remain in force.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding St Christopher

Please remove my rollback

Twinkle's client-side rollback feature is sufficient for my needs when I'm editing in my browser and I haven't been using Huggle enough recently to justify having access to perform a server-side rollback. Given that it's very easy to misclick the rollback button in the browser and I don't really see much of a benefit from having access to it (rather than just using Twinkle), I'd like to request that my rollback access be revoked. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)