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. 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	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Total
CfD	0	0	25	0	25
TfD	0	0	14	0	14
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	0	35	0	35
AfD	0	0	1	0	1

• 14 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 9 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 5 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 0 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 130 sockpuppet investigations
• 7 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 2 Fully protected edit requests
• 1 Candidates for history merging
• 37 requests for RD1 redaction
• 48 elapsed requested moves
• 6 Pages at move review
• 21 requested closures
• 73 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 34 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (11 out of 7975 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Draft:Maha Ali Kazmi 2024-07-03 20:15 indefinite create Daniel Case Template:R from draft 2024-07-03 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Usman Riaz 2024-07-03 14:20 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Projects 2024-07-03 10:44 indefinite edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Favonian Adnan al-Bursh 2024-07-03 06:06 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement CambridgeBayWeather Draft:One Piece (fanfic) 2024-07-03 05:46 2026-07-03 05:46 create Repeatedly recreated CambridgeBayWeather Nakba 2024-07-02 14:26 indefinite edit,move Arbitration enforcement - restore protection ScottishFinnishRadish Paul George 2024-07-02 13:04 2024-07-07 00:00 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Klay Thompson 2024-07-02 11:20 2024-07-07 00:00 edit Persistent violations of the biographies of living persons policy from (auto)confirmed accounts Bagumba Tiyyar 2024-07-01 19:05 indefinite edit,move Persistent disruptive editing: per RFPP Daniel Case Empire of Japan 2024-06-29 23:23 2024-07-29 23:23 edit,move Persistent sockpuppetry Sir Sputnik

Close review requested in AP / BLP article

I am requesting a close review of a recent RfC at Hunter Biden laptop controversy. The RfC is here.

The closer refers to having counted !votes and does not indicate that they fully considered the participants’ supporting arguments and concerns or whether there is a valid consensus in the poll. The close does not appear to have fully addressed the significant BLP and sourcing issues, the level of consensus required to change the status quo text, and the discussion of the content of the sources cited in the discussion. Several such issues were raised by the participants who posted more than brief “yes” or “no” responses to support their !votes with reasoning that went beyond merely counting the number of source citations.

The closing text is brief in light of the complexity and controversy raised by the RfC question. After the close, some editors interpreted the result as having decided only the RfC question as stated -- whether to use the word “alleged”. Others cited the close of the RfC as a basis to oppose broader wording that was consistent with the close and not synonymous with “alleged”. Such an interpretation was beyond the scope of the RfC statement discussion, and the !vote arguments and policy issues that might support such an alternative interpretation were not addressed in the closing statement. SPECIFICO talk 13:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editors (Laptop controversy)

• This needs to be re-closed by an uninvolved admin/editor experienced in closure, I think. The fact that it was closed by someone who on their talk page describes themselves as a fundamentalist evangelist Christian is one thing, but the fact that poor rationales do not appear to have been discounted (GoodDay's is meaningless and Madame Necker's is simply an opinion about the whole affair; we'll ignore the fact that MN is a new account who has already racked up five different DS notices on their talk page). Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Your comment about the closer's stated religious beliefs does not seem appropriate or relevant. I think it is possible to evaluate the close without making it personal. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah that's pretty messed up BK. The quote on the userpage is "I am a very fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) Christian evangelical." What does that have to do with Hunter Biden's laptop? I assume you're suggesting that because many (most?) Christian evangelical voters vote Republican, therefore a Christian evangelical has some kind of bias or COI that should prevent them from closing an RfC about some AP2 political issue? Does your logic apply to closers who have the atheist userbox on their userpage? Because atheists tend to vote Democrat, does that also disqualify them? By this logic, nobody would be able to close anything in AP2. I'm quite shocked to see the suggestion that a closer's religious beliefs are a reason to revert their close, especially when it's a non-religious topic. I think you should strike that. Levivich (talk) 18:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  If somebody described themselves as a fundamentalist Muslim I dont think they would be wise to close RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 18:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) is not the same as fundamentalist in the modern sense of the term (our article Fundamentalism explains the difference), and we welcome Muslim and Jewish editors in ARBPIA without question, as we should. It doesn't matter if they're Orthodox Jews or reform Jews, just as it doesn't matter what branch of Islam. Same with Hindus and Muslims in IPA, etc. etc. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I dont really see what your complaint is with what I wrote, I didnt say somebody who identifies as a fundamentalist Muslim shouldnt edit in the topic area, they should of course be welcomed like any other editor, but rather they wouldnt be wise to close RFCs in the topic area, given that people may question their objectivity. And that would be totally reasonably to do imo. nableezy - 19:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  At my RfA, some editors expressed concerns that if we legitimized a categorical criticism of editors' fitness to do a particular thing based on their political affiliations, we would effectively be saying the same about religious affiliations. I disagreed with that concern because, well, political and religious affiliations are different things. For one thing, the former is much more a choice than the latter (although ultimately both are choices to a degree). For another, perhaps more importatly, the former is much more directly tied to events "of this world". One cannot infer how someone votes from their religion. One cannot infer what they think of gay people, or abortion, or drinking alcohol, or whether Hunter Biden owned that laptop. Maybe one could reasonably infer some of these from a more detailed exposition of someone's religious views or their membership in a very niche religious group, but not just from I am a very fundamentalist (in the historic sense of the term) Christian evangelical and some references to core Christian doctrine. I know that in my case, there are many ways my lifestyle and politics differ from what might expect if one knew only my religious views (some of which are quite traditional). One can no more infer my political views from my religious affiliation than from my gender or sexual orientation (and talk about a slippery slope there).

  Point being, if Compassionate indicated a political affiliation on his userpage, this criticism would be fair game (not necessarily correct, but fair game); but saying that religious views disqualify someone from closing a political RfC is a bridge too far, in my opinion.

  To be clear, none of this is a comment on whether the close was correct, just a rebuttal of this particular objection. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:26, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I dont think it is disqualifying, I just dont think it is wise. Im not saying perception is reality, but I dont find it that off base to raise an eyebrow at that declaration. Especially given the close actually does align with the views that one might infer, and that the RFC is already tight on the numbers. And btw, BK didnt actually disqualify the user, faulting the close itself for not weighting certain positions less than they feel appropriate, that being the more important thing in the "is one thing" comparison. nableezy - 21:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I think the implication was clear. The raising of the eyebrow apparently required it being referenced in a statement regarding the judgement of the closer. As someone incredibly skeptical of any religion, it was a shit take. Arkon (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  No, sorry, I don't apologise for that at all. This is clearly a very hot-button topic and it should be closed by someone who very obviously doesn't have any baggage over the situation. The closer may be a Biden supporter for all I know but it's the optics that matter, not the actuality. And then there's the closer's comment in the section above, which may lead you in one direction or another. Black Kite (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  So Wikipedia should have religious tests for certain actions? And are you implying that leftists can't be religious? Besides being "not appropriate or relevant" as Mr Ernie said, I think it's more a violation of WP:NPA. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  People can keep pretending its a religious test, as though it isnt the fundamentalist part and not the Christian part of it that raises eyebrows, but Sir Joseph would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? Be honest. nableezy - 22:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  SJ can speak for himself, but if the closes are policy compliant, the religion of the closer is irrelevant. If some bias affects the close, it can then be handled in review and if a pattern emerges, a ban. But to put the ban before any problems simply based on religious views is obscene and certainly not the Wiki way. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Someone who edits in a biased manner, should not be closing things in that area. Religion is really irrelevant. If you have an issue with the close, then cite policy reason, as Black Kite did in the second half, but merely being religious, or fundamental isn't really a valid reason.

  I have an American flag in my profile, does that mean I shouldn't close US related discussions? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ill restate the question as you appear to have avoided answering it. Would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? Be honest. nableezy - 02:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I have no issues with Muslims editing Wikipedia and closing discussions. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Im not sure why you are either answering for Sir Joseph or why you are answering a different question. nableezy - 02:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I want to put to bed this viewpoint that religious beliefs preclude participation in a volunteer encyclopedia project. I wholeheartedly reject that notion. Previously I was certain you were on the same tack. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe put to bed the ignoring of fundamentalist in that sentence too tho? nableezy - 02:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I already answered the question. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  That has no bearing on the RFC close, which is point I’ve been trying to make. If they didn’t have that tag on their user page you wouldn’t have known. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, thats why you, and SJ for that matter, wont actually answer the question asked. At least El C did, though I very much disagree with him. nableezy - 03:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  What question? Maybe it got lost with the threaded replies, but I have no issue with fundamentalist editors doing anything if compliant with policy. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• RE: Would you feel comfortable with a self-identified fundamentalist Muslim closing RFCs in the ARBPIA topic area? — I at least would, though I don't think I've ever encountered one. And I don't really expect to. It seems unlikely that a hardcore religious fundamentalist (which I don't think the closer truly is) would even get to the point of being able to make sound, policy-based closes, though I suppose it's possible, even if not probable. In that sense, it's a bit of a red herring. But in principle, it'd be okay so long as said close conformed to policy and would be well-articulated. Just like it would be okay for a secular Israeli or Palestinian who is an atheist, or an agnostic, a moderate religious Jew or Muslim, and so on. This approach, which is not expressly grounded in policy (quite the contrary) risks users becoming fearful from disclosing their biases or otherwise expressing themselves (appropriately). Which, why should they? El_C 02:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah... I voted for Biden; does that mean I should move my !vote to the involved section? :-P Levivich (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I didn’t expect you to dig in on this, but since you did, could you give a list of the topics where Christians can’t close discussions? Also, what does being a Christian have to do with Hunter Biden’s laptop? Could a Jew close that discussion? You are now casting aspersions at the closer. Please substantiate your aspersions that they have “baggage” in this topic area. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  As Nableezy said above, you're concentrating on the religion part, rather than the "fundamentalist" part. If I identified as part of a group that overwhelmingly votes for a particular party in the US, I wouldn't be closing contentious USPOL debates. As also mentioned above, I wouldn't be closing ARBPIA debates if I was Jewish or Muslim either, but that's irrelevant here. Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Jews overwhelmingly vote for a particular party in the U.S. As do Black people. As do LGBTQ people. This would be a terrifying precedent to set, barring most minorities from closing AMPOL discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's comparing apples and oranges, though, as fundamentalism and politics in the US are inextricably linked. Having said that, I am not saying that declaring a political affiliation, or even just a POV, disbars you from anything, I am simply saying (and this doesn't seem to be getting through, despite the fact I've said it three times now) that when you have a very contentious issue which needs a decision and there may be the possibility that you may be seen as having an interest, it's almost always better to leave it to someone else. Also, to be honest, that discussion really needed an admin, or there was always going to be an issue ... as you can see. Black Kite (talk) 07:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  fundamentalism and politics in the US are inextricably linked, and they're not in other countries? Race and politics are inextricably linked in the US, too. Black people in the US overwhelmingly vote Democrat; could a Black person close this RFC or would they also have too much, in your words, "baggage"? when you have a very contentious issue this is not a very contentious issue, it's a run of the mill political squabble. you may be seen as having an interest no, that's so weasel-y. What interest does a Christian evangelical, even a fundamentalist (in the historic sense), have in Hunter Biden's laptop? You're the only person who is claiming a connection between Hunter Biden's laptop and Christian fundamentalism. I have yet to understand the connection between the two. Unless the connection is "they vote Republican" -- if that's what you're talking about, please come out and say it plainly, and then explain why the same logic wouldn't apply to Black people, LGBTQ, and other groups like Tamzin pointed out above. By the way, I'm not even sure if the closer is an American at all. If they're a non-American Christian fundamentalist, do they still have "baggage"? that discussion really needed an admin, or there was always going to be an issue ... as you can see An admin of what religion? and this doesn't seem to be getting through Indeed, because you're arguing that religious affiliation creates a political bias or the appearance of one -- that's offensive, and inaccurate. You're advocating for discriminating against closers based on their religious beliefs -- offensive, morally wrong, and a dangerous precedent. It's really, really bad to suggest that the closer's religion (or race, gender, etc.) be taken into account in a close review. Like really bad. I genuinely hope you take the time to really think about what others have written here, and what you've written here, and the implications of it, and that you come to the conclusion that you were wrong to bring up the closer's religion. Levivich (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I am wondering if there was any point writing my previous comment, or the one before that, since it appears that no-one is actually reading them. I'll give up there, I think. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  We've read it, but it doesn't actually address any of the problems with your statement. Your comment's disparaging someone's faith (in any way) is an unreasonable and highly inappropriate remark. That it came from an Admin is not encouraging and exhibits a pretty severe bias. The fact that you stand by your remarks...even more concerning. But I suppose that's par for the course... Buffs (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  This really isn’t that contentious anymore. It was 2 years ago, but now, per one of the RS quoted in the RFC, “almost no one” disputes the laptop’s authenticity. Apparently those who do are the editors in that RFC. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Black Kite, that is awful behaviour. You should retract your borderline personal attack against the closer immediately, not double down, triple down, and quadruple down. Politrukki (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• I was actually about to start a closing draft when I saw on my watchlist that it had been closed. My initial reading was that it was too close a call to find any sort of consensus for either option, specially due to the raised NPOV and BLP issues. Isabelle ^{🏴‍☠️} 15:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  While I lean on overturning to no consensus due to my own reading of the discussion, I think it's important to note some of the comments on the closer's personal bias here are way out of line. Overturning a close because the editor is from a certain group or minority, without any proof that it affected their close, would set a terrible precedent in precluding editors from closing RfCs in certain areas, as Tamzin mentions above. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 01:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse. Though numerically the vote was close, with the "No's" being in the majority by only a few votes, I agree the closer properly weighted the votes based on the quality of arguments and application of policy, in particular WP:NPOV. Some editors thought we should use "alleged", other thought not, but then everyone started compiling sources, and as the "no" voters pointed out, the sources were almost unanimous in not using "alleged". WP:NPOV means we summarize those sources--i.e., we don't say alleged because they don't say alleged. The "Yes" voters did not rebut this in any way (e.g., by showing sources predominantly using "alleged"; not just one or two sources; and not from 2 years ago, but current). So, if most editors agree that most sources do not use alleged, then that's consensus to not use alleged. I don't see any error here, it's the proper application of WP:NOTAVOTE. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• It doesn't seem like a great close. I'm particularly looking at Some editors asserted that the ownership is still unclear but largely failed to support this with reliable sources, while editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection, which simply doesn't line up with the quotes from sources produced in the RfC. There were a few more "no"s than "yes"s, but there were also more inexperienced/new editors saying "no" and more poor arguments on the "no" side (although not by much). The later comment by the closer extending the RfC about "alleged" to apply to qualifying the belonging in any way is an overreach. I'm not saying there was consensus for the "yes" side, either, though. We have sources that appear pretty split on this, in terms of the language they use, and both sides have arguments backed by policy. I suppose I'd be inclined to err on the side of BLP, but that's my own $0.02. Although I don't think anyone would love the idea of a repeat RfC, it might be more effective to provide a set of options for wording and/or do a more thorough analysis of the sourcing apart from the RfC, along with weighting by how recent the sources are. i.e. what is the consensus of sources published since June (arbitrarily)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Are we looking at the same sources? That sounds sarcastic, but I am genuinely seeking clarification, as among the sources cited in the RfC, I count three sources that consistently use language like "alleged" and "purportedly" (all from April or earlier), eleven that pointedly omit such language, and a couple that use "alleged" when describing what earlier sources said about the laptop but omit that language when speaking about it themselves (as well as a couple whose constructions are too ambiguous to confidently parse). Where is the disconnect in what we are perceiving? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 17:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  There is a section, "sources" which lists several bulletpoints. In order of whether they use/describe some qualification of ownership: no, yes [here and elsewhere, there is ownership/verification attributed to the emails, but not the laptop], yes, yes, yes, no, yes, sorta [for the first part, but again regarding emails], no, no, [quote from someone who funded the effort, not the publication], yes [again separating laptop from emails], no, yes [sorta], no [but the sentence isn't about this], yes, yes, [someone "yelling about Hunter Biden's laptop" isn't a statement about authenticity], yes, [doesn't address it], mostly no [attempts to rely on inference from the title]. While it's entirely possible to come to different conclusions about the consensus among those sources, it's hardly one side failing to support their argument and the other producing a plethora of sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Adding: my evaluation of the close has nothing to do with the closer's userboxes/religion. Yikes, that doesn't seem like good practice. Those arguing that we should overturn on that basis are providing an easy target so people can endorse without addressing the substance of the close (as two of the last three endorsements have). i.e. this "the closer is a fundamentalist Christian and fundamentalist Christians vote a certain way that probably gives them an opinion about this topic ... so optics" line of argumentation isn't just lousy in its own right, but people seem to be focusing on that rather than the problems with the substance of the close (see above). It's weird to me that I'm the only one to flag that the closer declared their closing statement to extend far beyond the actual RfC, for example. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:13, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Vacate for a more experienced closer to re-close. With US politics, it's not enough that the close is right; it has to be seen to be right, so we leave closes that touch on US politics to the wizened and elderly who enjoy the fullest confidence of the community.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Probably a WP:BADNAC, but the close is correct anyway. Nearly every comment saying yes is a WP:TRUTH vote, that we dont really know if it is or it isnt. Those votes should be given less weight when there are users providing numerous reliable sources that state as a fact what those users dispute to be a fact without any sources that likewise dispute it. The numbers may say no consensus, but as ever this isnt a vote and the strength of the arguments for "no" were much stronger than those for "yes". Id have closed it as a consensus for no as well. nableezy - 17:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  If the only issue is WP:BADNAC, what do you think we should do in light of WP:NACRFC? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Its a BADNAC because it was a close call, and we leave that to people we've said we trust to make those close calls. nableezy - 03:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close Well thought out and justified through and through. These objections regarding experience or the users religion (really?) are incredibly superficial. Arkon (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close. It's a reasonable decision, and it reflects the median point of mainstream news coverage at this time. And if you read the lede of this article as a whole, it contains plenty of indications of how murky this whole saga is and how not every claim about it is credible, so readers will not be misled. And the religion of the closer is irrelevant. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn close, and re-close by uninvolved admin or experienced non-admin closer - per Black Kite and S Marshall. It's the optics that matter here, and a good close by a partisan closer is not acceptable in controversial subjects. Also, the rigamarole over "give me a list of what Christians can't close" is hyperbolic and absurd, a very good indication of why a pristine close is necessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Are you saying the closer was partisan or was that a hypothetical unrelated to this case? If the former, I would ask you to substantiate the claim. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  That is not an appropriate line of argument, BMK. What proof do you have of topic area partisanship in the editing history of this closer? If you have no such evidence, then I submit that the close should be judged on its merits. Which is to say, there would need to be some record of problems involving the topic area by the closer — ones that go beyond a declaration of adjacent (?) bias on their user page. And while I agree that optics matter, without evidence of such problems, they only matter with respect to the appearance of the close as being of substance.

  To that: though I haven't read the discussion and I don't know if I'll get a chance to, it does seem a bit insubstantial, though it may well be a correct assessment (or not, I have no idea). Personally, for a subject of this import, I probably would have written twice to four times more if I were to close that RfC myself. So, again, even if correct — optics. That said, I have been criticized on this board in the recent past that my standards for closures of weight are too high. Still, to me, at a glance, the close seems too brief. El_C 00:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn - Many of the sources in the "source" section seem to support "alleged" being included, and many don't. There is sourcing that was presented in the article that supported both sides. So I'm not really seeing the "no" side having such stronger arguments that the discussion should have been closed in the "no" favor despite a near even split among participants. This close was not flat out terrible and I wouldn't say it even arises to the level of unreasonable, but nonetheless, it's best for the close to be done right, and I think the right close would have been no consensus. I don't believe the closer was trying to make a WP:SUPERVOTE, but it can sometimes be hard to balance the line between super vote and strength of arguments. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 00:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse close per Levivich and Wasted Time R. As I see it, the close was correct based on the sources. Those seeking an overturn, as Levivich and others have noted, are using reasoning I will collegially term dubious. Jusdafax (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Vacate Having read the RfC, I agree with those above who point out that this closure does not appear to have accurately weighed the !votes which do not have significantly different strengths of argument. C727's response to inquiries about the close also point to that being the case. Should be reclosed by an administrator. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  @FormalDude This is the section for uninvolved editors. Since you were active in talk page discussion and made 1 of the 4 controversial post-RFC edits, please move your response to the "involved editors" section. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've moved this comment to the involved section from the uninvolved per our guidance on fixing format errors. Formal appears to be away from Wikipedia at the moment. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks Red-tailed hawk. I didn't think to do that myself, in case Formal wanted to challenge their "involved" status; it didn't seem like a 100% cut-and-dry formatting error. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Given the objection by FormalDude below, I've moved it back. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Red-tailed hawk: I'm uninvolved with respect to this RfC as I did not participate in it in any form. Please move my comment back. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

   Done— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse Regardless of the closer and possible COI, at the end of the day, it seems that sourcing wins out here, but as a broader comment and reading through what's there, I think that that was a poor RFC and/or the issue wasn't fully explored first. In context of the laptop story, it is important to recognize the media's treatment of the story and how that changed, and there may be points where "alleged" ownership should be used to describe the broader media's stance on the matter when discussing the history of when the story first broke. It's now at the time that the media seemingly all agrees about the ownership, so we would no longer need alledged. I would recommend editors on that page to revisit this idea, knowing when "alleged" is actually appropriate in terms of the historical facets, and when it can be dropped. --Masem (t) 02:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Dunno — stumbled on this from following up on WP:AN3. It's a harder one because the closer needs to be confident in weighing policy against (and potentially overriding) arguments given. Given BLP, specifically, unless there are RSes with clear assertions stating it was definitely his (i.e., the sources themselves are putting their asses on the line from a legal standpoint), the inference should be reworded to disclaim/avoid it so as to avoid using Wikipedia's voice to assert factual-ness (at least, that's my interpretation of policy and my superficial skimming of the discussion). If I were closing it (I've done many of these via ANRFC), I would not say there's clear consensus based on policy; it's not a good argument to say "but there aren't (m)any sources saying it wasn't his" as it's still SYNTHy/OR to imply fact in Wikipedia's voice unless the positive sources, themselves, are 100% confident in stating ownership as a fact. I would, however, also suggest options combining the arguments involved to discuss for a subsequent RFC. For example, even though nobody mentioned it, "involves a laptop computer , its contents, and whether it was owned by Hunter Biden" is possibly a more neutral, factual representation of the topic at hand, because it unquestionably gets to the meat of what the article is about (and ironically the RFC) without making any risky statements of fact. This could help steer a subsequent RFC into a more productive direction focusing on examining sources and reporting facts as cut and dried as possible to avoid Wikipedia making determinations. Long story short, BLP sets a significantly higher standard for factually assertive statements to begin with, and that's the more important question; a new RFC to discuss these issues and/or rewording options would be warranted. --slakr^\ talk / 10:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment and Questions - How are we to tell new editors that they MUST follow and include reliable sources but then turn around and tell them not to follow reliable sources in this case? I have no political affiliations. I don't care anything about a laptop and who owns it. I just want to make sure I understand how to tell new editors when to use and when not to use reliable independent sources. How do we determine that a reliable source is being lazy? Don't they have an editing process? We very curtly inform editors all the time that Wikipedia isn't trying to present the truth, we only share what reliable sources say about notable subjects. If the sources are wrong then Wikipedia will be wrong. That is mantra used across the encyclopedia all the time. Is that just lip service or do we apply our policies and guidelines equally across the board? --ARoseWolf 14:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse. With respect to The fact that it was closed by someone who on their talk page describes themselves as a fundamentalist evangelist Christian is one thing, merely being religious does not make one WP:INVOLVED with respect to Hunter Biden's laptop. The fact of the matter is that we should not be deprecating people's ability to participate on Wikipedia simply because they express religious belief. I really can't get behind the notion that, in an analogous situation, all religious Jewish people be prohibited from closing articles within the scope of WP:ARBPIA if the sole basis for trying to exclude them is that they are religious Jews; doing so would be almost textbook antisemitism. The closer also appears to have properly weighed the arguments in that discussion, so I don't see any reason to re-close. WP:BADNAC, if you actually scroll down the veru same page to the WP:NACRFC section, notes that any non-admin close of an RfC should not be overturned if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin, so the claim of BADNAC here is self-defeating if that's the only remaining issue. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse BK's highly inappropriate response notwithstanding, the logic of the closer is sound. While some (politically) want to draw doubt about the laptop, the fact is that reliable sources indeed show it was. "Alleged" is not needed. Buffs (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Concerns: Having read the discussion and the close, I would second Rhododendrites's concerns about the quality of the close, though I suspect a new close could very well come to a similar conclusion. That said, I do have serious concerns about Compassionate727's addendum to the close here where he uses his position as closer to prohibit any qualification that weakens the claim of ownership based on how he "imagines" the RfC participants would vote on the issue if asked. I don't see any consensus in the RfC that should prohibit someone from writing that the laptop is "widely believed to belong to Hunter Biden" as User:Korny O'Near suggested. (I'm not sure if that's the most accurate representation of the sources, as I haven't looked at them myself.) @Compassionate727: if you're reading this, would you consider striking or modifying your addendum to reflect what RfC participants actually wrote? ~Awilley (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Awilley: It seems we disagree about what … participants actually wrote. Opponents of using "allegedly" wrote that RS express no doubt that Hunter Biden owned the laptop and that it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia to do so. While the impetus for the discussion may have been the word "allegedly," the result logically and intuitively applies to any other construction that does the same thing. The question, then, becomes simply whether or not a given construction is casting doubt on the ownership in our voice; I opined that "believed to be" does, at least as SPECIFICO used it, and I am far from the only person who has said that. That does not mean that we can never say anything except simply that Biden owned the laptop: Masem rightly notes that there are contexts where that is appropriate (notably indirect discourse) and this discussion was about the first sentence of the article, so it's about the use of such qualifiers in summaries (and extremely short ones, at that). So I'm definitely not imagining this as a blunt prohibition on any qualification in all contexts, and I'm currently mulling over how I might best clarify that, but I don't believe the rational core of the addendum was off-base—though I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close. There was a consensus to omit "alleged", based on the strength of arguments. The close is perhaps not as nuanced as it should be – it doesn't mention that the "yes" opinions largely weren't grounded in policy and guidelines – but closers don't have to be perfect. There's no evidence that the closer tried influence the outcome by "super voting" or such.
  The filer refers to "significant BLP and sourcing issues", but it's not clear what the alleged issues are. In the RFC they were asked about potential BLP issues, but they evaded the question. Yes, the material is covered by the BLP policy, but BLP per se is not a trump card; if the material is properly sourced (NOR and V), it still must strictly adhere to NPOV policy.
  For what it's worth, I think the RFC question was too unspecific. Questions like that tend to lead to unclear situations that may require too much interpretation in edge cases. Which is what happened after the close. Politrukki (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  The BLP and NPOV issues relating to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden have been extensively discussed on talk on this article's page and before this page was created on the AfD and related page. They have been clearly specified and identified and "evasion" is not at play here, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Another evasion noted. What do you mean by "significant BLP and sourcing issues"? And to my knowledge, nobody has suggested that the laptop belongs to Joe Biden. Why would you mention Joe? How are "the AfD and related page" relevant to this discussion? Please be specific. Maybe I missed something. Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Whether or not the actual BLP issues were previously discussed is no reason not to bring them up in the RfC. RfCs by their nature are designed to attract editors who have no participated in previous discussions. The reason why you never explained the BLP issues is that there are none

  I phrased the question that way following the recommendations at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Example. They are supposed to be concise. While SPECIFCO claimed that because the RfC was about alleged, it did not preclude "believed to be," there will always be editors who wikilawyer. I posted the RfC after near unanimous support for keeping the term and notice that the first six votes after mine were to keep. SPECIFICO immediately posted "An irksome revert is no reason to call for an immediate RfC. Ordinary discussion is the next step. Please withdraw this RfC. Or write an essay "BR-RfC"". [14:43, 28 August 2022] Obviously there is a hard core of editors who cannot accept anything that remotely reflects on their political leaders. So support for following policy in the RfC was never going to be overwhelming. TFD (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Overturn to no consensus Seems just blatantly like a supervote to me. And when people in the discussion even here have to get into numerical specifics of whom discussed the sources or not, then that even more indicates a no consensus result because consensus was split. Add to that the non-NPOV closing description and the close itself seems way out of line. Silverseren^C 01:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments from involved editors (Laptop controversy)

• Overturn to no consensus. To put this in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE language: "the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion". C727's closure depends heavily on his assessment that "Some editors asserted that the ownership is still unclear but largely failed to support this with reliable sources, while editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection." This is untrue, as participants on both sides were equally likely to make no explicit reference to sources, and it's safe to assume everyone was responding either to the sources already in the article or in the list posted in the RfC.
  I inquired about this issue at C727's user talk page (here), and C727 said "I found that many of the earliest sources provided in that list used some kind of qualification, but that by the end of April, most sources were consistently describing the laptop as Biden's, without qualification" and then "Given how pronounced the trend was and how recent sources exert a controlling influence, I considered that sufficient."
  I see this as clear evidence of a WP:SUPERVOTE. The trend analysis C727 is using as the basis of his closure was not presented by the RfC participants, nor did anyone reference WP:AGEMATTERS, the policy C727 linked in that last quote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• I would welcome a review from an experienced closer in order to solidify the consensus. There have already been attempts to circumvent the close by messing with the descriptor. What sticks out to me in the RFC is that the sourcing presented came overwhelmingly from the "No" !voters, which the closer noted. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy#Sources Here is a link to the section in the RFC listing the sourcing that many of the No votes seem to base their vote on. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  And Yes votes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:44, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• To be more honest than I feel comfortable being, it feels to me like SPECIFICO is forum-shopping because he didn't like the result. Shortly after I closed the RfC saying there was a consensus against stating that the laptop is "alleged to have belonged" to Biden, SPECIFICO added that it is "believed to have belonged" to him, which Mr Ernie reverted; at that point, SPECIFICO reached out to me via email thanking me for my closure and asking me to weigh in on the issue (there was no indication that SPECIFICO felt anything about my closure was incorrect); I did, explaining why I felt the arguments against using "alleged" also covered "believed" or any similar weasle-ish words, at which point he attempted to downplay it as "an after-the-fact personal opinion" rather than the clarification of the closure that he had requested. Now that several other editors have agreed that SPECIFICO's new wording contradicts the consensus I found, he's here seeking to overturn it.

Between my various comments, I believe I have adequately explained why I found the consensus I did and don't intend to engage extensively with this unless people have questions. But to summarize one last time, for the benefit of uninvolved persons: pretty much every source cited in the discussion was provided in a list mid-discussion; many of them, including pretty much all of the most recent sources, described the laptop as Biden's without qualification. A majority of editors agreed that there is no longer any dispute in the RS that the laptop is Biden's; whether they explicitly mentioned Adoring nanny and his list or not is immaterial, I think it is clear from reading the comments that they are aware of it, and it would be foolish to say that they need to say exactly the right things for their intent to be relevant in shaping the consensus. Likewise, WP:AGEMATTERS was clearly on at least some participants' minds (see e.g. Thriley's reference to "current" sources), even if nobody explicitly linked to it (and it is relevant regardless). I likewise took into account the way the discussion unfolded; while in total, 11 people supported using "alleged" and 14 opposed, the ratio of support to oppose votes swung heavily in favor of the opposers as more and more sources were added to the list. For example, after Guest2625's large addition on September 1, three people voted for using alleged and six against; nobody would question that a two-thirds majority is a solid consensus without a compelling policy reason. And given the large number of RS produced in favor of directly stating the laptop is Biden's, I don't think BLP is a highly salient issue (BLP is not a license to ignore sources), especially when it only indirectly implicates Biden, given the ongoing controversy over the authenticity of the documents.

I'm willing to admit when I screw closes up (I have done that here before), but I don't see any compelling reason to believe this is one of them. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• This misrepresents my email to the closer, in which I followed what I believe to be best practices to first approach the closer with a concern before formally requesting a close review. Compassionate, as I think is now clear, thanking you for your effort was not an endorsement of your conclusion. SPECIFICO talk 16:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thing is, Specifico, your edit on Sep 28 at 12:46 adding "believed to have", with the edit summary more direct representation of status, consistent with RfC, shows that at that time, you were fine with the close of the RfC, and were even making an edit consistent with that close. No close challenge from you at that time. It was only after the discussions at the article talk page and ANEW (last post: 2:40 Sep 29) (both of which you participated in) resulted in the reversion of "believed to have" on the basis that it was against the RfC closure, that you then filed this close review (at 13:47 on Sep 29). It looks to me like you didn't have a problem with the close if you could change "alleged" to "believed to have" (i.e., if you could ignore the result with crafty wordsmithing)... only after that was shut down did you seem to raise issues with the close itself. In my view, this seriously undermines your argument. Levivich (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Evidently, and even if it were, it would be reasonable for you to change your mind about my closure after discovering that it was broader than you had thought. I mention the email because 1) it seems to fit within what a pattern of back-peddling here and, more importantly, 2) I had wondered even when I first saw the email why you had reached out to me privately concerning such a public matter as on-wiki consensus, instead of using my talk page. Given everything that has happened since, I wonder if it was so that it wouldn't be obvious to everyone else that you had asked for my input (and implicitly assented that I held a bit of authority on that issue) in case that turned against you, which seems like an oddly underhanded way of seeking clarification of consensus, but a rather natural one if you had been planning to challenge an unfavorable finding the entire time. I find myself struggling to articulate that there was anything truly improper about it, yet the level of cynicism I see there discomforts me. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think you were forum shopping. Thanking the closer doesn't mean endorsing. But your article edit surely (see Levivich's comment above) looks like a smoking gun.

  Moreover, you can't make an unsubstantiated allegation that Compassionate727 mispresented you. Would you kindly publish the email – as Compassionate727 is likely unable to do so for copyright reasons – so that the community can be the judge or retract your allegation? Why would you even use email if the message didn't contain any so-called harmful content (private data, defamatory content, etc.)? Politrukki (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

• One admin already reviewed this RFC case and determined that the closer was correct in their assessment of consensus on the WP:ANE case, and also opined on the article's talk page that the subsequent edits were out of line based on the RFC. I guess you're looking for a second admin's opinion, then? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  @EvergreenFir: just letting you know that two comments you've made have been referenced in this discussion. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 23:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  Merci, @Iamreallygoodatcheckers. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'd like to see a challenge or a review of this close and whether it was a WP:SUPERVOTE. Andre🚐 16:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse closure- I promised to accept the RFC result (no matter what it was) & I'm keeping that promise. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  As your entry was cited specifically one of the reasons to challenge this close, re: "meaningless", your endorsement carries virtually no weight. ValarianB (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's a matter for the closer or the re-closer of that RFC, to decide. I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. If you noticed, understood and worried about things like that then I doubt you'd ever sleep. Begoon 14:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, while it's not clear to me why they participated in either the RfC or this review, that was uncalled for. It's not like they're hurting anything. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I commented already welcoming any review because I think it should be clear, but here are my thoughts. Of the 10 "yes" !votes, only 3 refer to sources, and none refer to any policy. Consequently, of the "no" !votes, 10 explicitly refer to the sources provided, with the remainder hinting at them and referring to evidence. On this basis, the close is firmly on solid ground. The OP here challenging the close uses their !vote to attack the RFC as premature and suggest the opener of the RFC made a mistake. One RFC participant suggested NPOV wording which avoided this issue altogether (also suggested by Slakr above), which I believe should be pursued as a much better way to handle this. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
• Overturn Apparent supervote by an inexperienced editor unfamiliar with measuring consensus. ValarianB (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • 7 years, 27k edits = "inexperienced editor" 😂 Levivich (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Perhaps ValarianB meant "inexperienced closer"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
      • That wouldn't be accurate, either. Levivich (talk) 01:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
• Endorse As the closer correctly pointed out, editors who thought the ownership was unclear failed to provide sources. Nor did they present any policy based reasons why facts reported in mainstream news media should be reported as allegations in this article. I note also that SPECIFICO did not inform RfC participants of this discussion. TFD (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think participants in the discussion should be notified, since they'd just come here and re-do their same votes (ie exactly what you're doing). Uninvolved people are the ones who should be in this discussion. This weird section splitting in that regard is a new one on me. Silverseren^C 01:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree, because "review should not be used as an opportunity to re-argue the underlying dispute, and is only intended for use when there is a problem with the close itself." (See Wikipedia:Closing discussions.) Before posting my endorsement of the close I carefully read through this discussion and reviewed the close.

  On re-reading the RfC, I was surprised that SPECIFICO's side was unable to provide any evidence that ownership of the laptop is currently questioned in reliable sources or any reasons based on policy or guidelines to question it in the article. So whatever the vote was, the closer was correct because only one side provided valid evidence or arguments.

  It was therefore important for participants in this discussion to be aware of this situation, since it was not expressed at the beginning of the discussion thread. TFD (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  The substantive content question of the RFC was whether the older sources which described the laptop as alleged, were superceded by the newer sources that just referred to it as "Hunter Biden's laptop," That was not a clear-cut question and the opinions were varied as to whether there was sufficient sourcing to say that in fact, Hunter Biden's so-called laptop was in fact his since some amount of the provenance and the authenticity of the laptop was unclear at best, and there was evidence of tampering. So should it be called his "alleged" laptop since it is still unclear how the laptop was "lost" or "left" and that it appears to have evidence of being tampered with and/or part of an oppositional plot involving Rudy Giuliani, etc.. Not to rehash the dispute, but you shouldn't hand-wave the existence of a dispute as simply being a 1-sided matter. An allegation of possible crimes being proven by the existence of incriminating information on a laptop being used to accuse people of wrongdoing or malfeasance is a BLP issue. The content question of whether it was in fact truly all his in entirety, remains relatively vague even though RS refer to it as his laptop without elaborating on its vague backstory. Andre🚐 22:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  None of those arguments were made in the RfC, probably because they are weak. Early news reports tend to be guarded. For example, on 9/11, ABC reported, "There has been some sort of explosion. We don't fully know the details. There is one report as of yet unconfirmed that a plane has hit the World Trade Center."[1] Do you think the 9/11 article should therefore say a plane allegedly hit the tower?

  Expressing doubt where none exists is often a polemical tactic used by the tobacco industry, climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists and has no place in serious articles. There's even a Wikipedia article about one example: Teach the Controversy.

  Whether or not the laptop was tampered with is irrelevant to whether Biden owned it. If you sued in court for the return of your property, the defendant could not argue that he had tampered with it, therefore it no longer belonged to you. And of course the article mentions this possibility and it was never an issue. TFD (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Both points are straw man. The WTC bit is especially egregious -- the claim that we should evaluate sources and BLP content based on a false equivalence comparing the chaotic early moments after the WTC calamity to the blind-man laptop tale published in an unreliable tabloid via Trump political operative and sanctioned liar Giuliani. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  No, it's a good point. Things that are reported as unconfirmed at first later become confirmed. Once they're confirmed, we should not and do not state that they're unconfirmed. Allegations, once accepted by the RS as true, are no longer allegations. Whether the 2020 election was "stolen" is another example; having been disproven, we no longer say "allegedly stolen" or talk about "alleged irregularities". We don't say Nixon's men "allegedly" broke into Watergate. Also, truth doesn't become less true because "sanctioned liars" say it's true. There are many examples, of which WTC and Hunter Biden's laptop are two. Giuliani says Al Qaeda did 9/11, that doesn't make it any less true. We don't say Bill Clinton "allegedly" had inappropriate sexual relations with an intern, even though that story was broken by Matt Drudge. There are so many examples of this. It's not a straw man, it's how the world works. The laptop belonged to Biden, according to RS. Not allegedly belonged to Biden, but did belong to Biden. RS says it directly and no RS says otherwise. We're not going to use "allegedly" or "believed to be". Time to drop this stick and move on. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is the crux of the dispute. RS never said the allegations were confirmed, they just stopped referring to them as allegations. Our assumption that they are confirmed is original research and synthetic. Andre🚐 14:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Another straw man: "Once they're confirmed...". This really is not complicated. SPECIFICO talk 15:03, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

RS never said the allegations were confirmed, they just stopped referring to them as allegations. Hmm, I wonder what would make them do that? 🤔 Anyway, that sentence is the best explanation I've seen as to why Wikipedia should also stop referring to them as allegations. Levivich (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

But WP:BURDEN. Let's just await the close. SPECIFICO talk 16:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Many such citations were provided in the discussion, but only one is needed to satisfy WP:BURDEN, and the best one in the discussion was probably the Feb 2022 The Guardian article, which said Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity.

Specifico, this is what irks me about your everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach to arguing content disputes. You know very well that BURDEN, part of WP:V, isn't an issue here, at all, because there were over a dozen sources in the RFC that did not use the word "alleged" and referred to the thing in their own voice as "Hunter Biden's laptop" or similar language. This isn't a WP:V issue. It's an WP:NPOV issue, because there are some sources that still used "alleged" or similar. The issue here -- the only issue -- is how to neutrally summarize the sources. That's what editors discussed, and the closer closed, and while there are multiple valid viewpoints on the NPOV issue and on whether the close should be overturned, WP:BURDEN is not among them, nor is (as you said above) anyone making a claim that we should evaluate sources and BLP content based on a false equivalence. You waste editor time by making these specious, irrelevant arguments, and refusing to concede any quarter, such as by suggesting WP:BURDEN or WP:V hasn't been met here. (It's ironic, because "deny everything, argue everything" are classic Trump tactics.)

But I agree, let's just await the close. Levivich (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I think WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. SPECIFICO, you made your point, but WP:CONSENSUS is clearly against you and "the horse" is nothing but a smear on the street. Let it go and let's have a closer end this pointless drama. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I really don't see that the consensus was so clear. I'm not sure how this discussion will be closed if at all or what will happen, but I find that @Levivich's allusion to "Trump tactics" is a personal attack or adjacent. Specifico's argument hinges on the idea that was never given an RS that the "Hunter Biden laptop was confirmed authentic," quite the contrary in fact: it was confirmed, at least in part, to be inauthentic, but other parts were confirmed authentic: but this does not confirm it as authentic and there is a burden to satisfy as to its authenticity. RS stopped referring to "Hunter Biden's alleged laptop" and mostly began referring to it just as his laptop: the substantive question of the RFC was whether this is sufficient for Wikipedia to follow suit. I do not believe there was a consensus that it should since doubts remained. Instead, it would be reasonable to refer to the laptop as a laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden. Anyway, I am not litigating the close here but pointing out that there was a substantive issue at dispute that is not clear-cut. Andre🚐 23:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Per Vox (cited at the article), nothing has been confirmed as inauthentic / misinformation yet. If you have a source claiming something has been verified as inauthentic, please link us to it (although it would have been better to do that during the RFC). Side note: can someone please close this? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Among the reasons for the inconclusive findings was sloppy handling of the data, which damaged some records. The experts found the data had been repeatedly accessed and copied by people other than Hunter Biden over nearly three years....The Washington Post’s forensic findings are unlikely to resolve that debate, offering instead only the limited revelation that some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic. The security experts who examined the data for The Post struggled to reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer or could have been assembled from files from multiple computers and put on the portable drive.[2] Andre🚐 23:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Your previous post said some things were confirmed to be inauthentic but this source you quote here says some of the data is confirmed to be authentic. Are you mixing that up? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

What I should have said was, it was confirmed at least in part that the laptop was unable to be authenticated. By which I mean the "other files" on the drive. people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI. Maxey had alerted The Washington Post to this issue in advance, saying that others had accessed the data to examine its contents and make copies of files. But the lack of what experts call a “clean chain of custody” undermined Green’s and Williams’s ability to determine the authenticity of most of the drive’s contents. Andre🚐 00:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Without going into the merits of any of these arguments, I will note that they are all about the underlying content dispute rather than the closure itself, which is exactly why Silver seren said that participants of the RfC should not be participating in the close review. Lay it to rest, please. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No sources say people other than Hunter Biden had "written files to it." They say it is possible and therefore each email has to be individually authenticated. So far the Washington post has authenticated 22,000 emails and not found any that were tampered with. But again, the question in the RfC was not whether the emails were authentic, but "Should the article use the term "alleged" in reference to the ownership of the laptop computer?"

Suppose someone steals your laptop and hacks into and misuses your email accounts. Do you think a judge would buy the argument that it wasn't your laptop because the alleged thief had added fake emails?

I suspect this is filibustering. Some editors try to slow down the improvement of articles about Democrats by challenging anything that could possibly reflect poorly on them. No reasonable editor would present any of your arguments in an article that had no political significance. TFD (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure review of Jerusalem infobox RFC

Hi! I'm requesting a review of my closure of Talk:Jerusalem#Should the infobox contain this flag and emblem?. It was somewhat of a tricky close and GrammarDamner was kind enough to raise some concerns in my talk page. Concerns included:

• The possibility I closed based on what I agree with rather than the content of the discussion
• My judgement of the status quo being incorrect (i.e. was the status quo to keep the flag and emblem in the infobox or was it, as I believe, to not give more weight to one side of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute over Jerusalem per WP:RFC/Jerusalem)

Thus, as both a non-admin closure and the opinion of those that refused to close it at ANRFC being that it would be a tough closure, I think it is in the interests of our coverage of the topic that my closure is reviewed here. I am more than happy to revert or amend my closure in line with consensus here. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The close seems substantially fine. I think the crux of that RfC is that adding the flag/emblem turns the lead/infobox from its current neutral stance into something that could be seen as a less neutral stance, which contradicts the precedent in an awfully contentious topic. This concern wasn't really addressed by proponents. Most of them just argued that (in their view) doing this would reflect the reality on the ground, but failed to argue how a) it would improve the content of the article; or b) even if it would, if the content improvements offset the can of worms you'd open. Any attempt at an argument was opinionated or refuted. e.g. OSE is a perfectly valid argument, but the examples of OSE in that discussion were poor, some of which have been nominated for deletion and others (e.g. those relating the Russian annexation) are not stable or have no solid consensus behind their choice.

I don't see the point of close review by closer though. If you feel confident in closing it then do that and stick by it unless you're convinced you made a mistake, which you don't seem to be. If others have concerns with the close, they can raise them on this board in their own words. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, I just thought it would be good caution to ask for review due to me being a non-admin and the complexity of the topic. I've been confidently incorrect in the past :) — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Without comment on the rest of the close, the wording "The "de facto" situation on the ground has no bearing on our neutrality policies" doesn't feel right. It reminds me of the persistent issues surrounding BBC coverage of climate change. Neutrality does not mean a disconnect from reality. Of course, the analysis of a particular reality should be guided by reliable sources, which is what I think was the point that came through in succeeding sentences. CMD (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• Eh, whenever you weigh arguments while closing a controversial discussion, someone will accuse you of supervoting. I wouldn't pay that any mind, at least on its own. As for the actual finding: I think saying that the arguments against inclusion were significantly superior is an overstatement. Both sides made arguments deriving from NPOV. To be honest, after reading the RfC, the NPOV argument seems like a wash to me. On the one hand, there is a considerable dispute over the status of Jerusalem, and it is safe to assume that if the Palestinians ever take control of it, they will replace the icons with ones that don't use Hebrew script, among other things; on the other hand, the natural choice for iconography is the set actually employed by the city's functioning government, and refusing to include them could be construed in the opposite direction, as a denial that the government that established the icons is actually the government of Jerusalem (which it clearly is, regardless of whether it should be). So while you were correct to dismiss the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type arguments, I think the NPOV arguments are actually a wash, and given the numbers, I would have found no consensus. If somebody else expresses a desire to press this issue, I will probably vote to overturn, but this is clearly a small detail and I'd rather this not become a whole dramaboard thing. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 03:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
• Just in case it wasn't clear, the main reason I brought this up was that the RfC clearly did not indicate consensus to remove images from the infobox that had been in the infobox for over ten years. It should also be noted that having the images in the infobox does not mean Wikipedia is endorsing the symbols or taking a side in the dispute. GrammarDamner how are things? 04:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
• I think that it would be better, to avoid what would, in effect, be re-litigating the RFC, if only admins comment here, or, at the very least, for commenters to indicate whether they are admins or not. As far as I can tell, though I may not have read the List of Administrators closely enough, nobody who has commented above is actually one. I am not an admin either. I took part in the RFC.

  Some observations:

  Above, a comment states: "The "de facto" situation on the ground has no bearing on our neutrality policies" doesn't feel right. The Neutrality policy says: "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." So, the "de facto situation" is only significant as far as the neutrality policy is concerned according to what reliable sources have said about it (the same is true of the de jure situation, which as far as international law goes is: neither West or East Jerusalem is Israeli; East Jerusalem is under occupation; any Israeli move to change the status of Jerusalem - including, perhaps, extending the Jerusalem Municipality to include East Jerusalem - is null and void). What happened in the RFC is that, rather than discussing what sources say and how that affects neutrality, editors were using their own, subjective, opinion about what the de facto situation is to argue for retaining the symbols. If anything, that's a bypassing of the neutrality policy.

  It was stated above: Both sides made arguments deriving from NPOV. I doubt that's true.

  GrammarDamner, who commented above, took part in the RFC. After it was closed, he or she questioned the result at the closer, Ixtal's, talkpage, which led to the current request on this noticeboard being opened. In my opinion, GrammarDamner has poor judgement, making a lot of dubious claims without offering any justification. That includes the claims made in the comment above. That includes the claims made at Ixtal's, talkpage after the RFC closure. At the RFC on the Jerusalem article talkpage, GrammarDamner buttressed his opinion with a claim that the situation in Taiwan is "almost identical" to the situation in Jerusalem: "one country claims a certain area, while another country controls it." That is a pretty inaccurate summary of the situation in both China and Palestine (in China, two regimes claim to be the proper government for the whole {Taiwan isn't an independent country}; in Palestine, the Arab state envisaged by the Partition Plan was never created) and ignores the significant differences between them historically, legally and ethnically/nationally. No situation really bears a close similarity with the one in Jerusalem. Perhaps pre-1967 the situation in Nicosia could have been seen as similar, but we're not dealing with the pre-1967 situation. Perhaps the situation during the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait might be similar. But the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait only lasted for months. After I'd attempted a rebuttal of GrammarDamner's argument, he or she responded with "WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:IDNHT" accusations. Those are more dubious claims for which no justification was offered, showing, in that case, a poor understanding of what those behaviours are supposed to consist of. I wrote a comment on GrammarDamner's talkpage asking him on her not to make any more unjustifiable comments about my behaviour. In my opinion, GrammarDamner's response is irrational and shows a poor understanding of the WP:NPA rule. Overall, in my opinion: not much judgement, not much understanding, not much in the way of reason.

      ←   ZScarpia   00:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Regarding the response to my comment, I was not involved in the RfC so do not know the full scope of what was said there, but is the assertion given above that reliable sources disagree about what the de facto situation is? Generally we rely on reliable sources to lay out what that situation is. If editors subjective opinions disagree with what the sources say the situation is, I'm sure that will be appropriately weighted. CMD (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  With respect to I think that it would be better, to avoid what would, in effect, be re-litigating the RFC, if only admins comment here, WP:CLOSECHALLENGE wisely makes no such restriction. It's more than appropriate to have two sections: one for WP:INVOLVED and WP:UNINVOLVED editors. But, in general, any editor in good standing should feel free to comment on reviews of closures of RfCs. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for providing the link to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. This is the first time I've observed an RFC result being challenged. I didn't even think that I'd ever participated in any discussion on this noticeboard before, though the archives show that I did, once, some years ago. My expectations of what would happen were based on reading the purpose of this board ("This page is for posting information and issues of interest to administrators.") and the closer's statement that a reason for reviewing the closure here in particular is because that closure was a non-admin one. Having expected that the discussion would be carried out among admins I refrained from commenting myself. I was surprised when GrammarDamner commented and then to realise that none of the other participants are admins either. What will happen next? Will it just be a case of Ixtal, the closer, weighing up the comments?     ←   ZScarpia   03:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's probably better to focus on the remove images from the infobox that had been in the infobox for over ten years part. I assumed it was a relatively recent addition. Apparently those images have been in the infobox even after the conclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, permalink on 31 December 2013, which significantly weakens the arguments that appeal to the principles behind that RfC closure IMO (including my own analysis above). So it seems having the flags included is the established stable version. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  The 2013 RfC, in which I was a participant, was narrowly focussed on how the capital status of Jerusalem should be described in the article's Introduction. Afterwards, there was some rippling out of the effect of the result of that RfC on other parts of that article and on other articles. It's perhaps surprising that it's taken so long to address the symbols part of the infobox, particularly given the one-sided and, for the flag in particular, poor nature of the sourcing. This is, though, the first time I can remember it being discussed. The objection to the result of the closure of the current RfC was based on a claim that the symbols had been in the infobox so long that particularly strong arguments were required in order to remove them. It would be good, if there are any, to see WP policies being quoted in support of that argument. Note that my own position was that removal of the symbols wasn't necessary, but that they should be labelled in some way, either to state that they are Israeli or to explain their usage more exactly. The emblem is that of the pre-1967 Jerusalem Municipality of the western part of the city which was latterly extended to control East Jerusalem also. We have no reliable secondary sources stating that "the Jerusalem flag" has any official status (the website of the Jerusalem Municipality not being a reliable source for anything other than what the Jerusalem Municipality says and, in any case, not stating explicitly that "the Jerusalem flag" has any official status).     ←   ZScarpia   03:24, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Here is yet another source, from Can Stock Photo. GrammarDamner how are things? 22:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

You think thats a source? nableezy - 23:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It was never discussed, it was added without discussion and never had anything besides implicit consensus for. Once that implicit consensus is gone it doesnt really matter how "stable" it was. nableezy - 22:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The RfC clearly did not indicate any sort of loss of consensus. GrammarDamner how are things? 18:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Closure review for Kiwi Farms external link RfC

• Link to RfC: Talk:Kiwi_Farms#RfC_on_linking_to_Kiwi_Farms

IMO, this close seems like a fairly classic case of a WP:SUPERVOTE.

In the summary statement at the end, Szmenderowiecki cites two policies/guidelines as the central rationale for their close: WP:BURDEN and WP:PROBLEMLINKS. Neither of these were mentioned in the discussion, it was just Szmenderowiecki's own (entirely novel) argument, which they admit (even though no one cited the guideline, WP:PROBLEMLINKS makes it perfectly clear...). This seems to me to be exactly what a supervote is; a closure based on one's personal opinion, rather than anything that had to do with the actual discussion it was closing.

FWIW, I also think these P&Gs were cited incorrectly. WP:BURDEN refers to the burden for demonstrating verifiability; verifiability was not something in dispute in the discussion. For WP:PROBLEMLINKS, the advice in that guideline hinges on how encyclopedic the link in question is, so one would presumably have to argue that an official link to a website is not particularly encyclopedic, which Szmenderowiecki did not argue. It would've been better to be able to argue this in the actual RfC itself, but because it was a novel argument brought up only in the closure of the RfC, we did not get a chance. Endwise (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC) Edit: Aquillion did actually mention ELBURDEN, which I didn't notice (see below). Endwise (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, the answer here is clear: there were multiple editors in that discussion who objected to the link because it contained harassment. Just because no one literally said "WP:PROBLEMLINKS" while restating its contents doesn't mean the guideline does not exist, or that the argument was not raised. My task as a closer is to make sure that the arguments are policy-/guideline-based, and this particular one is (see "Key guideline points section", the "Sites that routinely harass" part).

As for WP:BURDEN, I have mistaken it for WP:ONUS, which makes me think of the same thing when written as a shortcut (probably because I've seen it too often together). The point is, if something is challenged and you want to include it, it is up to you to rally consensus for inclusion, and this is a standard rule for all discussions governing inclusion/exclusion. My apologies, I will correct the link. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Harassments of, who, exactly? If we were talking about some site that was trying to out or personally attack Wikipedia editors, sure. But we're not the wiki-police, policing the internet for mean people who say mean things in general. Yet another ill-informed non-admin close. Zaathras (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I can think of at least two BLP subjects we have articles about, and one enwiki admin, who have threads dedicated to harassing them on that forum. I've not done an exhaustive search, but knowing who Kiwi Farms likes to target I'm sure there are many more BLPs who face harassment because of that site. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Outing people and personally attacking them is this website's raison d'etre. Something which was pointed out and substantiated repeatedly in the RFC itself. I also think it's a bit disingenuous to call harassing three separate people (that we know of) into suicide "saying mean things about people". Especially when that harassment includes impersonating someone while calling the mayor, police department, and various representatives of that person's municipality with violent threats in the hopes of getting their house raided by SWAT teams. As happened in the most recent and most high profile case associated with this website. And that's not an isolated incident, it happened multiple times to just this person, and that's not the only person to experience this. Licks-rocks (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

As I mention in the RfC, the living persons we have articles on are sadly IMO a lesser concern since generally for better or worse, if you're someone who is notable at least by GNG standards i.e. has had people writing about you, you probably have come to expect people might also be cruel about you. In some ways a bigger problem is a big part of their existence is based on attacking 'random' (for lack of a better word) low profile and therefore generally non notable living persons. I mean their name sort of tells us that. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

[uninvolved] I get taking issue with some of the wording. e.g. "even though no one cited the guideline, WP:PROBLEMLINKS makes it perfectly clear..." could've just as easily been written "many people made arguments similar to what's articulated in WP:PROBLEMLINKS". But really, does anyone think that discussion could be closed with consensus to include the link? There are significantly more people opposing, and WP:PROBLEMLINKS (as articulated, if not linked to, by many) makes for a pretty clear default position IMO. Maybe propose a modification of that guideline creating an exception for official links to the subject of an article? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:56, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't applying global consensus what we want closers to do? If the participants in a discussion didn't raise a policy or guideline that is on point, I'd think we'd want the closer to apply the policy or guideline, so that local consensus doesn't override global consensus. I'm not seeing the problem here. Levivich (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• People don't need to link to (or even be aware of) a policy to make an argument that is supported by that policy. While I disagree with parts of the closing statement, I think the consensus was that something like WP:PROBLEMLINKS needed to exist, just folks weren't aware it *did* exist. The fact it does exist makes their arguments all the stronger. That said, I'd have preferred the closer !voted bringing up PROBLEMLINKS at that time, rather than closing. Still, endorse close result as once the policy is brought into the discussion, there really is no other way to close it. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• WP:PROBLEMLINKS is a behavioral guideline, but some seem to be citing it as policy. It is ridiculously ancient by Wikipedia standards, since being made a behavioral guide in 2008, it has remained largely untouched. This essay reflects a near 15 year-old mentality that should be reevaluated before people try to cite it in present-day debates. I've already encountered someone citing this when they wanted to remove the links to Libs of TikTok's twitter account, [3]. Zaathras (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• Endorse close. There was an overwhelming numerical majority against including the link, and numerous people said that they felt the page should be excluded because it hosts harassment; anyone who didn't feel that that was true, relevant, or policy-based had ample time to make that argument. Also, I actually did cite WP:ELBURDEN in my !vote, which is the more WP:EL-specific version of BURDEN / WP:ONUS. @Endwise:, please strike the bit saying that there was no reference to WP:BURDEN in the discussion, or at least add a note that WP:ELBURDEN was brought up - that is not a minor quibble; if you're going to ask for an RFC to be overturned in defiance of a stark numerical majority, you need to actually be precise about things like that, and clearly that aspect of Szmenderowiecki's close reflects an argument I made. Surely you are not going to ask for an RFC to be overturned because the closer accurately summarized an argument from the discussion, but mistakenly linked WP:BURDEN in place of WP:ELBURDEN? --Aquillion (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

You're correct about that; in my quick scan/search of the discussion I didn't see you that you mentioned WP:ELBURDEN. I've added a quick addendum to my original comment, but i don't really want to strike and rewrite it, as I'm happy to let this die at this point. Endwise (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Requesting creation of Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Johnpacklambert

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

---

This is User:Yleventa2, I scrambled the password to my account and don't want to create a new account at the moment. I will go back to my hiatus after this is done.

User:Zelnhelm_the_Wise and User:Zelnhelmthegreat were socks of Johnpacklambert. They were created in 2021, so WP:AGF can't be used. One was used to vote twice on an AfD. They are blocked but not tagged. Therefore, they should be appropriately categorized, which applies to any other user.

Checkuser has confirmed this, and he also has admitted this, according to one of his archives User_talk:Johnpacklambert/Archive_9#Unblock_request_review:

"There is another account that has edited from the same IP, and the same device, around the same time, to the same project-space discussion that this account has edited. This is not the only related account that I have found."

"I am very sorry about creating those accounts... You argued for deletion in the same AfD using two accounts"

2620:8D:8000:10A9:3803:896F:C79F:3DFF (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I just asked about this at the Teahouse because several people writing about it on his talk page last year and again here yesterday didn't see this done. I am wondering if there is some policy that protects established users who receive no consequence for sockpuppetry; I believe he was not blocked at the time, though my memory could be faulty. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Many of the multitude of socks that I block are not tagged, and there are various reasons that might happen. Primarily, we are here to write and maintain an encyclopaedia, and not to categorise socks. Sometimes we don't even block the sockmaster, even when they're a new user. The number one question we should be asking is, what current purpose will it serve? Those accounts were dealt with at the time, as was the sockmaster's block. That category doesn't even have any incoming links. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry should be traced to him because it is noteworthy to other editors and admins. The sockpuppetry is not mentioned on his blocking summaries. He wasn't blocked for sockpuppetry alone, but for disruptive editing more generally. Some would say the accounts weren't dealt with adequately, but say they were... If it is fine that a user of 10+ years created 2 accounts when he was concerned about getting blocked, participated in multiple AfDs with multiple accounts, first denied it, and then admitted it when he was more concerned about consequences... If all of his actions are water under the bridge... we should own it. Mark the userpages as sockpuppets as I have seen for most other users, including established users. At present, it's only the talkpages that are marked so. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"it is noteworthy...". I'm not persuaded of the current relevance to encyclopaedia. YMMV... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Relevance to the encyclopedia"? I speak not of the articles of the encyclopedia, but of the humans who create and work on them. The project is made of many people.

It is more efficient than a few editors digging up quotes to inform others of the sockpuppetry when a discussion of the user takes place. A thoroughly tracked sockpuppet investigation means less time digging means more time to edit, research, etc. It is also an impartial and less-confrontational way to communicate facts instead of editors bringing it up with links and diffs that take up more space to paint a picture.

What I would like to know is why is his not tagged as his and socks of others are tagged as theirs? And why are those two sock userpages not marked as socks? Is there a forgive-and-forget policy? It seems like double standard. Please help me understand or reason not the need. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

WTF is up with all this drama-mongering? You had a shot, it failed, please do literally anything else with your time. JBL (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

What's with the language and bad-faith accusation? That language, even abbreviated, is impolite. We've asked for metadata and/or clarification and nothing else. There are literally so many things worse things to be done with time than work/learn how Wikipedia works. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't what if any history there is between John Pack Lambert and Yleventa2, but given the comments they made, how they came out of the woodwork to make them, and how they have indicated they intend to disappear again once they are done complaining about JPL, I got the distinct impression that Yleventa2 is an old grudge-bearer not really here for any reason other than to grind an axe. Just my two cents. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet tags and categories are used in cases where an abusive user is actively socking, or when we suspect high likelihood that they will reoffend. They're not applied automatically to every account that is ever determined to be a sock, although admittedly there is no review and cleanup of the tags once they are applied. If you would like to make a case that there is some value to Wikipedia to now tagging and categorizing the socks of a user who made a couple of sockpuppet accounts for a total of 8 edits more than a year ago and admitted to it, please do so, otherwise I will be closing this request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your explanatory and respectful reply (to the original poster I see by the threading, but I see it is along the lines of what I was asking for). I can't tell by Yleventa2's phrasing whether they mean they've gone back to hiatus after posting above or after the request is closed. If they would like to respond with a case, they should do so. Otherwise, I can. I am short on time today, but could write up a halfway decent and succinct (I hope) request tomorrow. Thank you again. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  I should clarify that by "make a case", I meant provide a rationale (here) for retroactively tagging these accounts. If you have new evidence of current and/or ongoing sockpuppetry then creating a new report in the existing SPI case would be appropriate, but please don't if you're only doing it to rehash an old investigation, it's settled and nothing will come of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to cosign what Ivanvector has said above, and also note that sockpuppet categories are primarily for tracking actively abusing sockpuppeteers. Johnpacklambert is an unblocked editor, does not have a history of socking, and the creation of the category does not serve any useful function at this time. Doing so in this specific context smacks of scarlet letter-type sanctions, which is not something we do. Also, since we're discussing a Wikipedia editor here, we are required to notify them of the discussion. This is not optional. The OP neglected to do so. I will be doing so presently. --Jayron32 15:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Close

Who exactly is demanding such a category be created? GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Removal of pending changes reviewer

Can someone do this for me please? I've been one for years but never use it. Thanks! Johnbod (talk) Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

TfD closure fix request

I closed two TfDs, one dealing with Template:Globalize, but I forgot it was template-protected so the discussion notices were not removed. Can an admin remove them, please? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 02:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Mellohi!, the globalize nom was removed, but if there is still a second that needs dealing with please list it here. The other option is to use a {{TPER}} request on the template talk page (which really is the ideal way to do this in the first place). Primefac (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, found out what that template was called just now. Will make further requests with {{TPER}}. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Reverting unverifiable WP:NEO

• Apostasy in Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• GenoV84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Santasa99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Problematic, unwarranted reverting, with editor refusing to recognize our core policies: WP:BURDEN and WP:OR. My removal of unverifiable terminology, "Islamic death penalty", used twice within the context of two sentences (also in at least one other article), which constructed as it is gives an explicit meaning requiring explicit validation in RS, is reverted twice 1, 2, with an explanation which does not touches on raised verifiability and NEO concerns. Terminology is used in very excessive, unnecessary way in the context of those two sentences making them awkward, but most importantly, if used without validation in RS, making them blatant WP:NEO based on original research. Parallel to my edits I asked editor in article TP (1, 2, 3) to offer exact quotation from RS with page number(s), where the specific terminology is utilized, so that can be validate existence of such peculiar construct, however, they failed and only supplied numerous references and more original research as an explanation and justification, which serves as little more than evasion. They also removed my warning template from their user TP with condescending edit summary, claimed that I am accusing them of edit warring when they did, and refused to revert themselves when asked.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• For GenoV84, the edit warring of this into the lede of Estimates of sexual violence (in which Wikipedia would assert that doctors performing circumcisions were guilty of mutilation / sexual violence) was a problem, and the response[4] to a warning was dismissive and aggressive. Strong smell of WP:NOTHERE from this one. Bon courage (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Santasa99:, accusing other editors of disruptive editing simply because they disagree with your edits is a self-evident case of WP:BADFAITH, and you know it very well, so stop doing that. I didn't revert my own edit for the following, simple reasons:

1. The discussion is still open and other editors can join it, if they want to do so;
2. I have provided the evidence that you desperately asked for on the Talk page and you refuse to read the aforementioned sources, while accusing me of disruption, racism, and other ridiculous stuff with repeated hostile aggressiveness which nobody else on this website ever told me in the last 6 years..... never.
3. For the time being, there's no WP:CONSENSUS to apply the changes that you proposed;
4. Multiple academic, secondary, reliable references already cited in the article, which have been undisputed for several months, cannot be qualified as original research as you claim, for obvious reasons (see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY); nobody spoke of verbatim quotes, I spoke of content; here are the sources that you asked for while refusing to read them.
5. You keep bothering me by posting several warnings on my Talk page while the discussion is still open.... there's no need to say that this kind of behavior doesn't help at all;
6. If I were you, I would have asked for a third opinion about the ongoing discussion, instead of continuously bothering me on my Talk page with your warnings, insults, and accusations of all kinds of ridiculous stuff, as you did both here and on the Talk page for everyone to see.

• @Santasa99:, you clearly have no intention to stop WP:STALKING me after I asked you to do accordingly three times already, and you are reporting me everywhere you can instead of taking the case where it belongs, on the Talk page of the ongoing discussion, as you did in the exact same manner the last time with the article Talk:LGBT in Islam, the unwarranted same hostility and modus operandi towards me, nothing changed. Just say that your sole purpose here is to get me blocked indefinitely, because that's clearly the only reason for doing all of this. And you have the nerve to accuse me of WP:BADFAITH.... Unbelievable.
• @Bon courage:, I linked the Talk page discussion about that user that started the edit warring on multiple articles related to the same topic in my reply to your warning; other veteran editors have expressed their concern about him/her, you can check it out. Btw, almost 7 years of service on this encyclopedia with several contributions on many, many, many articles and all of a sudden you incite other editors to block me indefinitely because I asked you to go somewhere else and stop WP:STALKING me on my Talk page? If that isn't WP:BADFAITH on your part, then I don't know what it is. GenoV84 (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BLUDGEONING and WP:STONEWALLING is form of evasion and disruptive editing too. Moreover, please restrain yourself from pinning on me variety of foul behavior without corroborating it in proscribed manner. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• @Santasa99:, nobody insulted or stalked you in the first place, while the same cannot be said about your behavior towards me in the last 24 hours, in the exact same manner as you did on Talk:LGBT in Islam months ago; everybody can read the accusations and insults that you wrote, you can't fool anyone ([5] [6]). Furthermore, you should know better that persistently making frivolous or meritless complaints about other editors won't help, so stop doing that as well. GenoV84 (talk) 12:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This discussion started as a simple content dispute, I provided the evidence that you asked for, I further suggested you to ask for a third opinion, and instead you have decided to make it personal and report me everywhere in revenge for the lack of WP:CONSENSUS about your removal of extensively well-sourced content on the article Apostasy in Islam ([7] [8]), despite the fact that I provided the evidence that you asked for numerous times, both here and on the Talk page, and yet you keep denying those sources as if they didn't exist in the first place. What kind of behavior is that? I've been polite and respectful during the entire dispute resolution; sadly, it couldn't be said the same for you. Accusing me of being impolite and of trying to derail the discussion while you have repeatedly insulted and stalked me, and simultaneously reporting me everywhere hoping that I will get blocked, is definitely another violation of WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS on your part. GenoV84 (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You have not provided anything I asked you (quotation with page number(s)), you just buried article TP and now this report with references without pointing where the terminology is supposedly used (I checked and found nothing in validation of your claim). You accused me of BADFAITH, STALKING, breach of AGF, of casting ASPERSIONS against you, all in condescending and hostile tone (I won't delve into your edit-summaries carrying additional accusations and aggressive, condescending messages). I did nothing to you to deserve this kind of treatment, so my only option and the reason to file this report is your persistent misinterpretation of project's policies (along with misinterpretation of sources), in attempt of STONEWALLING, and disregard of these policies main purpose, which is to guard articles and project integrity and where instead you are placing yourself into a role of interpreter by controlling what editors can or cannot do in articles where you deem yourself ultimate authority. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

@Santasa99:, I have undone your edit. Per WP:TPO, you should generally not edit other people's discussion posts. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, apologies - but I can't fathom what purpose could these refs serve, except in burying the report and repealing the community in taking notice and taking part in it. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

All the cited academic, reliable references that I provided here, on the Talk page, and in the article extensively demonstrate the exact same historical and juridical phenomenon: Islamic death penalty, which is capital punishment based on Islamic law, just like the Jewish death penalty is capital punishment based on the Jewish law. Historically, Christianity never made the death penalty an inherently "Christian" sort of punishment, although the Vatican actually has a prescription for death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and people were regularly executed under death sentences in the former Papal States, not to mention the Catholic Inquisition in Southern European kingdoms and their overseas colonies. Atheism is not a religion, so no death penalty.... unlike Islam, Judaism, and Roman Catholicism. Religiously-motivated capital punishment is a real thing, believe it or not, and the academic sources that I provided further report of muslims that were executed by fellow muslims under the Islamic death penalty during the Middle Ages, just like Christians.

Wikipedia is not supposed to be "appropriate" or "inappropriate" towards religious and/or political groups; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is NOT censored. Moreover, as I have already said, content and wikilinks aren't verbatim quotes; the wikilink "Capital punishment in Islam" was linked as "Islamic death penalty" because leaving it as it is titled in that sentence in the body of the article wouldn't be proper English grammar, that's all about it.

Further reading: for a broader understanding of Islamic death penalty and other religiously-based punishments prescribed by the Sharia law, Muslim scholars, jurists, and theologians, see the following academic reference: Schirrmacher, Christine (2020). "Chapter 7: Leaving Islam". In Enstedt, Daniel; Larsson, Göran; Mantsinen, Teemu T. (eds.). Handbook of Leaving Religion. Brill Handbooks on Contemporary Religion. Vol. 18. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. pp. 81–95. doi:10.1163/9789004331471_008. ISBN 978-90-04-33092-4. ISSN 1874-6691. GenoV84 (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I stated my case in clear language. You are bludgeoning and stonewalling discussion here and in article TP by constant, steady repetition of one and the same wall of text, in illformated posts, continuously misinterpreting policies, misinterpreting sources, all the while using whole host of accusations against my behavior (both here, as evident, and in article TP). I have nothing further to say to you, that I hadn't say already. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You even using this POV justification for content of the article itself - you claim: content and wikilinks aren't verbatim quotes; the wikilink "Capital punishment in Islam" was linked as "Islamic death penalty" because leaving it as it is titled in that sentence in the body of the article wouldn't be proper English grammar, that's all about it. BUT apparently, this is what you deem proper English sentence: "(...) many were executed under the Islamic death penalty for defending their Christian faith (...)" and immediately bellow repeated: "(...) and were executed under the Islamic death penalty for this reason include "Kyros"(...). This is as improper English as it can be, and it is also NEO based on original research, not least completely unnecessary phrasing. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is not the first instance in which Santasa99 has attempted to ignore the presence of multiple, reliable, secondary academic sources and bludgeon others in discussions. The same pattern is present at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jusuf Barčić, where they are railing against the notability of a figure mentioned in literally dozens of scholarly sources. This thread, incorrectly posted to the main noticeboard, not the incidents page, should boomerang on the OP for their resounding CIR issues. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  This all basically means that you are in agreement with GenoV84 arguments? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Request to be an ECP user

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

---

Hi, a few months ago you removed me as an ECP user. I wanted to appeal this decision and request that you add me to the list of ECP users. I will explain my request, you removed me because you claimed that I was gaming the system. That is, trying to get 500 edits in order to be an ECP user, but despite that I continued to make edits and currently I have over 700 edits that I made over 8 months. In addition to this, I also made complicated edits that require effort and knowledge, such as editing the "wealth by country" list that I made and it took me days to re-edit. I would be happy if you would add me as an ECP user because honestly I have no intention of cheating or playing the system, you can check that each of the over 700 edits I made is a correct, real edit and I have never made an unfounded or incorrect edit. I would really appreciate it if you would consider returning the ECP to me, thanks. Fun71528 (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Before bringing this request here, you should discuss the removal of the permission with the removing administrator Doug Weller.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You are far more likely to be successful in an appeal if you are honest about what you were doing and apologise, rather than trying to pretend that the removal was incorrect. Looking through your edits does in fact suggest you were attempting to game the system. Back in August there are dozens and dozens of examples of you making completely pointless, trivial changes to inflate your edit count, such as adding random blank lines [9] [10] [11] or spaces [12] [13] [14] to articles. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 11:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I’ve made a mistake and I’m sorry about it. I really do ask for your forgiveness. And yes , I don’t have any bad intentions. I do think I deserve to be an ECP user and you can see the edits I’ve made to understand that I am an experienced and reliable editor with more than 700 edits. Fun71528 (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 their appeal and recent edits don't convince me, but I'll leave it to the community. Right now I see a lot of minor edits still. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You can see my edit for example in "Wealth by Country" I remade a new list of almost 200 countries! It also took me a few days, I really did a lot of complex editingFun71528 (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Please reconsider it. I think I really contributed a lot to Wikipedia and will contribute more in the future. Please give me one more chance to prove myself to you.Fun71528 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bbb23 Can you please give me a chance to prove to you that I am an experienced editor with real intentions? It's been months since you removed me as ECP and since then I've done a lot of challenging edits please give me another chance.Fun71528 (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop saying "you" when you refer to the removal of the ECP permission. Granting and removing permissions is not my forte; I leave it to other administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. How can I contact the administrators?Fun71528 (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Um, you're doing so right now - this isn't called the Administrators' Noticeboard because it's populated by gremlins. If you're here to demonstrate incompetence, you're doing a wonderful job.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

My apologies,I didn’t know that.

But i think i deserve anther chance.Fun71528 (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It might be more persuasive if instead of talking about what you deserve, you explained how the encyclopedia would benefit. NebY (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

What you need to do is to show that the encyclopaedia will benefit from your gaining the ECP permission, and the absolute best way to do that is to spend a few months quietly making constructive improvements to articles. Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf But that's what I did, I spent the last few months editing and improving articles. I have been on Wikipedia for over 8 months and have made hundreds of edits. I'm really not an inexperienced editor or a troll and you can see the edits I've done in the last few months, some of which took me days to edit, to see that I am indeed a good and skilled editor. Why can't I get another chance?Fun71528 (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You are not missing a chance, as you are editing now. None of that needed ECP. I would suggest leaving this for now, and to spend a bit more time learning the ropes. The lack of standard indentation in this conversation suggests you are not that familiar with how Wikipedia works. CMD (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@CMD

I do know how wikipedia works, I simply ask you to give me a chance to prove to you, if you see that I don't edit well, remove me for good. I do want to make edits that require ECP and it's depressing that you don't give this option even though I've been here for over 8 months and have done hundreds of edits and i’ve learned my lesson.Fun71528 (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

If I explicitly mention indentation in the previous message, and you reply having seemingly completely ignored that, this gives the impression that you are not listening to advice that you are being given. A new request a few months on which demonstrates more familiarity and need is more likely to succeed. In the meantime, if there are edits that require ECP, you can use Template:Edit extended-protected on the relevant talkpage. 16:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC) CMD (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So, Fun71528, there's a comment about you failing to adhere to indentation standards, and instead of figuring out what that means and how you can follow them, you just keep on going, repeating the same things over and over again. You were handed a lesson and you disregarded it. And then you do this, without bothering to give an explanation. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

If you had waited a second you would have seen the edit I made with the exact detail for the edit....Fun71528 (talk) 18:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and have no ability to grant the bit or not, but I would suggest you take some advice and step back from this as you are beginning to come across as extremely desperate for a fairly benign permission. You most recent collection of edits have been to edit war over a table where I see no indication that you tried to explain to the other user the issue on the talk page or link them to the supposed discussion, where it was decided that your way was the correct way. To be clear I am not agreeing with one version or the other just that edit warring like this will not be considered favorably when asking for additional permission or restatement of them. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears to me that this conversation is a good example of why ECP should not be returned. You appear to lack an appropriate level of awareness of how your conduct is perceived by others, and you've not demonstrated a compelling reason to return the privilege. ECP is a means of allowing editors who have gained an appropriate level of experience to edit on more challenging topics. That you cannot appropriately navigate even this conversation appears to show that you need some more time. Acroterion (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Post-close note: Subsequent to the above comments on threading, the threading was later fixed by a third party. CMD (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Massive off-wiki campaign aimed at disrupting Wikipedia

I noticed this Turkish-language Reddit link.[15]. It seems a massive off-wiki campaign has been initiated by Turkish-language speakers to create more disruption in the cesspool known as WP:AA2 and WP:KURDS. As the posts/comments were in Turkish, they were translated using Google tranlate:

• "The first spark was ignited in order to correct and organize the unfounded claims we have seen on Wikipedia recently. r/turkviki was established. Let's get organized from there."[16]
• "Friends, this subreddit was founded on the termination of unfounded claims made on Wikipedia. Our aim is to put an end to the unfounded allegations made on Wikipedia, the propaganda activities targeting our country and nation, to express the truth and correct the mistakes."[17]
• "we need a larger audience, salaried employees of wikipedia, and I don't know how effective we can be against the current Turkish hatred"[18]
• "Turkish Wikipedia Community Discord server. Friends, I left the link below if you would like to join the works that started before us."[19]
• "Friends, let's start with the liberation war first and let there be a spark of salvation for us from the lies in Wikipedia."[20]
• "First of all, we must explain why this claim [Armenian genocide] is not true. For example, instead of the 1.5 million people they said, there were actually 1.1 million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. There is no article about genocide against Armenians in the Treaty of Mudros Sevres or Lausanne. Until 1948, the United Nations and the League of Nations before it never defined a crime called genocide, and if you eat pizza and eat pizza in the future is a war crime, they cannot hold you guilty for what you did in the past. You can write that the deportation was carried out by the Union and Terraki and that the remaining Unionists completely severed their ties with the party at the Sivas congress, and the Parliament was against what the Committee of Union and Terraki did. In addition, we must reveal the evils committed by Armenians in the public opinion, instead of the crimes they have committed, the terrorist attacks of ASALA in Europe will be the best examples."[21]
• "Ottoman archives of the period are available on this site: Devletarsivleri.gov.tr (<cant post the entire link due to blockquote error>) It is enough for someone to translate it into Turkish for us to understand. then we edit the page on the wiki."[22]
• "The first thing that needs to be changed is the name. Then we will add the villages and towns burned by the Armenians. The number of people killed by Armenians is not specified. We should add them too. Let's diversify the missing parts as comments. Good luck with."[23]
• "A patrol is here! hello, i am zemxer from turkish wikipedia. As I'm on patrol on Turkish Wikipedia, I try to help new users as much as possible. You know, there is an approval system for the contributions made in Turkish Wikipedia, and I am one of the patrol friends who approve these contributions. I can help users and groups who want to contribute to Wikipedia and who want to make these contributions in an impartial framework. good wikis"[24]

So this group of people 1) clearly state their intention to spread Turkish government propaganda at Eng.Wikipedia disproven by the rest of the world 2) They receive support from users at the Turkish Wikipedia. Posting it here at AN as suggested by several administrators. You might be interested in this: @Rosguill: @Buidhe: @Bbb23: @Seraphimblade: @Black Kite: @Deepfriedokra: @Johnuniq: @HistoryofIran: @Dennis Brown: @Drmies: @El C: @Khirurg: @Kansas Bear: @Cplakidas: ‎- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The discord server

When looking at the members of their discord, I noticed a person named "Berk". He has a portrait of Ulugh Beg as his discord profile picture, the very same added by one of our own Wikipedians, BerkBerk68, here [25]. In other words, they must be the same person. BerkBerk seems to have a prominent role there, as he has published the rules of the discord. This is not the first time user:BerkBerk has participated in off-wiki canvassing through Discord, see for example these two posts back in July 2021, where user:BerkBerk tried to recruit an admin to his "14 people" discord, which was apparently focused on editing the Syrian Civil War and 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. [26]-[27]- LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Note the date 27-06-2022 at Discord:[28] Seems there's a triad involving editors at the Turkish wiki, off-wiki people, and editors at Eng.Wiki. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon, this report may have all kinds of merit, but doesn't the "The discord server" bit inch into WP:OUTING? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Berk#2835 is me, and that community has permission from authorities of Turkish Wikipedia, and it is not interested in English Wikipedia editing. Many experienced/authorized Turkish-language editors are in that group, furthermore I am not the owner of that server. I undertake all the mistakes done by me at "discord" one year ago. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised to see you engaging in this kind of stuff again. Not interested in English Wikipedia editing? What is this you have written under Planlama ("Planning") then? Google Translate "Users will be divided into 2 main sectors as English and Turkish Writers. It is obligatory to make a total of 100 edits, 60 from one sector and 40 from another sector, on behalf of users who want to participate in both. When the new week is started, the number of edits between sectors (60-40) may change." I did write a similar report about BerkBerk to ArbCom sometime ago, though I am still awaiting an update. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I invite administrators to the discord server to prove that there is not any single edit provoked by me in english wikipedia, everything asked will be translated by me, and for any kind of distrust, access to server logs (+ProBot for deleted messages) will be given. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The discord link here just got deleted [29] (including the user who posted it) and the discord is now gone. Something you and co. trying to hide? Fortunately I took pictures of BerkBerk's "Planning" list before hand. Would it violate WP:OUTING to post it here? --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

that text is not written by me, the person who writed it wanted me to post it (I understand the reason now), the planning list is already posted and I have opposed the things going on reddit on that server aswell. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Kutlug Şad — 13.10.2022 O zaman r/Turkviki başlı başına canlı kuklacılık ("Then r/Turkviki is completely meatpuppet") Berk (me) — 13.10.2022 Öyle zaten ("it is, already") Kutlug Şad also posts a screenshot showing him posting a nationalistic comment, calling reddit users to the discord and asks me about it, I told him "don't". BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

again, all logs and messages will be opened for Administrators. I have never motivated anyone to make any edits on English Wikipedia on that server. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So.. you wrote for the sake of someone else? Honestly, your excuses bore me. Prepare to make more, as this is not even scrapping the barrel. As I said, I also have that huge ArbCom report of you. Not to mention you have been called out for nationalistic editing or similiar by other users than me. Let's not forget my previous ANI report of you either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

its not just me, but also another experienced editor pings 2 other editors including me, asking if that would be "meatpuppet". and I respond: "it would absolutely be called that because it is". messages at 13.10.2022 proves that I am blaming that subreddit. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 13:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 169#Discord logs Posting discord logs on wiki is oversightable. Email them to arbcom. 192.76.8.81 (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I see. The issue is that it (respectfully) takes too long if I message ArbCom. They still haven't updated me regarding the ArbCom report of Berkberk, which I sent two months ago. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence already provided in this thread regarding how this Discord group has been advertised and coordinated on Reddit, specifically taking issue with content on en.wiki, I don't buy the claim that this is unrelated to en.wiki editing. Frankly, the rhetoric surrounding this group online is WP:RGW and vitriolic enough that I would have serious concerns about them even operating as a group on tr.wiki; there may be a case for starting a discussion on Metawiki. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  You are openly invited to the aforementioned group to see the proofs of my opposition on the subreddit. messages there are clearly showing that individuals wanted to support the subreddit and to invite reddit users while experienced editors including me opposed that. it would also prove the fact that I have never encouraged/supported anyone to edit on english wikipedia. BerkBerk⁶⁸ 18:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  Could you more clearly explain what the purpose of this Discord group is? Setting aside your specific participation, what is the purpose of the group, and why has it been promoted on reddit forums in the highly combative manner detailed by LouisAragon in the first part of this discussion? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:07, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

There's some POV editing happening right now at Karapapakhs, who were renamed to "Karapapakhs Turks" by some IPs and a new account. Drmies (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Have seen a large increase in dubious editing on Turkic history-related articles recently. I asked for a sockpuppet investigation into one because I thought edits were too similar. However, accounts coordinating off-wiki could very possibly be another solution. ~~ AirshipJ29 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Aaand r/Turkviki has been made private by its moderators. ~Styyx^Talk? 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE

I can't figure out what User:MasterQuestionable is doing here--or what they're doing with these talk page posts. You'll need to click through their contributions and the history of the talk page, and the 24 subpages of their talk page; they pinged me back with this, apparently expecting me to check user talk subpage 9 as a matter of course. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

With 221 edits adding and subtracting single characters from their sandbox I might have thought they were trying to game the system, but if they are I can't see why. Their replies and innovative formatting make me wonder if this isn't someone's AI project. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

ActivelyDisinterested, they actually had their autoconfirmed added and removed so they wouldn't gain it automatically. It's on one of their random sub pages. This is their word salad reply. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So they were testing how many changes had to be undone in one edit to ensure that the revert tag was not added to the reverted changes?![30] I would say they need to explain exactly why they need to know that, but let's not. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I looked through a pile of their edits, and it pretty much comes down to non-standard views on formatting and organization, favoring their own, objectively worse, style for both. Not much in the way of actually contributing. Even their article talk edits are like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to interact constructively with this user but have not been successful. MasterQuestionable stashed my communication on a subpage and changed the formatting. They've taken up a lot of other people's time by posting unclear questions/suggestions. I'm not sure what's going on, but I see no sign that the user is here to make Wikipedia better. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:50, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

They seem to think everything should adhere to some XML schema they are in the process of designing but frankly I don't see anything improving. Nthep (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It's just our tiny Earth brains are too puny to appreciate advanced stuff like [31]. EEng 23:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Just block this editor. This is an encyclopedia, not a playground for someone wanting to test their pet theories about what should be changed in the way that we work. If they were really interested in changing things then they would have communicated clearly by now. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor as not here to build the encyclopedia. Cullen328 (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen. FYI, we've had quite a few editors who've shown a crazy interest in coding and creating labyrinths in user space. CU revealed no socks or previous accounts, but I remember editors like that going years back, so that's not saying that much. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I think CIR is more to the point than NOTHERE. EEng 00:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

In the end, it amounts to the same thing. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

If you mean that a block by any other name would still smell sweet, yes. However, since AGF is a core principle, NOTHERE should be a last resort. I actually think he believed he was working up to some revolutionary talkpage organization that would make things better, but his arrival on a transporter beam from 18th-century France has left him socially and linguistically incapable of operating here successfully. Thus CIR. EEng 17:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Athaenara

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This case request was brought to review the administrative status of Athaenara (talk · contribs), a then-administrator who was indefinitely blocked for personal attacks. Subsequently, the Arbitration Committee resolved to remove Athaenara’s administrative privileges through its Level II removal procedures. This case request is therefore resolved as follows:

Athaenara may request that a case be opened and proceed through normal arbitration processes for further consideration of her administrative status by emailing the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org within three months of the enactment of this motion. The Committee will then decide whether to open a case or resolve the matter by motion. If Athaenara does not make such a request within the three-month period, she will remain desysopped and may regain the administrative tools only through a successful request for adminship.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Arbitration motion regarding the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara (talk · contribs)’s block, TheresNoTime (talk · contribs)'s use of the checkuser tool, and connected events. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

• The case title will be Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. The initial parties will be Lourdes (talk · contribs) and TheresNoTime (talk · contribs).
• The evidence phase will be shortened to one week. Parties are particularly invited to submit statements about their own actions.
• There will be no workshop phase.
• Non-parties are discouraged from submitting evidence that has already been submitted to the Arbitration Committee through the case request process.
• Any case submissions involving non-public information should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding the reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara’s block

Arbitration committee 2022 election: nominations to start in a month

The nomination period for the 2022 arbitration committee election will start in just under a month. If there is someone you'd like to see run, or if you want to know someone else's plans before making your own decision, I encourage you to talk to them now, well in advance of the election. For more information about the work involved with serving on the committee, see the arbitrator experiences page. isaacl (talk) 00:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

A question about outing policy

I'll ask my question in redacted form. The journal [redacted] has just published a lead article focusing on an academic researcher who promotes a fringe POV and was recently fired for violating regulations about use of medical data. The article states that, as an example of the influence of this person on popular perceptions, they were heavily involved in editing an earlier version of Wikipedia's article on [redacted], as determined from the article's talk-page archives. In that archive, the real name can be determined from their username, but the person's userpage does not give their real name. The journal article, which discusses this person as an example of a broader issue, is an interesting and revealing one, but I'm asking whether using the journal article as a source in a Wikipedea article or mentioning or linking to it on an article talk-page or WP:FTN would violate our outing policy. In other words, if a major journal "outs" an editor, is it permissible for me to mention or link to that journal article or use it as a source? Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 11:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw, here's a similar discussion: Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2022_February_5#Can_sources_that_pose_WP:OUTING_concerns_be_used_as_references?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Personally I believe that if a WP:RS does the outing then it is no an longer outing issue on wikipedia it becomes a WP:BLP/WP:NPOV question. However I do not believe that is the only view on the issue, many seem to take WP:OUTING's complete silence on the issue to mean that its not an exception when I think the proper argument is that if its in a WP:RS then its not outing. Period. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• The answer is 'no WP:OUTING does not apply' for the simple reason that if it did, all any subject of, or person mentioned in, an article would need to do is create an account and boom, they can claim WP:OUTING means all (or more accurately, any information about them they dislike) personal information about them needs to be redacted. See the fallout over Tenebrae, Peppermint, the Frank Lovece biography and a Daily Dot article. And what happened to the last editor who tried to use the Harrassment policy to hide self-promotion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@Only in death: The question being asked here is not only an abstract policy question, because based on the post above it's obvious what Wikipedia editor is being referred to. I won't name the editor, but NightHeron has outed that particular editor once before, and their earlier post was suppressed, although surprisingly they weren't blocked or warned for the attempted outing. So as I said, this is not just a question of what the WP:OUTING policy allows; it's also a question of whether it would be permissible for NightHeron to re-post identifying information about an editor that has already been suppressed the previous time they posted it. 2600:1004:B121:5886:5572:26ED:42B6:FA5A (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC) Striking t-ban violation. This IP user is well aware that they may not comment on matters related to race or intelligence, either in conjunction or separately. Generalrelative (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The answer is still that as long as it is a reliable source, it can be used in the appropriate context. If you were using it as a reference, you would need a good reason to, and directly supporting content in an article. Mere discussion on talk pages wouldnt cut it. If said academic researcher has a biography on here, yes it could be used to support content in their biographic article that they actively promote fringe material, including through editing wikipedia. Provided the source is reliable and satisfies WP:BLP for content about a living person. It wouldnt actually be necessary to name the editor anyway, see the Frank Lovece issue with the connected contributor template. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I might add, the Tenebrae issue is more recent than Nightheron's original suppressed post. The community is likely to be a bit more nuanced now given we had such an egregious weaponising of the harrassment policy by an editor with a COI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

To answer the IP's concern about my suppressed edit: A few minutes after making the edit, I realized that it qualified as outing and immediately self-reverted. I then asked an admin to revdel it, which they did right away. All of this took place quickly. Because I caught my mistake and got the edit suppressed within minutes, I was not warned or punished. Other than that, I have never made any attempt to out anybody.

The individual in question does not have a BLP. In an edit there would be no need for me to mention the name. The journal article describes an interesting case showing how far promoters of the fringe POV are willing to go (in this case, violating regulations for handling of medical data). So there are a couple of articles where it might be appropriate to include a mention of this. I'd first ask at the article's talk-page before putting it in. NightHeron (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel like the reference could be used without naming the person or the username; something along the lines of "a study by <journal> found that an academic researcher pushed their fringe theories on platforms such as Wikipedia.^[1]". Primefac (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It could, but I don't think this would solve the policy contradiction described by only in death above, because we would definitely usually name the person. – Joe (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. At the Scientific racism talk-page I've asked about proposed text that cites the article. NightHeron (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

References

• In the abstract, you've hit on a genuine contradiction between WP:OUTING and WP:NPOV that we've yet to really resolve (and as Only in death says, it has come up before). But in this particular case, I don't think it is outing if the user has previously disclosed their real name via their username. Per WP:OUTING, referring to still-existing, self-disclosed posted information is not considered outing and in usual circumstances self-disclosure is permanent (i.e. it doesn't have to be currently on their user page). The current oversight team tends to be quite broad in their interpretation of outing and 'personal information', however, so YMMV. – Joe (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

#CfACP, hashtag associated with Meta initiative -- worth making an edit filter?

Check this and this out. It seems that it is associated with meta:Code for Africa Climate Change Project. I recall that with the #WPWP thing from a while ago, an edit filter was created so that we could look for low-quality edits -- might that be prudent in this case as well? I have been seeing a few of these edits in RecentChanges, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere on the site. Pinging @Femke:, who I found discussing this elsewhere. jp×g 17:32, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG Special:AbuseFilter/1073 is the filter that is set up for tracking these, it just needs the hashtag adding to the first line. There's also Toolforge:Hashtags which can be used to find tagged edits. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Added, watch for it in the log here. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Good stuff. I am looking through some of these now and it looks somewhat dire. this edit adds a formatted reference to a cn-tagged statement ("There is also a renewed emphasis on the importance of client-side JavaScript used to create dynamic web pages"): said reference mentions JavaScript only four times (none in conjunction with this claim), "client" zero times, and "dynamic" once in reference to bitmap rendering. This seems like it has the potential to be extremely disruptive, since checking references is a laborious (and often impossible) task... jp×g 18:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit adds this reference to "In the fall another round of floods hit the African Sahel". Said ref is a paper talking about floods in eastern Africa in 2020, but does not mention any specific instances of floods -- indeed, the latest flooding mentioned by date is in May 2020. The next edit adds a second ref. This is supposed to be supporting the claim that there were floods in August and September -- the paper is titled "Extreme rainfall in East Africa, October 2019–January 2020 and context under future climate change", published in late August 2020. jp×g 18:24, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It should be noted that I am not specifically pointing out bad ones: these are literally the first two results from that edit filter log. Both of them are completely invalid citations that required about ten minutes of close-reading papers to determine were invalid. This may be a significant issue. jp×g 18:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive editing like that should result in blocks (following sufficient warning, of course). I don't have the time to go digging right now, but if you come across any that fit the bill feel free to drop me a note and I'll block. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Project set up by the foundation where you have to apply to volunteer and they guide you what to do? Eew. Secretlondon (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the last 5 edits with this tag. Two were helpful (good wikilink, resolved update needed tag), and two were unhelpful. External links in bodies, citations in activist headings. I'm leaving a note to the organisers asking them to participate in this conversation. Femke (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There is an Outreach Dashboard to track the edits made through this initiative. I checked the article history of one of the articles on the dashboard and all edits to that page were copyright violations.[32] To the organizers: I'd really like to see this outreach effort succeed. We do need more help with climate change articles. Something needs to change though, because it is a lot of work to find and clean up bad edits. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Cmwaura (the Kenyan WiR) and Jwale2 (who set up the meta page). I really hope this project can succeed, but most edits now need to be reverted, which is a time-consuming process.. It seems like these volunteers need more support to contribute effectively. Femke (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

What is the correct way to tag this article for deletion?

Timothy french was created last month, but Timothy French is protected from being recreated. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If you're looking for a speedy, A7 is probably the one. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Help needed: replying to closed discussion

I recently reverted another editor's reply to a closed AfD discussion (on the basis of Template:Archive top). The editor pointed out, however, that the reply button was inviting him to reply. Should this tool be removed in closed discussions? Is that even possible? Was I right in reverting? Sorry if this is the wrong location to ask this question - I couldn't think of anywhere else. StAnselm (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You were entirely correct to revert. The AfD in question was clearly marked as closed. This wasn't a case where someone had been writing a comment before the close and jammed it in two minutes over the line. Furthermore, just because a button exists does not mean one ought to use it - after all, the edit button persists on closed discussions, and we trust people not to make use of that, either. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. StAnselm (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• There seems to be a fairly big difference between the "edit button existing" (which it does for literally all pages on the project) and a big blue "REPLY" button existing on a controversially closed AFD. But YMMV, I guess. I'll leave you all to it. Kevin ^{Hallward's Ghost (Let's talk)} 20:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Kevin, the reply button (which isn't that big, not that size matters here) exists on literally all discussion pages these days as a tool of convenience. The technical ability to edit a page, whether via the edit button or the reply button, does not override the longstanding community convention of not editing closed AfD discussions, coupled with the obvious closed/archived formatting and explicit warning not to edit the closed discussion. I understand making the error in the first place, but doubling down and acting like the presence of a reply button forced you to use it seems silly to me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

IP range block

Copying my message from User talk:JavaHurricane#IP range block, A new volunteer of DCW is facing range block on this wiki. Commons username is Khuddukhail. Since you are an account creator, would it be possible for you to create a local account for that username? They are not able to login anyway. @Bbb23 says they are clueless. Can any admin over here help please. ─ The Aafī (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Request for the creation of the page "Battle for Dream Island"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&create=Create+new+article+draft&editintro=Template%3AAfC+draft+editintro&preload=Template%3AAfc+preload%2Fdraft&summary=--+Draft+creation+using+the+%5B%5BWP%3AArticle+wizard%5D%5D+--&title=Draft%3ABattle+for+Dream+Island Slaythe (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I am a new member of Wikipedia so please excuse me. Slaythe (talk) 13:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Slaythe, you should review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle for Dream Island and determine whether you can find sufficient reliable sources to overcome the lack of notability identified in the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Premature request of speedy deletion

There's a user name AngusWOOF who made an apparent premature request of speedy deletion of the new article Blue (Velociraptor) of the Jurassic World trilogy, but that article has some references placed on it and has some things necessary added on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Blue (Velociraptor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
AngusWOOF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BattleshipMan (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

BattleshipMan, I CSD G12'ed it as it copied entire paragraphs from the fandom wikia page. https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Blue AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh. Well, someone should create a draft article about that article then without copying the contents from another site then. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Isn't Fandom content released under a Creative Commons license? It should be permitted to copy from it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree According to https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Jurassic_Park_Wiki:Copyrights the Jurassic park wiki uses a GNU Free Documentation License, which is not compatible with Wikipedia. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Though it is contradictory and some other parts of the site say is uses a creative commons licence. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, I was going by the "Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted" note at the bottom of the article. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The terms you agree to when you submit an edit though, https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/MediaWiki:Copyrightwarning directs you to a page that states your edit is under a GNU Licence. I get the impression that the "available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted" message is standard across all fandom sites, and this is one of the ones where the copyright is as "otherwise noted"? 163.1.15.238 (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree These things cannot be assumed, amnd I cannot find that information on that site 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The IP editor found what I was unable to 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

A Draft:Blue (Jurassic World) can be developed, with aliases for Blue (Jurassic Park) and Blue (velociraptor). She really needs to be in List of Jurassic Park characters in the meantime. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 14:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I have DS questions

My understanding is that an administrator has authority to independently sanction an editor only in an article/talk page that is subject to discretionary sanctions (DS). If the page is not DS, the matter must be taken to a "wikicourt."

My further understanding is that the DS status of an article/talk page must be prominently displayed on the page.

Also, is it correct that, at least by custom if not policy, and assuming the article/talk page actually is subject to DS, a user should or must receive a DS alert on their Talk page before a sanction is imposed?

For reference, please see:

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Awareness and alerts

"No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." [let's assume none of the six "awareness" criteria listed here are applicable in a given case, such that an editor could not be aware]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions

"Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator provided that, at the time the editor ignored or breached a page restriction:

• The editor was aware of discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict, and

• There was an editnotice (ds/editnotice) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction."

If I have this wrong I'd appreciate if adminstrators would correct me. Thank you. soibangla (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

You can be sanctioned for editing in any area covered by discretionary sanctions provided you are aware of the specific discretionary sanctions topic area you are being sanctioned for. That includes talk pages and noticeboards and not just articles. There is no need for there to be page restrictions or any notice that the page is affected since it's your responsibility to take care when editing in any area affected by discretionary sanctions once you're aware that topic area is covered. Page restrictions are specific measures covering a certain page that is covered under some discretionary sanctions, and impose specific limitations on editing some page. You can be sanctioned for violating page restrictions without needing to further demonstrate the harm of your edits provided they aren't covered by WP:BANEX. So if a page is covered under 1RR as an example, you could be sanctioned for violating that. However on other pages in the topic area, simply going beyond 1RR is not by itself enough for sanctions but you may still find yourself in trouble if you keep doing it. Note that in some cases it is unlikely page restrictions would be justified under DS e.g. Offham Hill isn't likely to be sufficiently covered by any DS I'm aware of to be to justify page restrictions. Still if you make edits concerning some living person or about a fringe theory, your edits would still fall under the BLP and pseudoscience discretionary sanctions respectively. Nil Einne (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Just a nitpick, the relevant exceptions to a page-level DS revert restriction are those at WP:3RRNO, not BANEX. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne does a good job of answering a lot of what you ask. You also can be sanctioned under regular behavioral procedures without a "wikicourt" (to use your phrase). So if you are edit warring you can be blocked (or partially blocked) without the DS bureaucracy. What makes DS special is admin have extra authority to impose kinds of sanctions they normally couldn't (i.e. topic bans) and/or at a lower threshold of misbehavior or with less overall warning. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne wrote it's your responsibility to take care when editing in any area affected by discretionary sanctions once you're aware that topic area is covered (italics mine). But the scenario I describe is an editor has not been made aware of it, either by notice or alert. So how can an editor plausibly know the DS status of every space in the encyclopedia so they can avoid a violation? soibangla (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a violation"? If an editor has not been made aware via one of the methods listed at WP:AC/DS#aware.aware they cannot be sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions regime. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

So I'd like to translate what you said: if an editor has not been made aware that DS is in effect, with a notice on the page or alert to their Talk page, DS sanctions cannot be applied. Is that correct? soibangla (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla Not quite. If an editor has not been personally made aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect via a {{DS/alert}} on their talk page (or by satisfying any of the other conditions at WP:AC/DS#aware.aware) they cannot be sanctioned under any part of discretionary sanctions.

If a page is under specific restrictions (e.g. 1RR) then the editor must both have been made aware personally via a {{DS/alert}} or equivalent, and an appropriate edit notice must be present on the page in order for that restriction to be enforced.

Apart from those used to enforce specific remedies like 1RR the notices on article talk pages and in edit notices the like are purely a courtesy and have no effect on anything. The existence of a talk notice cannot be used as evidence to sanction an editor who has not been made aware of sanctions, and there is no requirement to add a notice to a talk page to "include" an article in the discretionary sanctions regime. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep49 and Nil Einne, do you concur with this by 192.76.8.77?

If an editor has not been personally made aware that discretionary sanctions are in effect via a {{DS/alert}} on their talk page (or by satisfying any of the other conditions at WP:AC/DS#aware.aware) they cannot be sanctioned under any part of discretionary sanctions.

soibangla (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems about right. If an uninvolved admin uses discretionary sanctions to sanction a user who truly wasn't aware (through any enumerated method) in the area of conflict, the sanction was made out-of-process and there's a basis for an appeal to a "wikicourt" – either AE or AN, and if that fails, ARCA. Expired sanctions cannot be appealed. An administrator who places sanctions out-of-process could perhaps be admonished at ARCA (it has happened before). If there's no further evidence of misbehaviour by the admin, an admonishment is the most likely outcome.

There are some cases where AE or other forum has accepted an appeal because the enforcing admin interpreted the area of conflict too broadly.

If you're not literally "asking for a friend", I'd suggest reading awareness criterion #4 very, very closely. Politrukki (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, your understanding is not correct. You appear to have mixed several things together and gotten them confused.

First of all, discretionary sanctions do not apply to articles. The vast majority of discretionary sanctions apply to pages, and many of them apply to edits. This means an editor can be sanctioned under discretionary sanctions for their behaviour in project space, on templates, the stuff they make in their userspace, their interactions with other editors regarding the topic and so forth.

Under discretionary sanctions administrators can place restrictions on individual editors (called "sanctions") or they can place restrictions on pages (called "page restrictions"). A "sanction" on an editor might be something like a block or a topic ban, a "page restriction" might be something like a WP:1RR restriction or a requirement to get consensus for changes.

If an administrator wishes to sanction an editor, the editor must have been made aware of the existence of the discretionary sanctions, this can only be done by meeting one of the criteria at WP:AC/DS#aware.aware. Per WP:AC/DS#broadly.construed the topics under discretionary sanctions are broadly constructed, and the topic ban policy is used to determine their scope. There is no requirement to indicate the DS status of the page, though this may be done as a courtesy. If an editor has not been made aware of the existence of DS sanctions, they cannot be sanctioned. {{DS/alert}}s are valid for 1 year, and there is no requirement for further alerts prior to imposing a sanction.

If an administrator wishes to place a restriction on a page they must follow the instructions at WP:AC/DS#sanctions.page. If an administrator decides to implement a 1RR restriction on a page, for example, then they must set up an appropriate edit notice using {{ds/editnotice}} and should add a notice to the talk page. If an admin wants to block an editor for violating that 1RR restriction the editor must both have been made aware of existence of discretionary sanctions, and an appropriate edit notice informing the editor of the page restriction must have been set up.

Individual administrators can place sanctions on editors for conduct in the topic area, there is no requirement to use WP:AE. As it says at WP:AC/DS Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Mass changes being made to thousands of U.S. county pages

Re: User talk:Costco nostra

Concerns were properly and recently raised regarding User:DemocraticLuntz's updating of 2020 census numbers. Even more concerning, it seems, is User talk:Costco nostra, who is now individually revising demographic data on every county page in the United States, and the reference the user is providing for revision of this data does not include the ethnic percentages the user is adding. So what is the source? I asked that question of User talk:Costco nostra. Answer: Well, the user is doing the math individually. So far, the user also has inserted the inaccurate state on a vast number of county pages, which had to be retroactively corrected. In the case of User:DemocraticLuntz, I think the concerns were that the user's automated process had not been previously reviewed/approved combined with the insertion of an inaccurate link that had to be reverted and corrected on a few hundred pages. But, at least in that case, I don't believe there was any questioning that the population numbers (then and largely still at 2010 levels) were in need of being updated and that the user was doing his/her best to insert accurate data supported in the reference provided. In this case, however, we are relying on one user's individual math to update core demographic data to (just looked this up) 3,143 counties across the nation without, to my knowledge, any broader assessment of the accuracy (or even need for) these percentages. This warrants assessment as it relates to process and format for literally thousands of data revisions to pages based on the sole determination of one user that these percentages must be included and that, if so, his/her individual calculations of them is sufficient in place of any primary reference for them. On the format alone, if the census is not providing the data, I do not see any reason that we should be. But if they should be included, the process of one user's mathematical interpretation of the primary reference warrants consideration. I'll alert the user I've raised the issue here and appreciate assessment of the process for mass changes of this magnitude that are being made based on individual calculations. I suspect there is a relevant policy for them and doubt it includes one user doing 3,143 individual mathematical calculations. And if there is no policy for changes this vast and fundamental, perhaps there should be. Keystone18 (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah like I said some of this stuff is 20 years out of date, and I'm just adding a template that's already present for countless other counties in other states some of which are already updated. I didn't come up with it I'm just adding it to pages that our woefully out of date.

Answer: Well, the user is doing the math individually.

And? What approved way am I supposed to be using then if not doing it manually? Routine calculations are not banned on wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations

user also has inserted the inaccurate state on a vast number of county pages, which had to be retroactively corrected

Which I caught and fixed myself. As I already explained to you that was a mistake I made because I forgot to update the template for the new state I was updating. Once I saw that I went back and fixed it.

accuracy (or even need for) these percentages

Well they're on other county pages as I already pointed out but you keep ignoring for whatever reason. If you or anyone else finds a math error feel free to fix it.

3,143 counties across the nation without, to my knowledge, any broader assessment of the accuracy

Except as I already stated other states do have up-to-date info using the same template, same source, etc. I take it you didn't even bother to look at the link I already showed you. All of Alabama, for example, is up to date right now. I didn't add those some other dedicated individual put in the time and effort to do the calculations.

if the census is not providing the data

The census is providing the data, the most routine of calculations are not synthesis or "original research" so I don't get the objection. Looking back on the information from 20 years ago all they did was provide the calculation of percentages without any raw numbers so by using these tables (which I stress I didn't come up with) we're actually giving more information than Wikipedia used to provide. If anything, it's an improvement.

one user's mathematical interpretation

When did basic division become an "interpretation"?

one user's individual math

As I already pointed out plenty of counties have already added these numbers using basic math. 3,143 counties don't need updating. However some of these states are in fact 20 years out of date. I'm just trying to fill in the gaps.

I suspect there is a relevant policy for them and doubt it includes one user doing 3,143 individual mathematical calculations.

You really think there needs to be a new policy based on what is effectively copy pasting US Census data combined with elementary tier math? Look up any county in Alabama or Georgia, all data is up to date and I had nothing to do with it. List of counties in Alabama List of counties in Georgia. Why anyone would have a problem updating US Census info I have no idea. Costco nostra (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Good news there are plenty of other states with counties that are already updated with 2020 US Census numbers List of counties in Florida, List of counties in North Carolina, List of counties in Texas, List of counties in Arkansas, List of counties in Tennessee List of cities and counties in Virginia. It looks like California is only partially updated. List of counties in California. They're all using the same source I'm using which doesn't provide percentages you have to manually calculate them yourself. Costco nostra (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistent comparison is one problem, which I agree might not be major. If state x is updated to 2021 and state y is updated to 2022, then it's apples and oranges for population ranking, ratio of voters to congressional representations, other stats. Martindo (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Keystone18 it might be a good idea to provide some examples of controversial edits and notes about what's wrong with them. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is unacceptable. Costco nostra, you must know that you cannot calculate a percentage unless you have the number divider user right (which requires 3 years tenure, 25,000 edits, and a proven track record of successfully dividing numbers as difficult as 11 and 4) and get prior consensus at the Multiplication Noticeboard. I propose an immediate site ban. – Joe (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Examples of problems to date

Even if these edits were performed with impeccable accuracy and the best of intentions, it presumes: a.) that every county page should have the county's ethnic groups divided from raw sources and broken down into 100th decimal percentages on each of over 3,000 county pages when even the U.S. census is not reporting them in that fashion; and b.) that, if such data is perceived to be of necessary encyclopedic value, that any singular individual user alone should then be entrusted and empowered to use their own arithmetic to calculate such percentages when the underlying reference the user is relying upon does not provide such percentages.

Those are two big picture questions. Then we face the issue of the user we apparently are entrusting to perform all these calculations individually who, in short order, has:

• Inserted the wrong state on 66 separate county pages. Example (times 66): Adams County, Pennsylvania, which the user's reference lists as Adams County, Minnesota. Edit link: [33]

Questions: 1.) Does a county's population need to be broken down into ethnic percentages to the 100th decimal on each of over 3,000 county pages? Why exactly? Is that not a question deserving of some broader consideration in the relevant Wikipedia Project pages (even if this was done at least partly 12 years ago, in 2010 updates); and 2.) If the conclusion is: Yes, there is an undeniable encyclopedic need to list each county's ethnic representation to the 100th decimal on these thousands of pages, should the user charged with performing these sensitive calculations and updates be one who, to date, has proven unable to even transfer the appropriate state from the primary reference to the page reference updates correctly in over 60 consecutive edits? Whether this data warrants a presence on every county page at all seems deserving of broader consideration, and (if, yes, it is of vital significance), why did the census itself not see the case for it? Finally, if the view is that, yes, there is an undeniable case for including this data, is relying on one editor with a significant error-ridden record on even more basic components of this project the best of all options in going about it? Keystone18 (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You're just restating the complaints you already made, which I've already addressed. Yes I screwed up by not updating the state name on the template I was using. When I realized that it was the wrong state I updated it. As for everything else as I've pointed out the county pages already have this data, the problem is in some places the data is 10-20 years old. Costco nostra (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Keystone18, what are you asking administrators to do here? Administrators do not adjudicate content disputes. Are you complaining that another editor is voluntarily doing a lot of useful work? That seems strange. Are you complaining that the editor made some mistakes, admitted their mistakes and promptly corrected their mistakes? We all make mistakes and I have voluntarily corrected two of my own errors in recent days. A significant percentage of my edits are correcting my own typographical errors. Are you insisting that there needs to be a team of six or eight editors working on this instead of the one or two editors who are actually willing to do the work? Are you willing to recruit these other editors to this project? Are you claiming that straightforward mathematical calculations are forbidden? If so, which policy or guideline are you relying on? I do agree that excessive precision is not a good idea in the social sciences, and that in most cases, 24.3% is preferred to 24.3482%. I am an adminstrator who has spent a fair amount of time looking at your report, and I cannot figure out what you want administrators like me to do. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Organizational article merged into Biographical article

On 28 June 2021, User:Skyerise opened a new section at Talk:Arica_School "Suggest merge and redirect" with Oscar Ichazo biographical page because he founded the Arica school. Less than 3 hours later, after a flurry of edits, she followed the WP:BOLD preference (noted also at WP:Move and WP:Move Review) and merged the page without any discussion.

Point 1 (policy): Should Boldness be encouraged, even tacitly, in regard to a Merge? In this case, no formal Request was opened. Consequently, I cannot follow WP:Move Review because the June 2021 archives do not show any Request discussion.

Having been a member of the Arica School during the last 1/4 of the 20th century, I retain some interest in the page and contributed to discussions on Talk during 2009. I had the page in my Watchlist since at least that time, but somehow the actual Merge event did not show up last year as a change. I only saw a change appear when Skyerise tweaked the spelling of Ichazo's given name by inserting an accent mark (despite the fact that he never used it during 50 years of publications in the English language).

Point 2 (technical): How is it that a Watchlist does not alert a user to a major change such as merge/deletion?

Looking around at similar human development articles, I noticed that Diamond Approach was merged into A._H._Almaas by User:Ruslik on 18 July 2008 Talk:A._H._Almaas#Merge while Insight Meditation Society is still distinct from Jack Kornfield. The latter's Teachings section is rather impoverished, as I noted yesterday in Talk, so I suppose another eager editor might soon decide to merge those two pages. However, I doubt any would be BOLD enough to merge Fourth Way into George Gurdjieff.

Point 3 (philosophical): If an organization has persisted for 50 years or so (Arica, IMS), is it notable as something more than the "work" (writings, teachings) of the founder(s)? If yes, then what is the justification for a merge? IMO, a merge simply reinforces the popular misunderstanding that an organization of this type is merely the product of an individual guru. NB: even if you feel that these human potential groups are all pseudoscience, an encyclopedia might still find them notable in a historical sense (e.g., mesmerism, phrenology, and similar notions).

I posted a section User_talk:Skyerise#Founder_vs_Organization:_I_think_you_merged_the_wrong_way yesterday, initially suggesting that the merger should have gone in the other direction (subsuming Ichazo under Arica). However, after reviewing Almaas, Kornfield, and Gurdjieff, I now feel that the Organization and the founder Biography should be kept distinct as a general policy.

FYI, there are still two distinct Talk pages, more than a year after the Arica/Ichazo merge:

Talk:Oscar_Ichazo

Talk:Arica_School

Point 4 (content): Some editors seem rather zealous about third-party sources despite WP:ABOUTSELF indicating acceptance of first person (interviews, etc.) as minor sources for a biographical page. Unfortunately, what tends to happen is that the page for an organization like Arica School or Diamond Approach becomes pigeonholed into a discussion about theory (with academics often cited as third-party WP:RS) which IMO is a subtle WP:Undue Weight because organizations of this type generally include social interaction and other applications of teachings, similar to traditional sangha.

In this light, an organization's page could generally be improved by seeking third-party observations of the school itself not merely academic pro/con sources about its theories (most of which are not falsifiable). Otherwise, it tends to devolve into a mere listing of teachings, which can suggest to a zealous editor that the organization is nothing more than a "work" of its founder(s), therefore a merge is warranted (boldly or otherwise).

I hope any or all of these points are deemed worthy of discussion in this noticeboard. I don't know what else to do. Martindo (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If someone was WP:BOLD then you can always follow WP:BRD so I don't see why the inability to follow WP:MOVEREVIEW matters. Indeed the whole point would seem to be that there is no discussion to revisit, hence why you're free to simply revert without needing to overturn any consensus or establish the consensus was misread. Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place to contest an editorial decision. You can discuss the issue with the editor or a WikiProject, or if that doesn't work, use dispute resolution. It sounds like you have a conflict of interest, so you should probably be posting to the article's talk page instead of editing the articles directly, anyway. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)