Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.

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

Open tasks

XFD backlog

V	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Total
CfD	0	0	9	6	15
TfD	0	0	1	7	8
MfD	0	0	4	3	7
FfD	0	0	1	0	1
RfD	0	0	34	25	59
AfD	0	0	0	23	23

• 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 2 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
• 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
• 146 sockpuppet investigations
• 39 Candidates for speedy deletion
• 20 Fully protected edit requests
• 0 Candidates for history merging
• 5 requests for RD1 redaction
• 44 elapsed requested moves
• 2 Pages at move review
• 47 requested closures
• 125 requests for unblock
• 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
• 14 Copyright problems

Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection

Report

Pages recently put under extended confirmed protection (18 out of 8391 total) () WATCH Page Protected Expiry Type Summary Admin Maria Zakharova 2024-09-15 05:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Saryuparin Brahmin 2024-09-15 03:30 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:GS/CASTE Daniel Case Philippe Lazzarini 2024-09-15 03:21 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: per RFPP and ARBPIA Daniel Case Talk:Beliveo Lamoya 2024-09-14 19:25 2024-09-17 19:25 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Beliveo Lamoya 2024-09-14 19:23 2024-09-17 19:23 create Repeatedly recreated Liz Template:Occupation by nationality and century category header/portal/core 2024-09-14 17:01 indefinite edit,move RFPP request Anachronist Jol Thoi Thoi Bhalobasha 2024-09-14 06:03 indefinite create Repeatedly recreated BusterD Ogaden (clan) 2024-09-13 20:38 2026-09-13 20:38 edit Persistent disruptive editing: Regular semi-protection ineffective, persistent block evasion and additions of poorly sourced material. Yamaguchi先生 Galileo Galilei 2024-09-13 19:05 indefinite move Persistent vandalism: per RFPP Daniel Case Template:Infobox cricket tournament 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 2501 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Template:Archive top red/styles.css 2024-09-13 18:00 indefinite edit,move High-risk template or module: 3381 transclusions (more info) MusikBot II Communist Party of India (Marxist) 2024-09-13 15:28 2024-12-13 15:28 edit,move Persistent sock puppetry; up to ECP as semi isn't sufficient; requested at WP:RfPP Elli Anastasia Trofimova 2024-09-12 21:06 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: WP:RUSUKR Ymblanter Halhul 2024-09-12 16:12 indefinite edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:PIA, WP:ECR El C Kuči (tribe) 2024-09-12 00:06 2025-09-12 00:06 edit,move Contentious topic restriction: WP:CT/EE ToBeFree Russians at War 2024-09-11 18:14 indefinite edit,move Community sanctions enforcement: per RFPP and WP:RUSUKR Daniel Case Flourless chocolate cake 2024-09-11 16:00 2025-09-11 16:00 edit Edit warring by autoconfirmed Valereee Marron glacé 2024-09-11 15:57 2025-09-11 15:57 edit Persistent sock puppetry, ongoing, by autoconfirmed editors Valereee

Block appeal : Copper1993

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

---

I was recently pinged into a discussion by Copper1993 (talk · contribs), who has been blocked as a sockpuppet of HordeFTL. I've checked through the history of the SPI and I'm a little confused to what the actual disruption is beyond the original AfD votestacking in 2018. There seems to be some sort of kerfuffle involving Broomhead Reservoir, which I've rewritten this evening using a couple of news and book sources, which should hopefully put a lid on that.

Anyway, Copper1993 is asking for an amnesty and an unblock, which I am considering, and has been supported by Crouch, Swale. I think my basic problem is a number of the articles they've created have been quite stubby, often only including a few sources, which means somebody else has to do the work of beefing them up to an acceptable standard. Still, it's never been policy to just delete stubs for being stubs unless they're permastubs, and I think in a couple of cases mentioned in the SPI, somebody should have taken the articles to AfD just to see where consensus lies. Ultimately I come back to the tired old phrase we are here to write an encyclopedia. Anyway, your thoughts please. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support but with 1 account restriction which should resolve the AFD issues in 2018. Possibly there should be a restriction on page creation to ensure that the articles are less stubby. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• Meh. I endorsed a block in my capacity as a SPI clerk, but I wasn't all that enthused about it. They're evading an indefinite block, but they're obviously not the usual spammer, vandal or POV pusher who shows up at SPI. I'd gladly support an unblock if they were able to stick to the terms of the standard offer. My main problem is that their track record doesn't give me a lot of confidence that they're being honest or that any sort of restriction will actually be followed. For example, on their previous account, they said they'd be willing to take the standard offer [1], but just a month later, they were back to evading their block with the Copper1993 account. Or see this unblock request, where they made statements similar to what they're saying now about how they made a terrible mistake that they regret deeply and won't repeat [2]... but then proceeded to create 6 more sockpuppets in the following week [3]. If they are serious about having changed this time, it shouldn't be difficult for them to take a few months off of editing (during which they could edit other projects such as simplewiki) to regain the community's trust. Spicy (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"They're evading an indefinite block, but they're obviously not the usual spammer, vandal or POV pusher who shows up at SPI." Yeah, that's kind of my thoughts really. But given the conversations on some of the sock's talk pages, you could be forgiven for walking away with the impression that the admin corps think he's the son of IceWhiz. Haven't people over-reacted a bit? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose largely for the reasons Spicy has misgivings. They're an admitted sock of HordeFTL, they claim they started socking because they just didn't know the rules (and then kept going for years because ...?), and they have a long history of breaking their word when promising to follow those rules. See for example the heartfelt pleas at User talk:StaniforthHistorian, which were followed by yet more socking. Sure they're a slight cut above a "lol your mom" vandal but their track record (including sock blocks from this very week) suggests a total lack of interest in one of the basic en-WP policies. It'd be better if they actually stop socking for a few months and then reapply, rather than seeking an unblock just days after their latest secret sock is exposed.

In passing, Blablubbs seems to have a point re WP:3X, an unblock here probably cannot be a unilateral action and would require community input (which of course it is getting). Some CU advice would also be valuable as this is effectively an unblock request by the CU-blocked sockmaster themselves. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see how we can unblock a sockmaster who has a slew of puppets over years without waiting at least six months without socking. Instead right after the latest sock is blocked, they request an unblock. Additionally, as I read the SPI, there was some IP block evasion as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose At this time I have no confidence that they will stick to one account. Let's see if they can go six months without socking. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose until and unless their behavior is exemplary for at least six months. Someone who repeatedly deceives the community needs to show the best possible behavior before requesting an unblock. Being slightly less disruptive than the usual trolling sockmaster is not really a ringing endorsement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as they haven't even waited 6 months (per WP:SO) to make an appeal. They should also consider contributing to other Wikimedia projects while blocked to demonstrate that they are still capable of making constructive edits. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• We're here to build an encyclopedia, but without those who persistently disregard its central policies and community decisions. The last block evasion occurred on 25 October 2021; it's 28 October 2021. There are two paths: Sockpuppetry and hoping not to get caught, or accepting Wikipedia's procedures and filing an appeal. Sockpuppetry and filing an appeal are incompatible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

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

67.53.214.86 and WP:BLP

67.53.214.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an IP editor who since 2018 appears to have been adding information to WP:BLPs that is sourced to hard to assess sources (typically in Russian/Ukrainian), and often with concerning BLP implications. I first noticed their edits when they added a section to an article stating that the subject "was a close friend of the alcoholic Valery... the son of... who was a close friend of". Aside from the trivial nature of the information and apparent attempt at ?guilt by association?, the references were either in Russian, or did not mention the article subject. Going to the user's Talk: page, I noticed that the page is littered with warnings about WP:BLP violations, WP:COPYVIO violations, WP:RS and WP:V violations, failed WP:AFC requests, and automated bot reversion notices. I tried to review a number of their recent article additions; some were obviously problematic, but others were difficult for me to assess. I think that this editor's contributions to Wikipedia should be reviewed, and further contributions discouraged. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I also see that some of the references they add are not reliable sources, such as compromat.ru for example, and many I have never heard about but at the first glance do not look reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's been going on for years, and I don't see any responses on the Talk: page yet. This is a serious matter, as it has WP:BLP implications, and the damage is too complex to easily assess. They've already been blocked once for a month; unless there are any objections, I plan to block the user until they start communicating. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, seeing as there are no objections, I've blocked for 3 months. Either they will try communicating, or ride out the block, or get a new IP address. Time will tell. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleting ".js" subpages

Would you please delete these subpages?

• User:Mann Mann/redwarnConfig.js
• User:Mann Mann/redwarnRules.json

Because it seems Template:Db-u1 does not work on them. Mann Mann (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they've been deleted now. Primefac (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Mann Mann (talk) 13:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI, deletion tags don't display properly on these pages, but they do categorize them. 2A03:C5C0:107E:6033:B561:44BD:193:AE8 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Request closure review of RfC discussion on deprecating The Daily Wire as a source

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

---

I am not involved in this RfC, but editors have expressed a desire for administrative review of S_Marshall's closure of the RfC and in the interest of speedy process, I am writing this post on the behalf of those editors. MarshallKe (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I took a quick look; my first thought it I'd like 2 other admins to work with me on a joint close. Any takers? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Bit premature perhaps, Roy? Should really come to a consensus to overturn my close before you appoint a panel of replacements.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe "close" was the wrong word. What I meant was a panel of three people to do a review. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're eminently qualified to do that, and I'd welcome it. We really ought to have an orderly RFC review forum.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, this has taken an odd turn that I didn't expect. My original thought was that it's always good to have multiple people doing a review (like what happens at WP:DRV). I'm going to step back on this one and let somebody else handle it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You literally told people to come here if they disputed it, and now you're trying to affect the review process - David Gerard (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You did a non-admin close on a contentious RFC when an admin usually does the job, and it turned out to be disputed. Yes, the RFC needs a proper admin close - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN had a long-running and quite contentious RFC on deprecating the Daily Wire. As it came up to a month, S Marshall came in and did a non-admin close. However, a number of editors, including the editor who filed the RFC, think that the close is distinctly at odds with how deprecation RFCs have been handled in the past, and reflects neither consensus, nor the argued guidelines and policy. (Disputes like this of deprecation RFC closes basically never happen.) S Marshall suggested we ask WP:AN for an independent admin close. I suspect we might need more than one - it was quite contentious, and multiple opinions would be stronger. Are there two or three uninvolved admins who've done deprecation closes who could give their assessment of the close in RSN? - David Gerard (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard isn't this a duplicate of the above section? -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 11:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I've removed the header and converted it to an anchor for historic use. Primefac (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

My error, sorry, it is! Don't know how I failed to notice that ... - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

David, that isn't the only error you've made about this. You've also suggested that contentious RfCs should be closed by admins, and that's not the case at all. In fact I have a long history of closing this stuff, and although I've been overturned from time to time, it's usually the case that the community endorses my closes. And you've accused me of trying to affect the close review process, when all I did was agree to RoySmith's proposal. That's not just wrong, it's rather hurtful. I'm here in good faith to do my best for the community in line with the policies and procedures that we've agreed.—S Marshall T/C 11:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You're literally doing precisely that above in this very section, trying to affect an admin review of your actions. You dived into the RFC thinking you were being sincerely helpful, and ended up with a strongly contested close of a contentious RFC. I suggest you consider that your move may have been badly in error, and that proper review without you trying to interfere in the process may be appropriate - David Gerard (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess I'll say the same thing SM did so it's not just him... IMO it is a slight bit rude to plan a 3-admin panel close before there's even a determination that this close was wrong. There's nothing unusual or improper about non-admins closing discussions that don't require admin tools to implement the outcomes. Whether the closer was an admin or not is hardly pertinent to the issue at hand. Reading and reviewing a discussion takes time. It's not a good idea to start overturning closes without proper consideration; the effect will just be that non-admin editors don't wish to spend time reviewing discussions for closure, which itself is a good thing given how large WP:RFCL / WP:RM / etc backlogs can get. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• I do not believe for a moment that I'm badly in error. My position is that it's entirely in order for me to participate in this review of my actions, and it's entirely out of order for David Gerard to frame that participation as "interfering".—S Marshall T/C 13:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I, too, am 100% correct all of the time. It is so frustrating when others don't understand that, isn't it? But seriously, as someone with no dog in this fight, it does look a bit like you're trying to put your thumb on the scale. Let the other side be wrong on their own for a little bit. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Really?!—S Marshall T/C 13:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the case for overturning here? I think S Marshall did a careful and considerate job closing the discussion. By numbers alone this was not a clear consensus. Like many editors, I consider 2/3rd to be the general clear consensus when numbers are the only question. By the arguments both sides made policy based arguments and provided references for the position. It's also important to note that the discussion wasn't "Is DW reliable vs not". It was only should a source that is seen as non-reliable be further downgraded into deprecate. The close of "consensus it isn't reliable, no consensus to deprecate" was fair. Disclaimer: in the RfC I supported status quo. Springee (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

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

• User:Levivich’s close of this close review is unimpressive. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Challenge of RSN closure of RFC on Daily Wire

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

---

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Daily Wire

To satisfy the request that a close review actually challenge the close, I challenge the close of the RFC at WP:RSN on The Daily Wire. The reasoning provided in the close offers nothing resembling my reading of WP:CON, in which the rationale applies arbitrary numerical multipliers to arguments and comes up with a percentage that is then, again arbitrarily, weighed against a scale that is determined by this one user. The slightly greater weight to those who introduced new thoughts is particularly concerning, as weight of an argument depends on its fidelity to our policies, and not on how novel it is. Also, I find the above closure to be a fairly blatant failure of WP:NOTBURO, the close was clearly challenged and the challenge should have been heard without the pedantry. nableezy - 15:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closer: I think there are good reasons why a discussion closer should assign weight to !votes, and I think that in cases like this the closer does have to assess what the numerical threshold of consensus might be. I could be wrong in my weighting or in my decision about where the threshold lies, but I don't see anything wrong with my process. I should clarify that I did not find that any !votes had greater fidelity to our policies because we don't have a policy on deprecation. What we have is WP:DEPS, and it isn't even a guideline.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close I will repeat part of what I said in the post close discussion at RSN "I did not participate in this one. Having read it through, it looks like a reasonable close." A decision had to made between status quo and deprecate after a lengthy RFC of opposing views. If the only argument against the close is the math assigned to "voting", that imo is insufficient reason to overturn.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• (comment from involved editor) I agree that S Marshall's algorithm for weighing arguments is of questionable soundness (for example, the upweighting of "new thoughts"), but I think he reached the same conclusion that any other reasonable closer would have. (Also, worth mentioning that this calculus of weighing arguments was not part of his actual formal closing statement, but rather came up in a later follow-up discussion.) David Gerard repeatedly characterizes supporters of deprecation as constituting a "supermajority" or "strong majority". The actual headcount appears to be 29 to 19 (i.e. 60% in favour), which I would characterize as a fairly narrow majority. Per WP:DEFINECONSENSUS, An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus. Also, for example, the essay WP:ACD gives the following rule of thumb: As a very rough guideline, no consensus results are usually in the range of 30–70 per cent, and the closer you are to the boundaries, the more the strength of the arguments becomes relevant. The only way there could be a finding of consensus in a case like this would be if one side's arguments had a significantly stronger policy basis, which I don't see here. Colin M (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  At least in the other place where filibustering rules the day, 60% is routinely called a supermajority. nableezy - 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  It can apparently commonly range anywhere from 55% to 75% (see Supermajority § Common supermajorities). Given that it has no fixed definition, and different readers might identify it with a wide range of different thresholds (or simply interpret it as "really big majority"), its use is liable to cause confusion. Colin M (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Challenging the close. S Marshall seems to want to be helpful, and that's great; but this was not helpful. He then tried to determine how his actions would be reviewed, which compounded his evident non-optimal judgement in this case. The close should be run again with a panel of admins. If he's that confident it was the correct decision, then it'll come out the same way - David Gerard (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Surely that argument can be applied to any close. "Why don't you revert your close? If it was truly the right close, a panel will come along and close it exactly the same way." Obviously there needs to be a certain finality to closes, unless they are clearly an incorrect reading due to a substantive reason, otherwise any unsatisfied editor could request discussions be reclosed for no real reason, and then closers would be unwilling to spend their time closing discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  I don't understand why this discussion needs either a panel, there was a large number of participants but not so many that it couldn't be fairly assessed by a single close, or an admin close, RfCs of this type are regularly closed by experienced editors who may or may not be sysops. While much larger RfCs of this type can be closed by panels - i.e. Fox News - this doesn't seem to be of that type and S Marshall is one of the most frequent closers of RfCs so he seems qualified to enact a close of this type. That isn't to say he got this perfect, my assessment follows that of Wugapodes below, but I think we need to be cautious about where we require panels and/or admin closers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse close. I'm not thrilled with the summary of how the !votes were weighed. I just don't think it makes a ton of sense to weigh new ideas more heavily then old ones for example. But yes, the argument to depreciate just wasn't strong. Most of the arguments were focused on if the DW was reilable. And what it seemed to mostly conclude is that it is hugely biased in its selection of what to cover, but wasn't wrong on the facts too often. Not reliable, but not something we need to say no to across the board. Hobit (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Given a brief read of the close and discussion, it looks like a no consensus result which would default to the source keeping its "generally unreliable" classification. The minority opposed to deprecation is substantial and well reasoned, relying on how reliable sources characterize the Daily Wire and their practice of publishing corrections and retractions. That's legitimate cause to not deprecate, and the supporters aren't so numerous that it shows the opposition can be ignored and overruled. While I don't agree with SMarshall's method of bean counting, I don't see any way that I could read that discussion and find consensus to deprecate. The number stuff isn't in the actual close so I don't see any reason to overturn it in favor of someone else's. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close - disclaimer, I participated and argued against deprecation. This looked like a good close in my view. Both sides pointed to RSs to support their claims and both sides made valid claims with regards to the general reliability of the source. As mentioned above there isn't a clear standard as to when to deprecate (this is perhaps a big part of the issue here). Regardless, based only on arguments there isn't a consensus since both sides have made a reasonable case as to how reliable/not reliable the DW is. By the numbers we are right around 60% in favor of deprecation with 19 oppose and either 27 or 29 depending on how we count two of the editors who were not explicit. Additionally, since closing we have I think 2 editors who have said they would have opposed deprecation. I don't read that as a sufficient difference in numbers to call it consensus based on numbers alone. Thus we have neither a clear consensus based on numbers nor reasoning. Any specific extra weighting S Marshall applies doesn't appear to have changed the outcome and such weighting isn't without precedent. How many of us would give equal weight to a brand new IP editor saying, "Support!" vs a seasoned editor with a good reputation who offers some level of explanation? If anything this discussion should perhaps point to the need to better define how and when deprecation should be used so when this sort of thing comes up in the future we can argue for/against based on a specific list of criteria. Springee (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: TFD !voted twice (#1 on 29 September, #2 on 5 October) in the RfC. It would help to know if S Marshall factored this in. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks: You're right and I didn't spot it. I ought to have done, and if users here want to overturn my close on that basis then I could not reasonably object. Revising my assessment to take that into account makes the discussion a very close call indeed -- I think that if I subtract TFD's second !vote, then "consensus to deprecate" or "no consensus" would both have been within closer's discretion. I would not criticise a closer who went for either one. I personally would still have gone for "no consensus" on the basis that where there's discretion, I tend to prefer the outcome that's least restrictive. In the circumstances it's right for me to ping endorsing users Selfstudier, Wugapodes, Barkeep49, Springee and Colin M in case they want to re-consider their endorsements.—S Marshall T/C 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for responding S Marshall. Courtesy ping for Springee, as I'm fairly sure a new line addition is a requirement for pings to work. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thank for the ping. I wouldn't change my endorsement. Depending on how we count, by numbers alone it's 29:18 (62%) but that is assuming two of the less than clear !votes are for deprecate. If we remove those then we have 27:18 (60%). If we add the two editors who didn't respond to the initial RfC but voiced their objections after the fact we have either 29:20 (59%) or 27:20 (57%). Taking away one "no" !vote shifts a few percentage in the direction of deprecation but it doesn't change the quality of the arguments presented by either side. By pure numbers alone I still don't see this as anything but a no-consensus or a case where we need to use strength of argument would be needed to tip the balance. I think most people here feel the strength of argument is no-consensus as well. Springee (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Overturn I believe the closer had a good faith reason to think that the community had not come to a rough consensus regarding deprecation, but I think it's pretty clear from the arguments in the RfC that a consensus had been achieved to deprecate the source. We don't need unanimity, and I think a proper closure following a thorough evaluation of the arguments being made would end with the same conclusion. Specifically, I believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion. To be clear, I did !vote in this discussion, so I am not uninvolved. AlexEng^(TALK) 19:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• I concur that this feels like a close call to me. There is a variety of arguments with some unsettled disagreement on many, the deprecate side has a slight numerical advantage but I'd be hesitant in seeing a consensus to deprecate here. I think that spelling out that this RfC does not imply that this source is fine to use is reasonable. Nobody is complaining about obvious supervotes or involved closes or anything and I don't see any obvious indication, either. So endorse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse the close that I paraphrase as “No consensus to relabel from Generally unreliable to Deprecated”.

"Generally unreliable" could mean "unreliable for anything of any interest worth a citation", i.e. can be read as an extremely strong condemnation already.

The meaning of “deprecated” was questioned. Does it mean “always unreliable” and worthy of blacklisting?

A good way forward is to write a follow up RFC with a better question. Use at least three people to agree on the RfC question. Wait at least two months before launching the new RfC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse I am neither involved, nor would likely use this source for anything, but the close is reasonable in light of that discussion. We certainly do not need a bureaucracy to close such things by a 'closing commission', nor limit such closes to only those with sysop permissions: the close is reasonable in and of itself, without regard to 'who' bureaucracy (see, NOBURO). And whether or not weighting to come up with a new percentage is a fools errand, here it seems sub nominally a good faith attempt to comply with NOTAVOTE. In the end, all the close did was keep to prior consensus on the matter, and that consensus was not overturned, there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn. There is a fact that the closer didn't seem to factor in when they made their tally. Many of those who opposed deprecation argued that all RS make corrections as soon as they are known and can be published. Those who used that argument should have been discounted as using faulty reasoning. In the various discussions leading up to this RfC about the reliability of TDW, evidence from professional and academic sources was presented by participants. Those sources exposed fatal flaws in TDW's coverage of certain types of politically-charged facts, and that documentation didn't seem to factor into the tallying decision. So that's two major facts that were not factored into the tallying.

There is a big difference between what RS do when they make a correction and what TDW does. TDW has a de facto position of denying the scientific consensus on climate change (and several other topics) because that is their position, and they will always shade their wording to deny or undermine that consensus. They are thus ALWAYS an unreliable source for that topic, as well as some others where their bias is so strong that they deny or undermine facts. This is what happens when sources are extremely biased; their bias gets in the way of accurately reporting the facts. They do not believe the facts.

TDW's track record reveals that lack of fact-checking isn't the real problem, but deliberate opposition to the facts is the problem, and then they dare to write their misleading opinions as facts. Later corrections, always because they've been called out, are just smoke and mirrors as they will do it again. They don't learn from that experience because learning the facts and then applying them to their editorial decisions is not their modus operandi. They believe and push disinformation, usually in harmony with Trump's positions. -- Valjean (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse. I don't think that Buffs' defence of TDW as partisan but not careless of truth was adequately addressed by many on the pro-deprecate side, and the discussion could be regarded as ongoing after 30 days. We really need to get the deprecate case right before changing RS/P, so closing as 'no consensus' can be seen as asking for the pro-deprecate side to get someone to put together the case for deprecation properly this time, which seems like the right step to me. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close (!voted to upgrade). This appears to be yet another layer upon layers of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Recent 100% in favor of upgrading the RfC, contesting the closure after the RfC, contesting the closure on WP:AN, contesting the upholding of closure on WP:AN, attempts to block me from editing via WP:ANEW, etc. Valjean's comments are indicative of the attitude of those looking to shut it down. "They support Trump therefore they are liars!" and the like are nothing more than an attempt to poison the well. Remarks on the article's talk page are now getting unreasonable, personal, and profane. Buffs (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Weak endorse. I did not find either side to have clearly better arguments, so it's down to the numbers, which can range anywhere from the mid 50s to lower 60s depending on how you handle the ambiguous cases. I think a case could be made either way, and so will defer to the actual decision as a valid exercise of closer's discretion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Overturn - The closer's argument that "we don't have a policy on deprecation; what we have is WP:DEPS, and it isn't even a guideline" is made moot by the fact that WP:RSP, which is in practice the 'policy' of whether or not we can use a source, lists 44 out of 365 sources as 'deprecated'. That is 12% or roughly 1/8th of the list — demonstrating that by consensus and in practice we do have a policy on deprecation. I posit that the closer's viewpoint on deprecation was a barrier to a correct evaluation of the !votes and the arguments/reasonings posted. The full quote: "I should clarify that I did not find that any !votes had greater fidelity to our policies because we don't have a policy on deprecation. What we have is WP:DEPS, and it isn't even a guideline." By that explanation/logic, he would have classified !votes for deprecation as 'virtual nothings', something no more than a person's individual opinion.

Just yesterday, a report came out on the top 10 fringe publishers that fuel 69% of digital climate change denial. [4] [5] The Daily Wire is on that list of "The Toxic Ten". Comparing our WP:RSP to the Toxic Ten report: three we have deprecated (Breitbart, Newsmax, RT), three are marked generally unreliable (The Western Journal, Media Research Center, The Daily Wire), two marginally reliable (Townhall, Washington Times), and two not mentioned in RSP (The Federalist Papers, The Patriot Post). Not a single one of those ten have we listed as generally reliable. So RSP is not too far off of those that are conducting research on these publishers. The report goes on to mention Daily Wire "has published many misleading and false claims, on topics ranging from Covid to immigration ... publishes misleading climate content ... [and] reject[s] scientific consensus on climate change". That barely reaches generally unreliable — the key word here being "generally".

Multiple other reliable sources have consistently listed Daily Wire as misleading for years (for at least the last 4 of it's only 6 years in business), and continuing as recently as yesterday, denoting no improvement of DW's editorial oversight in the direction of truthfulness. This was brought up repeatedly in the RfC. It is beyond me how that could have been missed or granted low value or low importance when the issue being considered was 'level of reliability'. At what point do we as a community of editors start to listen to our own 'recognized reliable sources'? I !vote to overturn the close. (Disclosure: I !voted in the RfC to deprecate.) Platonk (talk) 07:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't have a policy on deprecation. There does exist a concept called deprecation which has community support, and is defined within the closing summary of WP:DAILYMAIL1 and WP:DAILYMAIL2, but that's all there is. When someone says "there is no policy on deprecation" they aren't passing a personal viewpoint on deprecation, they're simply stating the fact that there is no page tagged with {{policy}} that details what deprecation is (such as what factors cause a source to be deprecated, what kinds of evidence is good evidence for a deprecation RfC [i.e. a checklist like WP:WIAN], whether publishing garbage opinions calls for deprecation, or how exactly deprecation should be implemented). The effect is that votes in a deprecation RfC can't really be weighted in line with any PAG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader, you're right that it's not a policy (WP:RS/P is essay-class) but WP:DAILYMAIL1 closing summary did not define deprecation or say Daily Mail is deprecated. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

An issue that is at play around "deprecation" is that the use some editors treat it as (effectively, "a total ban") is different from where its taken from its meaning in computing ("no longer supported, should be replaced in time"). (I did participate in the Daily Wire discussion and believe that what "deprecation" meant over "generally unreliable" was a factor of confusion). Perhaps a better solution is to make sure there's a consensus-agreed upon meaning of deprecation as applies to RS/P (this would also address issues when some editors have in haste rushed through to remove sources that have been deprecated without necessarily good cleanup after removal which have been brought to ANI w/o action in the past), and then if that justifies it, redo the Daily Wire RFC. I would offer that, if this discussion should happen, there should be talk related to RSOPINION factors related to sources that are otherwise "generally unreliable" or considered "deprecated", and that there may need to be a fifth status separate from deprecation, that being "disallowed" (applying to Daily Mail for certain) where even RSOPINION would not apply. --Masem (t) 16:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, the closer (S Marshall) is correct when he declares we don't have an actual "policy" on deprecation, but that declaration begs the question of why he said it. Was it to diss the idea of requesting deprecation as somehow illegitimate, unworthy of consideration, or less due weight in an RfC? I don't know, and I'll AGF, but that seems to be the effect. A request for deprecation is just as legitimate as any other request, and protecting Wikipedia and our readers should weigh heaviest in our considerations. Mistakenly deprecating a source has fewer unintended consequences than failing to deprecate a source that should be deprecated because an improper deprecation can easily be overturned. An analogy is mistakenly preventing a child from eating a gummy candy that is erroneously suspected of being a cannabis edible. That decision has fewer unintended consequences than failing to prevent them from eating it if it actually is infused with hallucinogens. Children shouldn't be getting high. We should err on the side of caution, so we should weigh those considerations higher in a close situation, and in this one there is a clear majority, even if not quite "super", in favor of deprecation.

What we have is WP:Deprecated sources, an informational page, not an essay, so don't diss it. It informs how we apply policies and guidelines, so it carries the weight of policies and guidelines. We do have a practice of deprecating sources, especially those which repeatedly fail fact-checking and continue to push disinformation and misleading content because their real positions are counterfactual, agenda-driven and not just sloppy internal fact-checking. That fact is unquestioned. That is its history, repeatedly pointed out by fact-checkers. That's the way TDW works. Its basic counterfactual beliefs and political agenda in several areas make it resistant to improvement. Year after year it makes the same "mistakes" because those are not "mistakes" but deliberate pushing of its erroneous beliefs.

We have already deprecated several other fringe sources in the Toxic Ten[6][7][8][9][10][11] that are close allies of TDW and push the same types of fringe misinformation. (They should all be considered for deprecation.) TDW is in that list because it has the same fringe agenda and is guilty of the same types of fringe "misinformation crimes", so it is time to put TDW in the same category here as the other dubious sources that RS group together as fringe unreliable sources of misinformation. -- Valjean (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

First, both your comments are re-arguing the RFC instead of focusing on the close. Second, in my view you're approaching bludgeoning territory. Third, some of your points are just obviously wrong. that declaration begs the question of why he said it He answered that question already: because there is no deprecation policy, there is no basis for discounting votes as not based on the deprecation policy. What we have is WP:Deprecated sources, an informational page, not an essay, so don't diss it. It informs how we apply policies and guidelines, so it carries the weight of policies and guidelines. Literally at the very top of that page, offset in a box, it says it's not a policy or guideline. It doesn't carry the weight of either because it hasn't been thoroughly vetted by the community. WP:INFOPAGES: In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, and can reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting., and that is per the global consensus of a guideline. Levivich 16:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse close. The conclusion reached by the closer can be summarized where they stated "The community does not reach consensus to deprecate the Daily Wire". Regardless of the rest of the closure statement, or any other rationale, that seems a reasonable conclusion to draw given both the number of comments on each side, AND on the arguments made by both sides. At this point, there is nothing to be gained by re-opening the discussion over some inconsequential minutiae, as nearly any other person closing it would likely have also reached the conclusion that no consensus could be reached; in such cases status quo ante bellum is reasonable, which is what the closer declared. The rest of this is sour grapes by people who argued for one specific outcome. Many of the arguments to overturn are relitigating the original argument, which is NOT what this discussion is supposed to be about. The close was a reasonable interpretation of the overall discussion. --Jayron32 16:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse. I was involved, but I !voted for deprecation and am disappointed in the result. That said, I think S Marshall's close was a reasonable summation of the discussion. NC closes when the weighted !vote count is about 60/40 are reasonable. I do hope to see S Marshall accept some rough consensus here from both involved and uninvolved editors that his over-weighting of "new thoughts" is ill-advised. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The practical effect of upweighting all the "new thoughts and new sources" is to (slightly) downweight all the per-noms. My intention, in doing this, is to give (slightly) higher weight those who engage in evidence-based discussion and move the conversation forward instead of merely repeating things that have already been said, and the policy basis for this is that Wikipedian discussions aren't !votes. Nobody in the discussion above has brought any actual reasons to disapprove of this practice.—S Marshall T/C 16:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • That practice lacks nuance. If the editor clearly seems to show no understanding of the issue, perhaps by voting per a vote that other editors have substantively argued is flawed, I'd find it dubious. Otherwise, it can just be a case of agreement, noting that someone said it better, and realising that writing paragraphs repeating the same points in different words just makes the discussion harder to read. Theoretically the former should receive less weight and the latter should receive equal weight, IMO, although obviously it can hard to determine which one it is, and impossible to say with any certainty. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • It's definitely easier in a discussion where I have any policy basis on which to upweight or downweight !votes.—S Marshall T/C 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, closing deprecation discussions can be difficult for that reason (also why I haven't really opined here). As I've said before, I do think we need a PAG for deprecation; both to guide deprecation RfCs, provide for vote weighting, and suggest what kinds of evidence is good evidence for deprecation, and also to guide the actual implementation of deprecation. I think we could write one if some of the editors most interested in deprecation were on board with the idea. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
          • I fully agree. While the current informational page at WP:Deprecated sources explains when and how we apply other PAG for that purpose, folding it into a real policy page would be even better. -- Valjean (talk) 00:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Nobody in the discussion above has brought any actual reasons to disapprove of this practice. The reason not to give new arguments more weight is because new arguments aren't necessarily better arguments. Imagine a hypothetical discussion with 50 participants. The first "support" !vote from Editor #1 gives "Argument A". Editor #2 supports but with a new Argument B, and Editor #3 supports per Argument C. Then 47 editors, persuaded by Argument A, each write "per Editor 1". There is no reason to weigh Editor 2 and Editor 3's !votes more than anyone else. If anything, Argument B and Argument C are worse, not better, than Argument A, as evidenced by 48 editors agreeing with A but only 1 with B and 1 with C. So if anything, Editor 2 and 3's !votes should be given less weight, not more. If it's not a vote, if it's about the strength of arguments, then Argument A and it's 48 votes are stronger than B or C, according to the consensus of the 50 editors participating. (And of course if Argument A was not policy based, then all 48 votes supporting it should be discounted.) Levivich 17:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm struggling to make sense of this. Could you say it another way?—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
        • See User:Wugapodes/RFA trend lines for a related discussion. Broadly, the order in which comments are posted is not a reliable indicator of any (change in an) underlying consensus. At best the order can help use evaluate a preexisting belief that consensus changed during a discussion, but in general mechanistic evaluations of comment order are not useful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - no consensus to deprecate seems like a reasonable result of the discussion, I don't see a strong consensus having formed anywhere. This reopening here strongly smells of attempts to relitigate the discussion, and also seems to be politically motivated to some extent. Hog Farm _Talk 16:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I would like to defend both nominators, David Gerard and Nableezy, against any charge of being politically motivated. I am quite confident that they aren't. I don't just assume good faith, I believe on the basis of reading their words that their motivation is to purge the encyclopaedia of unreliable sources. Per consensus this source is unreliable and on a personal level, I have a lot of sympathy for their case --- even though I'm still not exactly thrilled to have been told that I'm "interfering" with an "administrative review" of my conduct. I hope that a positive outcome from this matter will be a discussion in which the community produces a set of agreed standards for deprecation that could inform future decisions of this type.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I honestly dont really care at all about The Daily Caller or whether or not it is deprecated, just the reasoning for the close seemed very off to me. I barely ever edit in that topic area anyway. As far as re-litigate, you notice I didnt even participate in that discussion? I didnt care enough to vote about it, but I would want to re-litigate it? I disagreed with the reasoning offered, and disagreed with the pedantic close of the initial challenge even more, so I challenged the close. I thought administrators here were supposed to be held to a high standard as far as following policy. nableezy - 17:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO is policy. --Jayron32 17:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Which is why the original challenge should have stayed open? Or do you mean some sort of failing in my challenge here? The line above about sour grapes is likewise a blatant failure of AGF. Nowhere in my challenge did I attempt to relitigate the topic on if this source should be deprecated. I challenged the close because of the reasoning of the close. I do think there was consensus one way, and I think the way votes were weighted failed our CON policy. So here I am. nableezy - 17:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean anything about your comments, Nableezy. By the political references, I meant to refer to comments in the above discussion such as They believe and push disinformation, usually in harmony with Trump's positions Hog Farm _Talk 17:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I'm going to AGF and take what you wrote above as a misunderstanding, not what could appear to be an assumption of bad faith against me. I do not think you intended that, so I'll just write a clarification here. You wrote "seems to be politically motivated to some extent." That's exactly backwards. We do not deprecate sources because of their political positions, but because they are unreliable, and if those sources happen to have a particular political slant, so be it. I was just mentioning en passant a simple fact. All of those Toxic Ten sources, which includes TDW, are strong, often extreme, fringe right-wing sources that push misinformation that is "in harmony with Trump's positions", which RS and our articles here describe as misinformation and conspiracy theories. We even have a whole article which describes the lack of Veracity of statements by Donald Trump. That's a simple fact, and stating it does not imply any form of improper "political motivation" on my part. I just happen to believe RS and the content in our articles. I trust you would see that as a good and wikipedian thing to do. There was no reason to personalize the matter by commenting on it and quoting me. Just AGF. -- Valjean (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that wasn't my best comment. I still think it's best not to throw Trump in there. While I agree that there's a lot of very poor right wing sources out there, I still don't think it's great to throw in the Trump name. (For one thing, it sure seems like most politicians lie to an alarming degree, not just that one in specific). Speaking as one of the few open conservatives I'm aware of active here, it just feels unnecessary to say "these sources peddle junk, and they agree with Trump basically, when "these sources peddle junk" would be enough. I didn't properly assume good faith, but I think it would be best not to invoke the name of controversial politic figures in the future, when simply presenting the various evidence has just as effective of a point. I'm concerned that personalizing things like that just alienates those on the other end of the political spectrum. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, it's all cool. I didn't intend to trigger any reaction, and I apologize for any unintended consequences of mentioning "the former guy" (TFG). The relevance of the connection between TFG and the sources that back him isn't always apparent, nor is it always necessary to point it out. -- Valjean (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, but Im the one who reopened it here, so when you say the reopening here ... I take that to mean me. Id just as soon ban every user who participated in a discussion from commenting on its closure review. nableezy - 17:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. I think there'd be some benefit in working something out to making the deprecate guidelines a bit clearer, such as maybe a community-worked out general area where "should not be used" becomes "deprecate". From my experience, it's not well coded out, and I think RSN discussions would be better off with a more universal and consistent idea of what deprecation meant. Hog Farm _Talk 17:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse Close per Wugapodes and others. Leaving aside the offline "algorithm" that was apparently used to weigh !votes, the close looks like a fair and well-reasoned summary of the discussion, and I don't see that anyone could have really seen a consensus to deprecate beyond the cautionary language already in effect. I also disagree with SMarshall's suggestion of a more robust depreciation policy. The process we already have is working well enough without bringing confusing WP:CREEP into it which would interfere with common sense case-by-case assessment.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I would argue that deprecation is being sought/used by some individuals to advance an agenda. I think deprecation should have a much higher bar to clear and clearer guidance could assist in that. Buffs (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
    • One of our agendas at Wikipedia aims to prevent the misuse of Wikipedia as a platform for the advocacy of fringe opinions from unreliable sources. Unfortunately, the TDW article, like many fringe articles, is being used to advance a fringe agenda, and efforts to stop that abuse are being opposed. Those efforts expose and reinforce the need for deprecation, and certainly not your complete removal, without any discussion, from RS/P we saw before this RfC. That removal was the trigger for the RfC because it exposed a need for an increase of status from "generally unreliable" to "deprecated". Attempts to defend and promote fringe opinions should stop. The article should not be allowed to become the desired platform for pushing fringe opinions, especially in an unduly self-serving manner. Mainstream RS are united in their criticism of TDW, so that is the NPOView which due weight tells us should dominate the article. That will offend believers in those fringe POV, but that is none of our concern. We do not pander to them. Our loyalty is to how RS treat TDW. Articles that deal with fringe content, and TDW is one of them, must follow our PAG for fringe content. -- Valjean (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
      • WP should not have any agendas, that's a basic failing of NPOV. We do want to make sure we do not misrepresent what are mainstream views or readily-accepted scientific theories under NPOV, and to that end we do not need to give fringe views any type of credibility in WP's voice (particularly when it comes to medical information), but that's not an agenda, that's just policy. That problem with considering an agenda against fringe science makes it difficult to discuss these encyclopedic factor around those points, an issue raised in a concurrent (and apparently unrelated to this TDW issue) at WP:VPP#Fringe, Anti-fringe, and Turning Wikipedia's Values Upside-down.
      • Relevant to this discussion and the RFC, this doesn't mean that WP cannot talk around fringe views, their history and origins, and why those that believe in them do so, as long as we avoid a false balance, avoid unduly self-serving or promoting material related to the fringe view, and make sure any claims remains well out of Wikivoice. There are interesting social aspects on how these fringes theories are developed and maintained even if they are broadly considered wrong (eg the big one right now of interest is the critical race theory after US elections on Tuesday to understand how it caught on so fast). And this is where even a source like the Daily Wire, which may report more from that side of the aisle, is actually useful to fill in any gaps related to these types of theories that may exist in mainstream coverage, again being careful on false balance. Unlike the Daily Mail or state media like RT where the actual truthfulness of what they report is in question, works like the Daily Wire may report with their bias but as shown during the RFC, they still have journalistic practices that avoid actually falsification in reporting and editorial oversight/redactions. Considering that was the line drawn when the Daily Mail was "deprecated" (marked that way on RS/P), that's why this all comes back to having a separate discussion on defining what "deprecation" actually should be (ban or the computer terminology version), if that's separate from "generally unreliable", establishing that as PAG, and then reconsidering TDW within that scheme, keeping in mind that bias does not necessarily equate to unreliability. --Masem (t) 20:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
        • On any topic (such as your example of critical race theory) the mainstream centrist media agencies will cover both sides. There is no need to use biased sources in order to 'balance NPOV' in a Wikipedia article. Biased sources are not forbidden, but they are also not encouraged, and if the biased sources are not declared "unreliable sources" (or worse), then we can use them. However, there is never any reason to use a biased "generally unreliable" source in order to 'balance NPOV'. The use which you are hinting at smacks of using biased sources to do primary research which would result in original research. And your opinion that DW has "journalistic practices that avoid actually falsification in reporting", then you haven't read much of the published criticism about said journalistic practices. I have learned much in the last week. Your turn. Platonk (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Let me be clear, our agendas at Wikipedia should be to follow our PAG. Those who misuse Wikipedia to advocate fringe opinions from unreliable sources have other agendas which are at odds with our PAG. That's all I was saying. -- Valjean (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
          • The problem is that you are misusing WP rules to advance your agenda and you aren't just doing it here. By terming TDW as "fringe" without evidence, you are attempting to poison the well. TDW posts largely mainstream conservative opinions. Stating "The establishment media's deep desire to keep people from clicking on stories they want to read, and to re-establish their traditional informational monopoly -- now an effort funded by US taxpayer dollars via NPR -- is truly authoritarian garbage." is a statement of opinion and it's hardly outside the mainstream conservative thought. You can point to errors or bias as to whether or not TDW is a WP:RS for purposes of WP (and we can disagree on that), but that doesn't make it "fringe". You're (badly) conflating the two. Most of the "it's misleading" comments don't actually address the accuracy of the statements made, but instead say "it isn't balanced". By the same token, the sources you've cited are mostly leftist/left-leaning and aren't balanced. They are focusing exclusively on the inaccuracies (which is what TDW is doing too). By that flawed logic, they are just as credible. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
            • Please FOC, not on me. It's tiring. We are justified in calling The Daily Wire a "fringe source" because RS do so. Extreme left- and right-wing sources are fringe. TDW is listed among the Toxic Ten, and all ten are called "fringe publishers" that together were responsible "for nearly 70% of user interactions with content that denies climate change on Facebook". "Mainstream conservative", back when I and literally everyone I knew were conservatives, used to mean just slightly right of center, and overlapping center, but no longer. Now, with few exceptions, it means far-right and extreme far-right, IOW often fringe. That doesn't mean there aren't any conservative, right-wing, sources that are considered RS and which we use. There are, but TDW isn't among them. All of the Toxic Ten are very fringe, and several are deprecated here for good reason. None of them should be used, with the exception of "about self" situations, and then not in a "self-serving" manner or for advocacy of their fringe positions. We can only use them to document their opinions neutrally in their own biography articles, and their use in RS is what tells us what due weight to assign them. -- Valjean (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Endorse close. I'm not a fan of the formula used to justify the close, but in the end I think a no-consensus close was reasonable here. It might be time to close this discussion as well. -- Calidum 17:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. Thank you. Buffs (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

References

• Comment: Section reflist added. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

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

RfA 2021 Phase 2

Following a discussion with over 100 editors, 8 issues were identified with Requests for Adminship (RfA). Phase 2 has begun and will use the following timeline:

• 10/24: Editors may submit proposals for changing/modifying RfA
• 10/31: The 30 day discussion period has begun (where we are)
• 11/7: Deadline for submitting proposals to give the community adequate time to discuss any proposals
• 11/30: 30 day discussion period ends

All interested editors are invited to participate in Phase 2. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:PERM#Rollback backlog

Please any admin would sort out the request pendings. It would be better because some are continuously requesting other admin's talk page about consideration of request, regardless of their patience. --Jyoti Roy (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

It is backlogged for around 4 or 5 days till now.--Jyoti Roy (talk) 12:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Administrator changes

Clpo13

Brian0918 • JDoorjam • Karanacs • MrDarcy • Mindspillage

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Dreamy Jazz • Ferret • GeneralNotability • Girth Summit • RoySmith

Oversight changes

Dreamy Jazz • LuK3

Guideline and policy news

• Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

• Toolhub is a catalogue of tools which can be used on Wikimedia wikis. It is at https://toolhub.wikimedia.org/.

Arbitration

• GeneralNotability, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. Ivanvector and John M Wolfson are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves to stand in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections from 07 November 2021 until 16 November 2021.

Miscellaneous

• The 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of five new CheckUsers and two new Oversighters.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Being able to create an article on a subject that was locked by an admin 9 years ago?

Hello, and I hope I am in the right place with this question. I recently saw some news coverage about the news resource Benzinga [12] and I thought that I could make an article out of it. However, I noticed that some silly people ran amok 9 years ago and wound up getting the subject locked indefinitely by an admin [13]. I would ask the admin who locked the subject for help, but he has been absent from Wikipedia from more than a year, and I wondered if I could get this unlocked so I can add a new article that meets Wikipedia's standards. Thank you. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you create in draft using the WP:AFC process. GiantSnowman 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much. I will do that right now. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion request

Hello. Could somebody please delete User:Tol/Template/TolBot tasks/tasks.json under speedy deletion criterion U1? I'm coming here because I've used Twinkle to tag it twice, but (because it's a JSON page) the tag was placed on the talk page (with a note to delete the content page), and both times, only the talk page was deleted, despite my note to please delete the JSON page (the second time, I even made it large, red, and bold). Thanks. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Tol:  Done clpo13_(talk) 20:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Please create a 𒁹𒀭𒌍𒋾𒀀𒅆 redirect to Sîn-lēqi-unninni

𒁹𒀭𒌍𒋾𒀀𒅆 deserves a redirect to Sîn-lēqi-unninni just like Ὅμηρος. LoveToLondon (talk) 22:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Finally, someone will solve my problem of accidentally searching things in cuneiform...--Ermenrich (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Mm, I know redirects are cheap and all, but the characters in this proposed redirect are so obscure that they are disallowed by the title blacklist. I don't really see a compelling need to give a special exemption for this relatively obscure topic. Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

"Relatively obscure topic"? Let's not be so anti-Sumeric. Levivich 01:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The real value in +sysop: making all those Linear A redirects I've been wanting to add. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You Cretan! Levivich 16:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

You Cretan! Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This thread made me LOL, and therefore my day. Thank you.UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Given this site's predisposition towards nerdiness, I'm somewhat surprised we don't have redirects in Cirth Hog Farm _Talk 16:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Where do I go to declare myself 𒈗 of Wikipedia? Dumuzid (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RENAME Levivich 16:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd do it but can't determine whether this is indeed the correct way to write this name. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean considering I don't even know what it says because they aren't rendering, you're already further than me in that determination -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 17:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done The cuneiform is correct and verifiable. The article cites the spelling to the open richly annotated cuneiform corpus at UPenn. The entry in that corpus corresponds to the cuneiform of this redirect. If anyone would like to verify this, Prof. Kateřina Šašková of University of West Bophemia provides a glossary of cuneiform signs which you can cross-reference with the ORACC entry. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the concern was whether the redirect was accurate, but rather if it's really necessary to have a redirect that is in a script that only a handful of people in the world would be able to recognise, let alone read. But hey, what's done is done, I suppose if anyone has issue they can take it to the usual places. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

My concern was the accuracy, as I couldn't figure out the ORACCle. It is a typical case of a probably useless but definitely harmless redirect, so why not create it... —Kusma (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The title blacklist entry that blocked this creation was justified as "very few characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane are useful in titles". The usefulness of redirects is best determined at RFD not at AN, so the standard I had for creation was similar to AFC: would it stand a good chance of surviving a deletion discussion. The OP gave an example of another famous editor of the ancient canon, Ὅμηρος. At a more general level, WP:RFOREIGN says that non-English redirects are appropriate when the redirected title is an official name of the subject, and the cuneiform is quite literally how the subject wrote his own name in his edition of The Epic of Gilgamesh. As for usefulness, if it's useful for a only a handful of readers it's still useful, and that someone requested its creation suggests that someone noticed the omission. I can anticipate some counterarguments given my experience at RfD, but compared to RFOREIGN I don't anticipate them resulting in a consensus to delete. Given that the redirect was correct and (in my estimation) likely to survive a deletion discussion, I created. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Due process — Request to close "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive338#E-960 TBAN — Request for the lifting of sanctions" discussion properly (archived without formal closure)

I'd like to ask the administrators to close out my "TBAN Request for the lifting of sanctions" filing, it was archived the other day without the due process. At this point, it can be formally closed as there was sufficient input from other users over the past 4 weeks to draw a conclusion. The original discussion, which was not closed but simply archived is linked here: [14] --E-960 (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I've only had a quick skim of the arguments made at the linked discussion, but it does look like there's some measure of consensus to lift the TBAN. I'm totally fine with someone else stepping in and formally doing something about this, but if not I'll take a deeper look tonight and use this discussion as the "formal close" of the archived threads. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done; there is a reasonable consensus at the linked discussion to indicate that "one last chance" should be offered to E-960. I will be lifting the RESTRICTION shortly. Thank you for your patience. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Help needed with creating categories

Can someone please help with category creation at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories? 46.116.237.145 (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

On recommendation of the Electoral Commission, temporary English Wikipedia checkuser privileges are granted to stewards Sotiale, Martin Urbanec, and Tks4Fish solely for the purpose of their acting as scrutineers in the 2021 Arbitration Committee election.

For the Arbitration Committee, Maxim_(talk) 17:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Temporary checkuser privileges for scrutineers

battleground IP

88.230.173.190 (talk · contribs), 88.230.176.200 (talk · contribs), 88.230.169.26 (talk · contribs)

• Battleground focused IP making personal attacks against me in their talk page [15]
• Following me around and casting same racial and ethnic rants against me [16], when I tried to inform an admin [17].

Range block may be needed if an admin is willing to help. Thanks in advance, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh and btw, I've never been to the US IP, not sure how you're so strong in your assumptions. But then again, judging by your comments, most if not all of it doesn't make sense regardless, and you're clearly not fit to edit on Wikipedia if these are your comments/aspersions towards an editor you just met, or towards anyone else for that matter. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

JohnWiki159

User:JohnWiki159 (JohnWiki159 (talk · contribs)) edits seems nonconstructive. Admin intervention is required since she/he ignores warning and the user could triger edit war. --AntanO 16:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It takes (at least) two to edit war. I see a content dispute that needs to be settled on the article talk page. - Donald Albury 22:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The user seems not interested in discussion than force edit / edit war. --AntanO 01:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Amir Noor Muhammad edit war

User:Amir Noor Muhammad (Amir Noor Muhammad (talk · contribs)) edits at the article for Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) seem disruptive, as he keeps deleting sections about the political party's controversies (such as PAS supporting the Taliban). Admin intervention is required since he keeps ignoring others' warnings and he has an edit war with User:Francabicon (Francabicon (talk · contribs)).

PulauKakatua19 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@PulauKakatua19: you MUST notify individuals if you are raising a concern about them at ANI. I have done so for Amir, but you should do so for Francabicon Nosebagbear (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I'll admit that i didn't speak to Amir regarding this matter and so i did just now. However I will also let you know that Amir hasn't been respond user to any of the talks in pages or on the user talk pages. I've also stated in my edit that Amir is free to speak to me anytime in many of my edit comments and not just simply removed it without stating why. Guess what Amir not just ignores my comment on editing Amir personally went to 2 of the pages (UMNO and Bersatu) and rally people to prevent me from editing which is really toxic. Also Amir has not just removed my edit but the other peoples contribution which i do not think it is fair for Amir to do so. Not getting stereotypical but i have reasonable evidence to accuse him of Ignorant BIAS views for his edits. By the way he has also changed his user name once for his edit after being called out by one of the users for speedy removal of one page. Francabicon (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC).

• This seems to be an example of how these two users communicate to each other.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• I see lots of back and forth reverting at United Malays National Organisation but no discussion at the talk page. Both users look new. I'd suggest going back to last stable version and warning against edit warring. Maybe protecting the article might encourage them to use the talk page too.VR _talk 13:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vice regent: yes I'm new but i do state the facts in our page with reasonable evidence but [[User:Amir Noor Muhammad]] hasn't got any explanation other than "it's not related" or "not party issue" which doesn't explain much of his removal.Francabicon (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC

@Francabicon: I went through the content you are insistent on adding on these pages, and as they were, I think I would have reverted/reorganised/rewrite most of them, if not all, as well. I prefer to minimise/integrate/remove Controversy sections where possible. (See Wikipedia:Criticism). I am more inclined towards Amir Noor Muhammad's reasoning 'personal not on party lines' for because at least as an outsider of Malaysia and her politics, Malaysian politicians are generally seemed more independent of the political parties they belong to given that they can hop between parties without the risk of losing their elected offices, and also all the spilts out from within the parties that we had seen publicly so far, also with no detriment to their elected offices. That's unless that if their actions had an outsized influence or impact on the party's general direction. 3. Some expansion of existing content isn't really warranted, i.e. 1MDB on UMNO's page, given that there is already a separate article on the scandal. Why not update the 1MDB page, and tweak slight the summary in the UMNO page? Those expansions are really just WP:UNDUE. I suggest that you stopping edit for a while, take a step back, read through Wikipedia essayscome back with a fresh pair of eyes. Note: was pinged on this at my talk page, and I don't interact much with either editors. – robertsky (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

IP keeps deleting edits

An anonymous IP, changing every day, keeps editing/deleting informations on Düsseldorf Airport cargo destinations table. He doesn't discuss on his talk pages or the one from the article. He's refusing references as not reliable giving years outdated sources by its own. Maybe this article should be closed for couple of days? Thank you N33dh4lp (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried requesting page protection? DonIago (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

IPs of Special:Contributions/2001:4454:400:0:0:0:0:0/38 misusing Talk pages while blocked

Following Materialscientist's block of this IP range for repeated vandalism and creating vandalising edit notices, the user on this IP range is repeatedly adding nonsense to their Talk pages, with the only edits containing "{{banned}}{{block}}", and subsequently wasting AnomieBOT's resources to substitute one of the templates. Anonymous users cannot be banned as far as I know, and I don't know why the user would keep doing this. I had previously attempted to request protection on one of these Talk pages, with no success. Jalen Folf (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)